Light Flamer

[Daryk]

I was going over Flamers and realized we have normal, Vehicular, ER and Heavy, but no Light!  So...

Code: [Select]

Heat Damage Range Weight Space Tech Level Notes
  2        1* 0/1/2/3 0.5   1      C 1d6 Anti-Infantry
Sure, it does half the AI damage of a Machine Gun, but no ammo required!  That's why it has half the range of the LMG... :)

[Syzyx]

I'd think it should do 2d6 infantry damage to address the heat cost, and to match up with the half of a flamer's normal damage. Otherwise it looks quite in keeping.

[Daryk]

At 2d6, it would completely eclipse the standard MG.  If you think 1d6 is too little, perhaps 1d6 plus somewhere between 1 and 3?

[Gorgon]

It's hard to balance weapons in the 0.5 - 2 Ton weight range because there are already so many Options and adding to that without making an existing weapon functionally obsolete is tricky. I think 1d6 of AI damage works fine, it's a real alternative for twin MG designs like the Stinger or Locust, but ist not a completely Superior choice. Does it keep the ability for heat Transfer instead of damage?

[Syzyx]

I would argue that the standard MG would not be terribly badly outshone.

If we compare the three relevant weapon systems by mass we have the below:

2 MGs = 3 crits (including ammo), 2 tons (or 1.5 if you are reasonable, 1.25 if you use fractional accounting), 0 heat, 4 damage (4d6 against infantry)
2 Flamers = 2 crits, 2 tons, 6 heat, 4 damage (8d6 against infantry)
4 Light Flamers = 4 crits, 2 tons, 8 heat, 4 damage (4d6 against infantry)

Already the Light Flamer loses out to the standard Flamer in heat management and potentially in mass as well.

If the Light Flamer is given 2d6 anti-infantry damage, then it still compares poorly to the standard Flamer, but has the advantage of being a lighter weapon for more niche applications.

In the case of the aforementioned Locust, one could swap out the MGs for two standard flamers and generate 9 heat with an alpha strike, still leaving it able to walk without generating heat. Four light flamers would leave the Locust generating 11 heat before movement and gaining effectively nothing over its machinegun loadout. With the increased anti-infantry damage it is still a sub-optimal choice, due to heat, but not an outlandishly poor one.

[Maingunnery]

Personally I would not object if the heat of this Light Flamer was reduced to 1.

[Daryk]

I forgot to mention it, but yes, it should certainly be able to inflict a point of heat (or both a point of damage and a point of heat, if you use that rule).  I'm seeing a good balance between keeping it at 1d6 and going up to 2d6.  How about 1d6+2?

[killfr3nzy]

Yeah, I made my version as 'half value, rounding detrimentally'.

Which IIRC had it at 2 Heat, 1 Dmg + 1 Heat Dmg/2d6 Infantry Dmg.

[Daryk]

All right, that's one more vote for 2d6...

[DOC_Agren]

I was going over Flamers and realized we have normal, Vehicular, ER and Heavy, but no Light!  So...

Code: [Select]

Heat Damage Range Weight Space Tech Level Notes
  2        1* 0/1/2/3 0.5   1      C 1d6 Anti-Infantry
Sure, it does half the AI damage of a Machine Gun, but no ammo required!  That's why it has half the range of the LMG... :)

Noit seeing a real use with only d6 inf burning, make it a 2d6 and I might take one

[DevianID]

So the light mgun has a longer range and heavy mgun a shorter range.  Meanwhile the heavy flamer has a longer range, so if you make this flamer 2d6 I'd request you make it range 1/2/-.  This gives the light flamer more room to stand as its own weapon, and let's you be more aggressive with the stats.

[Daryk]

I'm not a fan of 1/2/- range...

No love for 1d6+x damage?

[cray]

I like the idea. 1-3 range and 1d6 damage for an ammo-free half ton seems reasonable.

[Daryk]

Thanks Cray!  We're back to even on the 1d6/2d6 thing... ;)

[Hellraiser]

Hmm, Odd, I thought I made a whole long post yesterday about this.

Wonder if I posted it in another thread or if it just didn't save, LOL.


Well, basically it was this.

2 Heat & 1D6 all the way.

Even w/ those negatives it's downright Awesome........why?
  Because I'd replace EVERY SL on every Awesome with it.
  And Hunchback, Urbanmech, Locust-1E, Griffin-3M, WarHammer-6D (6R/6L), Centurion-9AL, Enforcer, Cicada, Banshee, Catapult-C4, and HALF the SLs on the Charger.

This thing as is, would invalidate use of the SL on "almost" every design it's on.
The simple fact that it is 1/2 ton means the SL, MG, & Flamer are all in danger of being replaced.

So no, I wouldn't make it any "better" by reducing heat or boosting burst.

Even w/ it's "flaws" you've basically got the META choice for 1/2 ton use here, it's the "Medium Laser" of "Half-Tons"

[Daryk]

I was indeed looking for a way to make a half-ton anti-infantry weapon (like the fluff for the Small Laser always claimed) without reaching into clanner tech (Micro Pulse Lasers work, and also get to 2d6 at 1/2/3 range).  Thanks, Hellraiser! :)

[Gorgon]

I'm not a fan of 1/2/- range...

No love for 1d6+x damage?

I'm not a fan of the 1d6 + 2 idea for game design / consistency reason. In BT we usually have either fixed, cluster damage or variable damage. Sometimes you get variable damage in addition to normal damage (plasma rifle against conventional vehicles). There is no instance I'm aware of that deals variable damage plus a fixed number that is different from the weapon's base damage. That feels like an unnecessary deviation from existing design.

[Daryk]

That's fair.  I think I'll stick with 1d6 so clanner Micro Pulses can be unique at 2d6 for a half ton.

[Jeyar123]

What about HTC number for lighting woods and such?

Plus who invented the new war crime light?

[Daryk]

I figure it's as ubiquitous as the OG Flamer, kind of like the other things that were retconned into 3025 availability.  I'll look into the lighting woods on fire rules and post that soon...

[Hellraiser]

Aren't woods lighting something like 9's for lasers & automatic for Flamer/Plasma/Inferno?

[Daryk]

Found the table on page 42 of TO:AR.  "Flamers" start fires on 4+, but Incendiary LRMs are 5+ (plasma weapons and infernos are automatic... weird).  I think I'll go with 4+, since the rule doesn't differentiate between flavors of Flamer (i.e., it appears BA and Infantry Flamers use the same number).  The table DOES forbid all Micro Lasers, Small Lasers and ER Small Lasers (but curiously not Small Pulse Lasers) from starting fires.

[Hellraiser]

Found the table on page 42 of TO:AR. 
"Flamers" start fires on 4+
Incendiary LRMs are 5+
(plasma weapons and infernos are automatic... weird).

The table DOES forbid all Micro Lasers, Small Lasers and ER Small Lasers (but curiously not Small Pulse Lasers) from starting fires.

Ah yes, thems the ones.

Maybe Plasma/Inferno is "Napalm" there is no roll for it because, well, MORE STICKY FIRE NO STOPPY BURNING

While Flamers are "Gasoline/FusionEnginePlasma", so not "sticky".

Yes, I'm aware of the MANY issues of what I just said, but I'm trying to come up with a reason and having technologies that succeeded each other still in use was the best I could come up with.

Interesting bit about the small lasers, I didn't realize (or forgot) that.

[Daryk]

The Small Laser bit is in the small print at the bottom of the tables, and thus easily missed.  Personally, I think they should have differentiated between energy Flamers and the Vehicle kind (which are sticky too, not just gasoline).  But c'est la vie! ;)

[Hellraiser]

the Vehicle kind (which are sticky too, not just gasoline).  But c'est la vie! ;)

Oh I know, they also use Napalm but like I said, I was really squinting hard to come up with justification & the right lens to look through.

[Daryk]

TPTB do often make us squint... ;)