First use of flamethrowers and need some confirmation of our interpretation of the rules

[Simon62]

Hi,

we are playing RB and starting to use flamethrowers which we do not have a lot of experience with.

Have been through the rules and would like some confirmation, if possible, that we have interpreted things correctly.

Situation is a unit in an internal roofless factory hex has a flamethrower and is targeting another roofless factory hex at a range of 2 hexes. The intervening hex between the firer and the target is also a roofless factory hex. The target contains a concealed AFV and a stack of concealed infantry but none of the infantry are riders on the tank there are just on foot in the same hex.

So our interpretation of the flame thrower rules are:

1. The flamethrower can target either the infantry or the AVF not both?
2. If firing at the infantry it is half for long range fire, halved again for a concealed target giving an attack factor of (24/2/2 = 6) then has a +2 applied for the LOS hindrance in the intervening hex but does NOT apply the +2 terrain effect modifier for the target hex is this correct.
3. If firing at the AVF no TH is rolled it is just a straight TK with the TK number on the HE & Heat TK table being 8 /2 = 4 for long range fire and neither the LOS hinderance, the tank concealment or any AF's counting, thus a 3 or 4 would eliminate the AVF and a 2 would turn it into burning wreck is this correct? Not sure as the LOS and concealment effect the infantry target but not the AFV and cant see a good reason for this.
4. If the AVF were not concealed but in motion we assume that the motion would have no effect on the to Kill either and it would still be, in this instance, a straight roll against a TK of 4.

Apologies if these questions seem basic but rather get to grips with these rules before we start having to use them in anger and get ourselves confused

Regards

Simon

 

[Robin Reeve]

Moved to the Rules and errata folder.

 

[Sparafucil3]

The flamethrower can target either the infantry or the AVF not both?

Generally correct. If the AFV has a CE crew, that crew could be attacked at the same time as the Infantry.

If firing at the infantry it is half for long range fire, halved again for a concealed target giving an attack factor of (24/2/2 = 6) then has a +2 applied for the LOS hindrance in the intervening hex but does NOT apply the +2 terrain effect modifier for the target hex is this correct.

Correct.

If firing at the AVF no TH is rolled it is just a straight TK with the TK number on the HE & Heat TK table being 8 /2 = 4 for long range fire and neither the LOS hinderance, the tank concealment or any AF's counting, thus a 3 or 4 would eliminate the AVF and a 2 would turn it into burning wreck is this correct? Not sure as the LOS and concealment effect the infantry target but not the AFV and cant see a good reason for this.

Correct. There is seemingly no good reason for this. Many think FT's are overpowered for the reasons you highlight.

If the AVF were not concealed but in motion we assume that the motion would have no effect on the to Kill either and it would still be, in this instance, a straight roll against a TK of

Also correct. The only modifiers to a Flame TK are given on the HE & Flame To Kill Table under footnote 2. Footnote 1 can apply if firing at an Unarmored target. If you ever attend the Albany tournament pay particular attention to the tournament rules. They have changed this rule slightly to make it into something the TD feels is more equitable. -- jim

 

[Eagle4ty]

...

Also correct. The only modifiers to a Flame TK are given on the HE & Flame To Kill Table under footnote 2. Footnote 1 can apply if firing at an Unarmored target. If you ever attend the Albany tournament pay particular attention to the tournament rules. They have changed this rule slightly to make it into something the TD feels is more equitable. -- jim

I would have to check but I believe the ASL Open (Chicago) also has a tournament SSR that includes hindrances to the FT TK#.

What is missing though is the proximity effects of being in the target area of a FT attack. It always gives me a bit of uneasy feelling every time I see a FT attack an AFV (or infantry) separately and have no collateral effects on attendant units in the same location, even if it would be so much as a TC.

 

[Sparafucil3]

What is missing though is the proximity effects of being in the target area of a FT attack. It always gives me a bit of uneasy felling every time I see a FT attack an AFV (or infantry) separately and have no collateral effects on attendant units in the same location, even if it would be so much as a TC.

I agree. All units in the Attacked Location should be attacked with a single DR. -- jim

 

[Vinnie]

I think the attack on the ADV has a specific collateral attack on vulnerable crew as well. Also the tank will burn on a 3 or less, eliminated on a 4.

 

[Simon62]

Ok thanks for all the pointers - I missed the fact that an AVF burns on anything < TK rather than 1/2 TK.

In terms of the other discussions, I am by no means an expert on flamethrowers and have never been in the military, however, from documentaries and films FT’s do seem to have a very ‘narrow’ beaten path when fired.
ASL does not seem to indicate the scale that hexes represent (or not that I can find!) and the rules do not go to the level of indication where in this area the various units in the hex are otherthan in some instances which I note below. Thus I can understand the need to target an individual unit.

however, in the following instances the rules imply where the units are in relation to each other within the hex.
A) separate locations within a hex
B) unit in an obstacle and another unit bypassing that obsticle
C) wall advantage and a unit bypassing in the hex along the wall hexside
D) armoured assualt where infantry are in close proximity to the vehicle to get defensive benefits.
This may not be an exhaustive list but it’s what I can think off of the tip of my head.
All other combinations of units I the hex do not indicate where they are in relation to each other.
Thus, in terms of FT’s my view would be as follows:
A) &B): FT must pick a target location and regardless of DR would only effect the units in the target location (I.e just infantry in a building, not infantry claiming WA or an AVF bypassing the hex.

C) & D) : flame thrower attacks all units as they are in close proximity and it would be difficult to target and individual unit.

this then leaves all other situations where proximity within the hex cannot be determined or implied and as I don’t know the scale of the hex I would say as mentioned above that all other infantry should take a task check if any unit in the hex is attacked by a flame thrower.

In terms of vehicle concealment and not stopped/in motion I cannot see any reasons why the FT would not be halved for these as any other attack would be

anyway rules is rules!!! However strange

 

[Robin Reeve]

If only the FT rules were the only ones at odds with reality (sequential turns is perhaps the most outrageous abstraction, but an absolute necessity to make the game playable)...
For an example, one of the reasons of 2 hex range is the 40 meters wide roads - which are an abstraction in itself.
A FT must be able to fire across a road and that is the effect aimed by the design.