Arena Rex Forums

Picked up several packs of the Reaper Miniatures flames... they've been fun additions for our games. I'd like your input about resolving interactions with fire because of the problem with not physically being able to place a miniature on top of it.

Question - When a model is pushed into the fire, does it make more sense to have it stop immediately when it makes contact -OR- to go through it and end up on the other side?

Option 1 - The model pushed into the fire immediately stops at the point of contact (as if it were a solid wall).

Option 2 - The model gets pushed "through" the fire and placed on the opposite side of it's base. The attacker thus is unable to follow up and loses out on remaining damage/effects.

Option 3 - Same as Option 2 but the attacker is allowed enough additional follow-up so as to be able to complete its attack results.

The final position of the models could impact subsequent interactions with the fire.

We're enjoying Option 3 the most so far. Cinematically the use of these little flames has added a fun element to the game (no pun intended). Anyways, please share your thoughts about how you like to handle fire/flames. Thanks.

I made some fire hazards out of the reaper miniatures as well. I treat them as special Wounding Hazards with the following additional rules.

Small Pyre:
Immediately after suffering the effects of Wounding Hazard, model in base contact with the small pyre must make a DEF roll. If the model doesn't roll any successes it suffers 1 damage. Continue making DEF rolls until a success is rolled.

Large Pyre:
If after being pushed into base contact with the Large Pyre there are additional reaults to be resolved as part of the same attack, the model is defeated. Otherwise, treat as Small Pyre.

_________________
Morituri te salutamus.

I think personally I would go with simplicity and say that it is a normal wounding hazard.

But the idea of being able to push an opponent *through* the flames - if we imagine that the hazard is just flames, nothing solid inside - is appealing too.

I guess, just thinking out loud, I might say that if a model that is not in base contact with the flames is pushed into base contact with them, then it stops and takes the normal 3 damage. If a model that already starts the attack in base contact with the flames is pushed into them, then they are pushed all the way through, and comes out on the other side, taking 3 damage in the process. The attacker has to follow up to the edge of the fire, but stops there, and the attack stops too.

That might be both interesting and sufficiently simple that I could get into that. That would be more of a problem for the attacker than a benefit though, usually.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log

Oddly enough, the only reference to fire in the rulebook is terrain that gives people bonus favor for standing in it. I think both this and falling currently exist in a weird space of half supported rules. The idea is there for them, but they're not fleshed out the explain fully how they work.

If I was to try and design terrain that could be pushed through, I'd make sure the 3D portion was removable and just allow a model to end on top of it. From there just play it as written. If you are pushed into base contact with it treat it as a wounding hazard.

If I'm catching what you mean correctly, then to be fair, the "ring of fire" is just an example I think to indicate how a duel zone might be outlined in the arena, so that you can tell where it begins and ends. The fire in this case is just a thin outline around the zone. Not something you stand in and catch on fire.

In my logic, the rulebook would consider fire to be a modification to an existing hazard. Like spikes. If you make a normal fence, it is a normal hazard. If you put spikes on the fence, it becomes a wounding hazard. If you put fire on the fence, it also becomes a wounding hazard. Fire isn't anything in itself, just like spikes aren't anything in themselves. You want a spiky pit, a spiky column, or something.

I agree that falling rules are sort of suggested in the book, but not fleshed out. It just says that you should decide if falls are wounding or lethal hazards. But that doesn't really make sense, because a drop in elevation isn't a hazard. If it was, you would stop when you contact it and never fall off the ledge.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log

Yeah. There's other questions too like what actually constitutes a fall? Is it when any part of the base touches the lower elevation? Probably, but its definitely not entirely clear.

Granted, I'm personally of the opinion it doesn't really NEED to be that clear. The game just isn't designed for really dynamic terrain. It's supposed to be an arena and with that its largely a flat surface with some traps. It doesn't need multi-tier towers any more than Guild Ball does.

Interestingly, I play Dungeonbowl, which I assume is a similar idea to Guild Ball, and we have made multi-tier towers an integral part of that game. Special skills related to the different levels of elevation and everything.

The game doesn't *need* rules for stuff like that - but it doesn't hurt either.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log