Yep, both of you have cleared up why I was thinking about it wrong. Deliberately using the Burn to inflict extra pain for torture is conflict worth. But just using it in normal combat is ok.

I'm still stuck on the other side of the fence. I think deliberately choosing a weapon that causes excessive harm (even in the heat of combat) is still conflict worthy.

As a real world precedent, flamethrowers are currently prohibited as weapons of war during.

With that being said, I will fully concede that what works at my table may not work for others. So in the end, YMMV.

Ok I like this one... what else is a Lightsaber than a "weapon that causes excessive harm"? It is the one weapon that slices through nearly everything and mows down minions like grass, decapitate most rivals in secons and brings down alot of not force nemesis thanks to damage and crit...

So any Lightsaber should give conflict, just because it is powerfull?

And so is any blasterrifle with the auto-fire ability?

and every vibro-weapon because of the vicious ability?

So I guess your forcie-players all are using only stun weapons or are pure darksiders because every attack with any weapon gives them conflict and of course even just to have it in the inventory gives conflict per session?

Or are you saying the only way a "weapon causes excessive harm" only if it has a side efect that COULD ignite some thing on the victim?

(that would just sound as if you just don't like the burn ability and want to prevent players from using it by giving out penalities.)

Sure you could say that a flamethrower in the hand of someone that looks cablable of using it will stroke fear into the hearts of enemys, yes but the sound of an igniting Lightsaber will do the same, or even more, because it means most likely that they are up against some kind of jedi-uberhuman... so that would also give tons of conflict?

But as you said, it has to work at your table, as long as it does everyone is free to interpret the rules as they wish and like it! (So no offend here )

As a real world precedent, flamethrowers are currently prohibited as weapons of war during

Except that they are not. There has been no modification of the Geneva convention or any other arms treaties to disallow their use. The US used them up to 1978 when they were withdrawn, not for humanitarian reasons but rather for logistical and a lack of perceived usefulness in the modern fluid battle field.

Even if they were disallowed, by a treaty, it would only be if they were used against personnel which is easily circumvented by not shooting at the man, but his equipment be it a radio, uniform, rifle or pillbox.

I was referring to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons which was held in 1980. To be fair, I should have specified that only a select number of countries participated in the convention.

Nightone, I have nothing against weapons with the burn quality. My players are welcome to use them if that's a weapon their character would be interested in using.

Certainly any weapon beyond stun weapons could be seen as excessive.

In the end, my houserule is certainly not for everyone. Most importantly, my players are fine with it, so I'm not terribly interested in debating it.

Yep, both of you have cleared up why I was thinking about it wrong. Deliberately using the Burn to inflict extra pain for torture is conflict worth. But just using it in normal combat is ok.

I think I will go forward utilizing it this way, that way if he chooses to just set someone on fire outside of combat then it will be conflict upon conflict...but using it in a normal (unavoidable) combat situation, no conflict would be given.

Yep, both of you have cleared up why I was thinking about it wrong. Deliberately using the Burn to inflict extra pain for torture is conflict worth. But just using it in normal combat is ok.

I think I will go forward utilizing it this way, that way if he chooses to just set someone on fire outside of combat then it will be conflict upon conflict...but using it in a normal (unavoidable) combat situation, no conflict would be given.

Sounds like a good way to go!

Nightone, I have nothing against weapons with the burn quality. My players are welcome to use them if that's a weapon their character would be interested in using.

Certainly any weapon beyond stun weapons could be seen as excessive.

In the end, my houserule is certainly not for everyone. Most importantly, my players are fine with it, so I'm not terribly interested in debating it.

That's ok kaose, therefore are houserules! to fix any trouble a table could have with different situations. luckily it doesn't have to work with anyone else, so no reason to debate it to the grounds (No one can be totaly right or wrong on this ^^).

But it is nice to learn about the ways of other people (at least it helps me to find solutions before any problems orccurses )

Also remember you have to roll ADVANTAGES to activate any ability: if you are handing out conflict for nearly all abilitys that use those Advantages they would become DISADVANTAGES,

the next step will be that the players will start to use there advantages only on Boostdice and strain recovery... and than the game will get quite boring...

For conflict follow the chart in the FnD Corebook: hand it out when the characters are attacking without provocation, or are going to torture them. BUT not just for activate abilitys VIA ADVANTAGES.

By the way I looked at the FnD CRB and read about the Barab Ingot and the Burn quality again and as far as I can tell it doesn't require any advantages to effectively burn anyone since it's a passive quality of the weapon. From what I understand, if you hit someone with a weapon with Burn then they are automatically on fire for however many rounds are equal to the Burn rating on the weapon.

Also remember you have to roll ADVANTAGES to activate any ability: if you are handing out conflict for nearly all abilitys that use those Advantages they would become DISADVANTAGES,

the next step will be that the players will start to use there advantages only on Boostdice and strain recovery... and than the game will get quite boring...

For conflict follow the chart in the FnD Corebook: hand it out when the characters are attacking without provocation, or are going to torture them. BUT not just for activate abilitys VIA ADVANTAGES.

By the way I looked at the FnD CRB and read about the Barab Ingot and the Burn quality again and as far as I can tell it doesn't require any advantages to effectively burn anyone since it's a passive quality of the weapon. From what I understand, if you hit someone with a weapon with Burn then they are automatically on fire for however many rounds are equal to the Burn rating on the weapon.

That's weird. It's listed as an Active quality in the Age of Rebellion CRB.

By the way I looked at the FnD CRB and read about the Barab Ingot and the Burn quality again and as far as I can tell it doesn't require any advantages to effectively burn anyone since it's a passive quality of the weapon.

F&D CRB page 162 shows that the Burn quality is Active.

Also remember you have to roll ADVANTAGES to activate any ability: if you are handing out conflict for nearly all abilitys that use those Advantages they would become DISADVANTAGES,

the next step will be that the players will start to use there advantages only on Boostdice and strain recovery... and than the game will get quite boring...

For conflict follow the chart in the FnD Corebook: hand it out when the characters are attacking without provocation, or are going to torture them. BUT not just for activate abilitys VIA ADVANTAGES.

By the way I looked at the FnD CRB and read about the Barab Ingot and the Burn quality again and as far as I can tell it doesn't require any advantages to effectively burn anyone since it's a passive quality of the weapon. From what I understand, if you hit someone with a weapon with Burn then they are automatically on fire for however many rounds are equal to the Burn rating on the weapon.

That's weird. It's listed as an Active quality in the Age of Rebellion CRB.

By the way I looked at the FnD CRB and read about the Barab Ingot and the Burn quality again and as far as I can tell it doesn't require any advantages to effectively burn anyone since it's a passive quality of the weapon.

F&D CRB page 162 shows that the Burn quality is Active.

Oops, yeah I was wrong...it's definitely an active weapon quality. My bad!

Yep, both of you have cleared up why I was thinking about it wrong. Deliberately using the Burn to inflict extra pain for torture is conflict worth. But just using it in normal combat is ok.

I'm still stuck on the other side of the fence. I think deliberately choosing a weapon that causes excessive harm (even in the heat of combat) is still conflict worthy.

As a real world precedent, flamethrowers are currently prohibited as weapons of war during.

With that being said, I will fully concede that what works at my table may not work for others. So in the end, YMMV.

Just a note: Flamethrowers are still allowed. The Geneva convention prohibition on incendiary weapons is in reference to their use near civilian populations (like the use of incendiary bombs in WWII, or napalm in Vietnam). It wasn't so much about use of fire as a weapon, as it was the use of a weapon that can easily get out of control in an area where noncombatants can be hurt.

Most modern countries have abandoned the use of such weapons because there's other conventional alternatives that work just as well, or better. A flamethrower is a great weapon for clearing a bunker, but the range is short and the weapon itself heavy. By comparison a rocket launcher has better range, and can be equipped with a rocket that's capable of destroying the same bunker while being smaller and weighing about 1/3 that of a flamethrower.

When you start talking weapons generating conflict you end up with some odd issues. Like a flame thrower being a weapon that "Causes excessive harm" simply by having the Burn quality, but a low damage high crit weapon being ok, even though it's use might see the target getting few wounds, but agonizing crit after agonizing crit.

Fire is dramatic, but in a galaxy far far away, burns just aren't that big a deal when it come time to pickle you in a bacta tank.