Greetings Fellow Brothers,

since our Techmarine has The Flesh is Weak talent he has the Machine trait.

This Machine trait says: Armour Points apply toward fire damage .

Now, on the other side, I have the problem that I cannot find anywhere the book the description that fire damage ignores Armour Points.

Can someone help me out?

Best regards,

TechVoid.

Fire doesn't ignore damage that I'm aware. Certainly not sealed armour such as the Marines use.

Otherwise flamers would be horrific...

Page 260. And yes it does ignore armour. As to horrific damage vs Marines, see Ultramarines movie.

Ale

ak-73 said:

Thanks.

But that does mean that a character who fails on a first Ag Test receives damage normally and only if the fails a second Ag Test he catches on fire and now his armour does not protect him any more?

Is that right? If yes, it seems strange.

Best regards,

TechVoid.

So power armour that protects against the cold of space and the heat of inhospitable worlds does nothing against fire?

Wasn't Terminator armour designed originally for working in plasma reactors or something similar?

Siranui said:

Yup, that's the original use of Tactical Dreadnought Armour, before it was adapted by the Astartes.

I'm guessing the constant, direct heat from the burning fuel is too much for the cooling systems to cope with. Or maybe it's like that to actually make flamers usable against marines in-game.

well not sure about you but i just make it so fire don't work when they are in armour unless they have helmet off. but they still have to put them self out as even if the fire don't hurt them it will everything around them.

The damage they are taking from fire could be ammo cooking off and making holes for the fire to get through the armor.

Siranui said:

In 40K flamers can kill Marines in PA, right? Seems to be based solely in the application of the Rule of Cool.

Alex

As I understand the rule, only the damage from catching on fire ignores armor. Considering its 1d10 damage and the general level of toughness Marines have, that is basically no damage, although the levels of fatigue could become a problem.

xandarian said:

Since Astartes Flamers get +4 damage (see Armoury chapter), your typical Marine (TB 8) hit gets 1d10-4 Wound Points damage from Astartes Fire.

Alex

ak-73 said:

But that is the point! Catching on fire is catching on fire. And as far as I would take the rules they do not care about the origin of it.

If you attack with a flamer you get +4 damage and the damage is reduced by Armour Points.

If you receive damage from catching on fire you get 1d10 points fire damage and no Armour Points are taking into account.

That's all.

Cheers,

TechVoid.

TechVoid said:

I don't know where the problem is. When you get a direct hit by a flamer, it does 2d10+2, armour protects. Should you catch on fire, you get 1d10+4 damage while on fire, armour does not protect. And you get the +4 because of what I presume to be "Astartes-grade Promethium" causing a super-heated fire or some such pseudo-science nonsense.

Alex

And to engage in some good practice: The source for the additional fire damage would be Deathwatch Core, page 148, the last paragraph of "Flame Weapons".

Cifer said:

It's kind of psedo-sciency, however I know that propane burns something like twice as hot as natural gas, so it's not unreasonable to think that astartes could use higher quality weapons that can thus resist a hotter burning fuel source as opposed to 'mortal' flamers.

As for it inflicting damage, I just structure it as a narrative; when you don't catch on fire there are still burny bits on you, but it's like when you were a kid and lit your gas covered shirt on fire like a (stupid amature) stuntman- the fire just burned away harmlessly (if you were lucky, don't try this at home). If you DO catch on fire, you're smothered in promethium (not the radioactive kind, well, maybe) and the heat from the original attack continues to build, sorching your insides- it also gets in cracks and crevices, sticks to visor plates and air intake mechanisms, generally effing you up.

if crew of modern tank will remain in burning venhicle for more than 10 minutes they are dead, cooked alive.

Also military grade flamers dont "shoot" gas/fuel but mixture of flamable chemicals that burns at very high degree. (and are aganist geneva convention)

plus i suspect that astartes promethium is more a kin to napalm.

boruta666 said:

FWIW, the Geneva Convention only bans incendiaries when they're used on civilians, on military targets in the middle of a pack of civilians, or on trees. Certain Conventional Weapons treaty banned incendiaries, however certain countries (like the United States) 'opted' not to sign the agreement.

Promethium is a wierd substance in 40k, as far asI can tell it covers just about every fuel oil you can come up with from tank gas to flam thrower ammo. I'd consider 'regular' promethum for flamers more like napalm, burning at about 1800 degrees F, and astartes promethuim more like white phosphorus, which burns at something like 5,000 degrees F.

In Old Warsaw pact army i served years ago "flamer" was having 5 different grades of fuel, (3 of them were banned in late 90 by Geneva convention). Different grade for bunkers, tanks, civilian buildings and so on. Heaviest of them was also highly toxic if u were breathing smoke, and sticky, burned even in water.

And if promethium is more a kin to WP as Charmander suggest it should be totally impossible to put it down, not without 40k AdMech mumbo jumbo.

btw flamer should not get changed, its cheap reliable weapon, very low ammo count, quite deadly and intimidiating, agile creatures are almost immune to it, it can serve as light source in desecrated ruins that keep some strange book (sorry for that), and eventualy it can serve as suicide bomb for whole squad (sorry for that too)...

boruta666 said:

Damage for blowing up the flamer? Not movie style, let's keep "realistic" from a game's perspective.

Alex

I'm guessing that Asartes flamers are perfectly capable of functioning in vacuum too, based on Space Hulk...

ak-73 said:

sorry my hatred for certain movie about certain space marine chapter, its getting ugly i know, and ofc references to non existant heretical movie are sarcastic in nature...

boruta666 said:

No really, what would you say should be the damage of an exploding Astartes flamer?

Alex

I would say it deals as much damage as shots reamining, all fired at once, covering a blast area equal to that of the normal cone, circled on top of the weapon.

KommissarK said:

Unless you roll bad on the critical damage table . But in all seriousness I'd make it very difficult to trigger outside of the critical damage table, penalties to hit from the front/side, lots of armor to penetrate, and the ability for the device to stop leaking or otherwise stop the detonation.

I'd so more of a static damage, maybe something more like 6d10 pen at 100% or 150% the base profile (closer to a melta bomb, which is plenty deadly, and it represents fire damage in addition to all the shrapnel and debris from blowing the backpack to smithereenes), make the blast radius related to the ammunition remaining, maybe 1m per shot- that seems high in the case of a full backpack, but we're talking about a similar amount of power that's contained in a small tanker truck, so maye that wouldn't be too big? Maybe shots remaining / 2 in meters? Also probably a minimum shots remaining to make it even explode, you've got to have some gas in the tank, maybe 5 shots remaining? 3 or 4?

Make the blast essentially the same as a grenade detonating at that point, so no agility test to avoid, but potentially a dodge check if your movement could get you clear of the blast. Then if you feel like being mean, take away the agility test to avoid being on fire if caught in the blast and then they have to put themselves out. Give the poor sod wearing the pack no chance to dodge or avoid being caught on fire.

Shouldn't we not be further discouraging players from using things other than Heavy Bolters?