So, I am pondering some modifications to the rules on flame weapons.

1) Getting set on fire is really brutal! This is probably appropriate for characters in flak armour etc, but power armour really ought to cancel some, if not all, of the damage from fire. I'm not sure how far to go with this though - my gut feeling is that an armoured environmental suit would keep the immediate effect of the fire out (after all, the actual effect of a hit from a flamer will be virtually nil against a power-armoured target), but if not put out the wearer would cook over time. Similarly creatures without fleshy parts, such as necrons, wraithguard, and whatnot would be affected far less (I'm thinking half damage from being set on fire.) But is this making flamers a bit too weak? Any thoughts welcome.

2) Fire bombs clearly ought to be flame weapons. There's a balance issue, because they will really suck if you have to roll to hit *and* then the target gets a free agility roll to escape the effect. So I'm thinking that the effects stay roughly the same, except that you have a chance to catch on fire exactly as though hit by a flamer. Does this make fire bombs over-powered?

Cardinalsin said:

The Fire Bomb is already crazy over-powered.

I suppose you could remove the Fire Bomb's penetration completely, and give it the Flame trait. Let the chance for unsoakable fire damage compensate for the lack of a base penetration.

It'd be functionally different from the inferno grenade, rather than just better in every way.

I don't have the books with me here at work (big mistake, I know!) but... I actually thought fire bombs already had a chance to set people on fire. Don't they?

Slaunyeh said:

Yes fire bombs already require anyone hit by it to pass an agility test or catch fire. And yeah fire bombs are already pretty over powered, which is why anytime one of the players in my group starts using them too much the enemies also suddenly start using them too. there is nothing like being on the recieving end of a weapon to realise just how powerful it is.

So, I hadn't noticed that the rules already provide for fire bombs setting people on fire. It seems like fire bombs are about right except their penetration and blast radius are too high (see thread in rules questions forum).

I still think rules for burning are overpowered against power armour etc.

Agreed when it comes to power armor. The fluff favors the view point that flamers are practically useless against power armor.

One might consider making flamers Primitive against hermetically sealed armour.

Cifer said:

Wouldn't that have a fairly small effect? Flamers have a fairly low penetration anyway. I was more worried about the fact that, if you catch fire, the damage ignores armour outright.

how about letting power armours detract half their AP from the damage from burning then.

This way power armour offers protection from burning but doesn't make someone immune to it.