PDA

View Full Version : Dark Heresy - the case of the firebomb



Zen Master
2008-12-30, 08:43 AM
According to a particular mindset, the rules in the book should shape the world we play in. It's not one I usually subscribe to, but at the very least, it's worth the effort to adress certain issues ahead of time.

Now, the firebomb is an example, but one I find slightly funny.

Dark Heresy divides all weapons (and armor) into two categories: Primitive and non-primitive. Primitive weapons are horribly poor against non-primitive armor.

Now the firebomb is your average molotov cocktail, something humans can create if they have access to pottery and alcohol. While it isn't fabulously powerful, it's quite handy for bypassing armor, and it is of the non-primitive type.

So basically, anyone above stone age level can make these - and comparatively, they are the finest weapon around. Range comparable to most primitive firearms, and far better damage, including a burst.

So whenever the primitives of any backwards world get to slug it out with the Imperial Guard, they would logically use fireboms. Exclusively.

Now - I'm working on a houserule, decreeing that fireboms work like flamers, and you get to roll agility to avoid the flames.

A) Does this sound like a fair deal?
B) Has anyone stumbled upon other such ... 'inconsistencies'?

PinkysBrain
2008-12-30, 08:52 AM
Realistically, the correct defense against a molotov cocktail is a shield.

LCR
2008-12-30, 08:58 AM
I'm not so sure "anyone above stone age" is able to manufacture Molotov cocktails with ease or in large quantities. Producing alcohol that is actually flammable (in contrast to wine/beer) and then mass-producing it actually requires significant technology. Molotov cocktails are only popular with the rioting masses today, because they're so cheap. They certainly weren't in the Middle Ages or before.

PinkysBrain
2008-12-30, 09:09 AM
Copper age civilizations should be able to perform distillation though.

They would still be a lot more expensive and unwieldly than arrows and spears though and since they would not be fighting imperial guards often they would generally not even have molotov coktails. Only resistance groups specifically planning to ambush a small contingent of imperial guard would ever have a sufficient supply.

In a large scale urban conflict the imperial guard would simply retreat into open ground (where molotov coktails become useless due to inferior range) and do some real air to ground firebombing on any backwards population stupid enough to oppose them in open warfare.

Mr. Zook
2008-12-30, 12:10 PM
For alcohol to burn it needs to be at least 100 proof ~ 50% alcohol. Yeast, one of the most common fermneting agents will kill itself in the alcohol along time before it gets any where near 50% alcohol. It would take a massive amount of effort, making it much easier to make spears or axes instead. Javalins and spears, maybe even axes would be used. Its really hard to hide 5000 bottles of highly flammable liquid, but 1000 spears would arm the same number of men more effectively. There is a reason troops don't carry molotov coctails as anti-armor weapons. That is because they are hard to light and throw without it blowing up in your hand or throwing into your buddy's back.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-30, 12:30 PM
I can't imagine how a 401st-century firebomb and a pathetic little Molotov cocktail would be on the same line. Surely the firebomb is expensive, uses incendiary chemicals, an actual detonation (since it has a radius?), and so on?

That said, why do you think modern guerillas use bombs over guns, and achieve much better success that way? Explosives are deadlier.

Zen Master
2008-12-30, 01:19 PM
I can't imagine how a 401st-century firebomb and a pathetic little Molotov cocktail would be on the same line. Surely the firebomb is expensive, uses incendiary chemicals, an actual detonation (since it has a radius?), and so on?

That said, why do you think modern guerillas use bombs over guns, and achieve much better success that way? Explosives are deadlier.

Ok - you're all missing the point.

I am not saying that a molotov cocktail is an effective weapon in real life. Nor am I really saying firebombs have been common since the stone age - it's an exageration to emphasize the point: They are simple to make.


... but 1000 spears would arm the same number of me ...

Now - I'm all for 1000 spears. But you need to realize that spears cannot penetrate armor, while firebombs can.

Also, shields aren't even that effective against the liquid spash of a molotov. But it's a slow enough projectile that you can easily sidestep it. Trust me - I've done it.

Anakha
2008-12-30, 06:36 PM
Well, the first thing that you need to understand is a Molotov Cocktail, and a flamer work through various methods.

"The flamethrower consists of two elements: backpack and gun. The backpack element usually consists of two or three cylinders. One cylinder holds compressed, inert propellant gas (usually nitrogen), and the other two hold flammable liquid - typically petrol with some form of fuel thickener added to it. A three-cylinder system often has two outer cylinders of flammable liquid and a central cylinder of propellant gas to improve the balance of the soldier who carried it. The gas propels the fuel liquid out of the cylinder through a flexible pipe and then into the gun element of the flamethrower system. The gun consists of a small reservoir, a spring-loaded valve, and an ignition system; depressing a trigger opens the valve, allowing pressurized flammable liquid to flow and pass over the igniter and out the gun nozzle. The igniter can be one of several ignition systems; a simple type is an electrically-heated wire coil, another used a small pilot flame, fueled with pressurized gas from the system."
Wikipedia Article on flamethrower

"In its simplest form, a Molotov cocktail is a glass bottle containing petrol fuel usually with a source of ignition such as a burning, fuel soaked, rag wick held in place by the bottle's stopper.

In action the fuse is lit and the bottle hurled at a target such as a vehicle or fortification. When the bottle smashes on impact, the ensuing cloud of petrol droplets and vapor are ignited, causing an immediate fireball followed by a raging fire as the remainder of the fuel is consumed.

Other flammable liquids such as wood alcohol and turpentine have been used in place of petrol. Thickening agents such as tar, sugar, animal blood, XPS foam, egg whites, motor oil, rubber cement, and dish soap have been added to the fuel, analogously to the use of napalm, to help the burning liquid adhere to the target and create clouds of thick choking smoke."
Wikipedia article on molotovs

A molotov cocktail filled with alcohol would most definitely be a primitive weapon. If i had to houserule it in, it would be a grenade with Blast 1, does 1d10 E damage, with 0 penetration and Special quality Primitive. Yes, some of the flammable liquid might go through armor, but not enough to do significant damage. A Flamethrower is going to surround your foe in flame, an oil fire, which burns a lot longer than an alcohol fire.

Bryn
2008-12-30, 07:58 PM
Fire Bomb
A relatively primitive grenade the fire bomb is normally a breakable canister of flammable liquid with a fuse made from cloth or other material that the liquid can soak into. Once the fuse is set aflame, the bomb is hurled at the enemy; the canister breaks open on impact to release the now burning liquid. A target struck by a fire bomb must make an Agility Test or catch on fire.
Oddly, the designers gave it the same armour penetration value as a krak grenade, which is an anti-tank weapon.

Nonetheless, first thing to remember is that Dark Heresy is not about simulating large-scale battles. That's what the main Warhammer 40k is for, surprisingly enough. I wouldn't use the DH rules for trying to simulate the Imperial Guard crushing a primitive culture. In the genre that DH portrays, getting hit by anything should be nasty, and so it's perfectly appropriate for a hit from a fire bomb to send somebody to a grisly demise even if they are a trained and well-armoured (...ahahahahahaa) soldier. Equally, I expect a firebomb to be more effective than a spear :smalltongue:

That said, the range is strength bonus times three - for a typical human, that comes to 9m (meaning anything over 27m is all but impossible to hit). The lasgun has a range of 100m; the autogun 90m. You'd have to surprise a Guardsman at close range, and his fellows would be able to shoot you back pretty quickly, with a big bonus to hit and some nasty semi-auto shooting, even as their comrade swiftly burns to death.

Inquisitor's note: this thread suggests an uprising against the glorious Imperium of Man. It shall be burned to death with, ironically enough, firebombs.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-30, 11:11 PM
Ok - you're all missing the point.

How?

401st century firebombs, made with 401st century technology and knowledge, are very effective against 401st century armor. That seems okay to me.

Seems like you missed my point. I wasn't saying anything about Molotov cocktails in real life - I was saying a WH40K firebomb is without a doubt much more effective than a gasoline explosive. (An alcohol-based explosive would be relatively pathetic compared to gasoline-based one, too.)

My other point was that explosives are supposed to be dangerous and effective in combat.


Oddly, the designers gave it the same armour penetration value as a krak grenade, which is an anti-tank weapon.

That's a bit iffy. A Molotov cocktail doesn't penetrate armor, but it can kill, say, a tank, because the flaming gasoline will seep in through vents and other holes, igniting the inside of the tank and causing serious damage. The same principle would work for any non-sealed personal armor. Sealed personal armor - no dice.

Zen Master
2008-12-31, 03:56 AM
Seems like you missed my point. I wasn't saying anything about Molotov cocktails in real life - I was saying a WH40K firebomb is without a doubt much more effective than a gasoline explosive. (An alcohol-based explosive would be relatively pathetic compared to gasoline-based one, too.)


No - really. The firebomb, as portrayed in the rules of the Dark Heresy game ..... is a molotov cocktail. That's why I'm saying it's maybe a bit more powerful that it rightly should be. Because it's gasoline or alcohol in a glass bottle - and like another poster said, it has armor penetration equal to a krak grenade, a weapon designed to break armor.

But that isn't even the question. This is:

Does it seem reasonable to copy the rules for avoiding damage from a flamer, and use them for firebombs/molotov cocktails?

Has anyone noted similar strageness for other weapon, feats or the like, in the books?

Zen Master
2008-12-31, 04:17 AM
That said, the range is strength bonus times three - for a typical human, that comes to 9m (meaning anything over 27m is all but impossible to hit). The lasgun has a range of 100m; the autogun 90m.

Yes, naturally the range is somewhat inferior, but to the feral or feudal worlder, that's nothing new. Spears have the same range as a firebomb, flintlock pistols have range 15, bows 30.

So yes - the range is poor, but not by a huge margin compared to other available weapons (for the primitive). However:

Feral worlders get a nice bonus to strength - they are fairly likely to have a str of 4.

Since the firebomb is a blast weapon, you don't need quite the same accuracy as a lasgun.

Feral worlders get tracking, survival and navigation as basic skills - things that can help with getting surprise at close range.

At any rate, I'm certainly not intending to portray an Imperial Guard raid against feral world cultists. Far from it - I quite intend to send my players against the feral world cultists. And there is fun to be had there, because their leather armor and spears means I can field an entire batallion against the players without having to worry too much.

But then ... after the first shameful defeat, the tribesmen will adapt. Learn new tactics. And try again. Which is where the inappropriately powerful firebomb comes in.

Another_Poet
2008-12-31, 11:31 AM
To answer your actual question, no, characters should not be able to use agility to avoid the flames if they are in the burst radius of the molotov. It's a hand-thrown (or sling-thrown weapon) and the attack roll of the thrower/slinger is what determines whether or not the projectile hits. Once the attack roll to hit the right spot is resolved using your system's rules, there is no good reason for people already in the burst radius to use agility. Of course, there should be a way for them to put out the flames (or try) on their next action.

It's natural for players to want to be able to roll something to avoid damage in every sort of attack, but alas, there are some attacks where it makes no sense. If you're in a building directly hit by a nuke - no, you can't roll agility. If you're on a flagstone that is hit by a molotov - no, you can't roll agility. Period.

What I would consider allowing as a house rule (if I were you) is this: molotov-throwers have the option of trying to hit an actual person, rather than just as general area. Use the called shot rules (if your system has them) or just add an attack penalty. In this case, the molotov does extra damage if it hits but the target can roll agility to avoid.

Zen Master
2009-01-01, 02:09 PM
To answer your actual question, no, characters should not be able to use agility to avoid the flames if they are in the burst radius of the molotov. It's a hand-thrown (or sling-thrown weapon) and the attack roll of the thrower/slinger is what determines whether or not the projectile hits. Once the attack roll to hit the right spot is resolved using your system's rules, there is no good reason for people already in the burst radius to use agility. Of course, there should be a way for them to put out the flames (or try) on their next action.

It's natural for players to want to be able to roll something to avoid damage in every sort of attack, but alas, there are some attacks where it makes no sense. If you're in a building directly hit by a nuke - no, you can't roll agility. If you're on a flagstone that is hit by a molotov - no, you can't roll agility. Period.

What I would consider allowing as a house rule (if I were you) is this: molotov-throwers have the option of trying to hit an actual person, rather than just as general area. Use the called shot rules (if your system has them) or just add an attack penalty. In this case, the molotov does extra damage if it hits but the target can roll agility to avoid.

Well - for one thing, there is a rather marked difference between a nuke and a molotov cocktail. But my beef - and reason for asking - is that the firebomb as it stands is more effective than I feel it has any call to be. I'm not kidding - dodging a molotov or its flaming contents is very easy if you see it coming.

So what I'd like to do is reduce the effectiveness of the dumb molotov - it being a class jar filled with flammable stuff. Then create a more technologically smart Incendiary grenade, which uses an explosive charge to scatter the flammables - and let the original firebomb rules apply to that.

This way, I get A) a less effective 'primitive' weapon for my primitives to use, B) get rid of a weapon the price, availability and price of which I don't really like at this point in my game and C) remove what I see as a inconsistency.

I like this for a houserule, but on the other hand I'm always rather wary of changing the rules. And then again, it's far from certain my players will ever spot this one way or another.

Another_Poet
2009-01-02, 11:30 AM
Well - for one thing, there is a rather marked difference between a nuke and a molotov cocktail. But my beef - and reason for asking - is that the firebomb as it stands is more effective than I feel it has any call to be. I'm not kidding - dodging a molotov or its flaming contents is very easy if you see it coming.

I agree, which is why I suggested allowing agility to dodge one thrown at a person.

But my understanding was that the firebomb in question is basically a burst weapon and covers a small area. So the person can dodge it and still be burned. In other words, if the firebombs are thrown at a "square" rather than a person, dodging shouldn't be possible. Either you're in the radius or you aren't.

If this seems to make firebombs too powerful, I'd suggest to think of them less as molotov's and more as ceramic containers of greek fire. That stuff will mess you up, and it will burst over a whole area on impact. Nasty nasty nasty. Plus, depending on which of the three possible chemicals you think Greek fire historically was, it could easily be made in quantity by primitive peoples.

If this presents a balance issue in your game, I'd suggest limiting it more by the cost you assign to making firebombs (e.g. one tribe can only manufacture 10 per month in an average month.... 30 per month if they dedicate resources to the war effort). I suggest that partly because you seem reluctant to depart from the core rule, which is smart, and this wouldn't require houseruling anything, yet would still place limits on firebombs. I also suggest it partly because of my personal feelings about "primitive" societies - I think they're much tougher than most moderns give them credit for, and I hate to see a game system take away their one and only cool weapon. Give 'em a break. :)

Zen Master
2009-01-04, 04:58 PM
Furthering my thoughts on primitive bastards on the very fringes of Imperial Space.

Shotguns. Less primitive than the hurled ceramic container with flammables - but close enough to the blunderbuss to be something primitives could manage.

Now, for the game I have in mind, the planet isn't at the level where every man and his grox has a blackpowder gun - but quite possibly, some might. Also, there will be at least one ancient cache of pre-Horus technology, and one of the things that may have survived the millenia in useable condition would be: The hardy shotgun.

So ... for the Boss-savage-cultist, I'm toying with the idea of him using his firebombs as little airburst devices - tossing them, then shooting them in mid-air. Definite coolfactor - but would it break verisimilitude?

I mean - sure I can get away with it. But how would you feel about it, if you were the player?

EDIT: Oh - I came up with another one.

In my current game - not the one with the primitives - a crazy cultist has found an old, jittery and broken plasma gun. So - it is poor quality, giving it the unreliable trait, in addition to overheats which all plasma weapons has.

So I wonder - unreliable means it jams on 91+. Overheats means it ... well, overheats, on 91+.

So what I want to do is make this weapon jam on 81+, and overheat on 91+ - since if the weapon overheats, it also jams (or worse).

Am I overdoing it? My reasoning is that my players cannot survive against very many hits from the plasma weapon. Also, I don't want them using it once they kill the cultist.

The perfect scenario would be for the cultist to get off one spray of plasma balls, then a catastrofic overheat on his second burst, killing him in a flaming burst of uncontrolled atomic fire.