Fire Damage versus Strong Armor

I apologize if this has been answered elsewhere but still getting into debates on this rule so I wanted to confirm it once and for all. If a model is on fire there is no armor roll. However, if they have strong armor they negate the fire damage? Since fire damage cannot be for more than 1 damage at a time it can never get through the strong armor.

This would mean that there is no point in ever lighting a deathclaw or power armor user (assuming the power armor card hasn’t been flipped) on fire?

Thank you for the help

Yes, the strong armor blocks that damage, so yes, there is no point in burning a power armor :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Hey both,

Not quite. The Fire Condition does not allow a damage roll meaning that you do not gain access to the Strong Armor. Conditions skip the armor altogether.


Okay so just to confirm fire damage will completely ignore strong armor and cause damage?

Hey Dom, this ruling seems to contradict the most recent errata (see below) - which one should we go by?

Q. ‘On Fire’ mentions no armor roll; does that mean it
ignores armor?
A. No. A model that is ‘On Fire’ gets no armor roll but their armor
is still utilised. This difference is important for models with Strong
Armor; for example, a model that is ‘On Fire’ with 3+1 armor
would get no armor roll but the +1 would still get added on, so
would block 1 damage.

1 Like

I have read in different places that you get the strong armor bonus always against burning, it does not matter you don’t get the armor roll…
Not the same against poison, you would not benefit of your strong armor (is in your blood)

Hey gang,

Well, I’m wrong on this one then. Go with the errata - you’d get your Strong Armor against Fire, but not against Poison.

1 Like

Cheers, Dom! Thanks for clearing that up :+1:

I had this one backwards as well up until just a few days ago, and on a battle report no less


We’re all human, unfortunately! I think I just have too many games rattling around in my head for my one brain cell to manage.

I mean, I am a sucker for consistency in cases like this but the narrative bent also works too, I guess?