# What are the primary differences between flamers and meltas?



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm not asking about the different rules in the game, I'm just a little bit unclear about the difference in the fluff



from Lexicanum

Melta:
Melta Weapons are heat-based weapons which work by *sub-atomic agitation of the air*. Targets on the receiving end are heated to the point of being vaporised.
*Most melta weapons use highly pressurized pyrum-petrol gases with a two part injection system which forces the gases into a molecular state*, which will vaporise just about anything. Unfortunately, due to the high power consumption and range dissipation, the weapon is *only effective over very short distances*, but anything caught in the blast is likely to be destroyed. 

Flamers:
Flamers are flamethrower weapons, unleashing a *liquid incendiary chemical that bursts into flames as it leaves the weapon*.
Imperial and Chaos Space Marine flamers fire a mix of highly volatile liquid chemicals which ignite on contact with the air. *The flaming chemical sticks to its target and continues burning on its own accord* - those who are not killed instantly die horribly as the super-hot chemical continues to burn. *The most common substance used is known as Promethium, which is sticky and similar to modern day napalm. *The flamer fires a burst of expanding flames, making the weapon effective at killing enemies in cover. 



The 40k flamers are pretty similar to modern flamers, they shoot a sticky burning jelly (Promethium) 

I don't really understand the description of meltaguns, what is subatomic agitation of the air and how does that work with pressurized pyrum-petrol gases?

I'm also guessing a meltagun has an even shorter range than a flamer?


----------



## Thomas_Lund (Aug 7, 2008)

From what I can read in the fluff, meltas use the petrol inside the gun to agitate molecules into a different state. Somewhat similar to lasers, where you have energy added to a gas to produce light that is high energy.

So energy added indirectly to gases to create lethal energy.

Flamethrowers are flame throwers - where the destructive energy is transferred in the burn process of the liquid itself.

/T


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

I read somewhere that Meltas use some sort of microwave tech. It might be that the fuel is super-heated by microwaves, these being used to get the temp up quickly. It might even be related to RL bombs that release an aerosol of inflammable gases before they explode, enhancing the damage (or somesuch. I read about this a while ago where it was described as a 'poor man's nuke').
Certainly, the Flamer just(!) squirts put a jet of burning promethium gel. A Melta seems to create higher temperatures and overpressure in a small area, increasing the damage potential. Or so I think

GFP


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

The IG codex says..."[Meltaguns] fire superheated stream of pure destruction. Even the thickest armor vaporizes under the sub-atomic blast."

I also remember something about melta guns being fusion weapons. I am by no means an authority on chemistry, but here's what a quick google search brought up:

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/neutrons.htm

Which basically says that neutrons are subatomic particles. This leads me to my second link, everyone's favorite, wiki. Bear with me now. It'll make sense in a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

Now some things jump out at me.

"Neutron bombs have low explosive yields compared with other nuclear weapons. This is because neutrons are absorbed by air, so a high-yield neutron bomb is not able to radiate neutrons beyond its blast range and so would have no destructive advantage over a normal hydrogen bomb."

Short range. Sounds familiar.

"One of the uses for which this weapon was conceived is large-scale anti-tank weaponry. Armored vehicles offer a relatively high degree of protection against heat and blast, the primary destructive mechanisms of normal nuclear weapons. That is, military personnel inside a tank can be expected to survive a nuclear explosion at relatively close range, while the vehicle's Nuclear/Biological/Chemical protection systems ensure a high degree of operability even in a nuclear fallout environment. By contrast, ER weapons are meant to kill a much higher percentage of enemy personnel inside such protected environments through the release of a higher percentage of their yield in the form of neutron radiation, against which even tank armor is not very effective."

Anti-tank? Hot-dog!

So from the sound of it, a melta-gun basically takes super-heated gas and smashes it together at the target, creating a fusion reaction. Given that Warhammer 40k is a very close combat oriented universe, having a hand-held weapon with an enormous blast radius is asking for it, so instead of the traditional fusion weapons that try to trap the free roaming neutrons, it releases them to reduce the blast radius. This allows the weapon to remain tactically viable in the smashy-smashy universe.

Now there are some problems. First the anti-tank portion of a real neutron bomb does not come from super-heated cutting beam that sheers through armor, but the radiation that poisons the crew and kills them quickly.

This could be solved by the fact that while a neutron bomb is weak compared to other nuclear weapons, it still trumps standard explosives by 100 fold. 

Another problem is that the weapon is not short-ranged itself, but the explosion is. So why is the melta-gun regulated to 12" inches?

Well, containing the super heated gasses could be tricky for Imperial Tech. Maybe beyond that, whatever holds the gasses together dissipates too much? Makes sense to me, I think.

There's my 2 rambling cents. Hopefully some wiser person could give a more complete answer.


----------



## jams (Sep 19, 2009)

Giant Fossil Penguin said:


> It might even be related to RL bombs that release an aerosol of inflammable gases before they explode, enhancing the damage (or somesuch. I read about this a while ago where it was described as a 'poor man's nuke').


that's a fuel-air bomb. the detonation of the weapon causes rapid combustion of the localised oxygen supply, multiplying the initial yield.

basically its damage effect is one step down from a tactical nuke but without the radiation.

i was under the impression that melta weapons used microwaves to agitate the fuel mix and effectively create a fuel "laser"


----------



## Wolfgang_Molder (Mar 3, 2008)

Sub Atomic Agitation of the air, so think smaller than an atom (the smallest unit of anything) ok, so the petrol is fired into the air which causes it to agitate or vibrate rapidly, making these little sub atomic (very hot) petrol particles to nudge their way through whatever it is being fired at by simply forcing it's way through the molecular bonds or lattice of the atoms of w/e you are shooting at, it literally pulls it apart!


----------



## Praxiss (Aug 13, 2009)

i just think of Melta as a micro-wave laser thingy. I am a simple man with simple ideas.


----------



## thomas2 (Nov 4, 2007)

Flamers are wide area, long time mass of burning fuel.

Meltas are much more concentrated, probably more technologically advanced which causes a super-heated beam of gas, perhaps hot enough to become plasma, perhaps hot enough to cause fusion reactions (though that might just be other races versions), Perhaps there is a fusion chamber within the meltagun in which hydrogen fusion takes place (as hydrogen is the easiest atom to fuse), the resulting energy fired at the target.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

so do we all agree that meltaguns do NOT squirt a liquid gel despite "[Meltaguns] fire superheated stream of pure destruction. Even the thickest armor vaporizes under the sub-atomic blast", rather they're more akin to a microwave or laser weapon?

I'm getting really confused


----------



## Death Shroud (Mar 1, 2008)

I imagine the Meltagun's gas heats to a far higher temperature than rocket propulsion but the gas doesn't expand with anywhere near the force (so no real "push").

The Flamer is similar to a WWII flamethrower but loaded with a Napalm like chemical.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

MontytheMighty said:


> so do we all agree that meltaguns do NOT squirt a liquid gel despite "[Meltaguns] fire superheated stream of pure destruction. Even the thickest armor vaporizes under the sub-atomic blast", rather they're more akin to a microwave or laser weapon?
> 
> I'm getting really confused




Yes microwave. Imagine a Spartan laser with the range of a pistol.


----------



## DeathTyrant (Aug 23, 2009)

If we are all willing to go back a few years in fluff, I have the 2E Wargear book on my lap right now:

'The melta-gun is also known as the melter, cooker or vape gun. It works by sub-molecular thermal agitation in a manner comparable to microwave irradiation.'

I won't bother posting the whole entry as I am very lazy.
So, it is something like a tightly focused, extremely powerful microwave.


----------



## Lord Lucius (Sep 18, 2008)

so to recap-
melta= arc welder of death
flamer=flamethrower


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

DeathTyrant said:


> If we are all willing to go back a few years in fluff, I have the 2E Wargear book on my lap right now:
> 
> 'The melta-gun is also known as the melter, cooker or vape gun. It works by sub-molecular thermal agitation in a manner comparable to microwave irradiation.'
> 
> ...


That's my main source of weapon-related fluff. :grin:


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

A better question would be what're the differences between plasma guns and meltas, really since both weapons deal with directed, super-energized gasses.

Most of the descriptions of meltaguns (the ones that make sense and aren't mutually contradictory that is) sound suspiciously like plasma weapons.

The main difference would be that plasma is a real thing that could, plausibly be used as a weapon ion the far future and meltaguns are just a collection impressive-sounding technobabble. Throw the words 'subatomic' and 'nuclear' around and hope nobody notices you're talking out your ass. Some descriptions of meltaguns say it's a microwave beam, others say super-heated gas. Microwaves don't really work well on metal. Tends to bounce off (that's why you can't put foil in your microwave cooker). The plasma-like descriptions make the most sense

Could say that meltaguns use a short ranged concentrated stream of plasma to cut through metals (like a super-sized plasma lance, something we already have, just not on that scale) while plasma guns are designed to fire quick pulses of weaker intensity over longer ranges.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Well, the difference in my mind is that plasma guns shoot, well, plasma, and use super-hot gas to melt the target.

Meltas sound like they take two streams of super-hot gas and smash them together and create a fusion reaction.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

DeathTyrant said:


> I have the 2E Wargear book on my lap right now:
> 
> 'The melta-gun is also known as the melter, cooker or vape gun. It works by sub-molecular thermal agitation in a manner comparable to microwave irradiation.'
> 
> So, it is something like a tightly focused, extremely powerful microwave.


thanks man, that clears it up quite a bit



Galahad said:


> A better question would be what're the differences between plasma guns and meltas, really since both weapons deal with directed, super-energized gasses.


I suppose plasma guns shoot plasma-bolts, which are actually projectiles with mass since plasma is a form of matter

2E states fairly clearly that meltaguns are really just super-intense microwave guns, but the more recent editions decided to screw with that and add all that "highly pressurized pyrum-petrol gases with a two part injection system which forces the gases into a molecular state" mumbo jumbo, which doesn't work with the "agitation of the air" idea


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

I think that the Melta is still just a big-ass microwave gun. The pyrum-petrol injection, I would imagine, would just be to enhance the damage- maybe by setting the air on fire around the area being hit. If it is like the fuel-air bomb principle, then it's all about damage multiplication. Why just melt the armoured hull of a vehicle if you can set the atmosphere around it _on fire!
A Plasma shot, again just to my small mind, causes damage by being really hot, but also by splashing onto its target and environs. I've got this from somewhere out on the tubez, where I know not, but it was something about the plasma gun firing a laser beam at the target first, creating an ionised path for the plasma to follow. I may, however, be confusing this with another weapon. The fact that any plasma projectile would be controlled by magnetic fields, however, makes me think the ionised path makes sense.
A Plasma gun also has a fuel cell-magazine that contains a finite amount of charge (for want of a better word). It may even be that Meltas and Plasmas use the same fuel, just a different method of excitation and delivery, thereby producing a different result.

GFP_


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

The problem with the microwave idea is that it doesn't actually work with what the thing does.

A microwave burst could scramble electronics but even an intense microwave beam isn't likely to cut through tank armor

And why would it have bloody great fuel tanks and insulated hoses if it were a ray gun instead of some sort of plasma weapon?

The bottom line is the meltagun is pretty much an entirely made up thing that's had its background changed and re-changed over thime in the hopes of finding something that reconciles its 'super-flamer' look and its plasma-lance capabilities.

It *could* be some sort of Maser, which would fit with the 'atomic' this and 'stimulated' that.
And there are masers that use gasses (though they're not the same one that use atomic beams).
And Masers used to be associated with microwaves (that's what the M originally stood for, but modern Masers deal with a much broader slice of the electromagnetic spectrum now, so the M is now for Molecular)

That said, Masers don;t actually cut through tank armor either and it;s highly unlikely that a maser could ever actually become a practical weapon.
So if you want somethign that makes any sense at all and approximates the wea[ons looks, properties and (at least some of its fluff) you;re back to plasma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

Why couldn't a sufficiently powerful and focussed microwave beam cut through armour? We use microwaves to heat up food, and from this we know that metal doesn't interact well with the microwaves.
An idea occurs. Microwave ovens work by heating the water molecules insode the food, yes? So, the pyrum-petrol mix is ignited and superheated by the microwave beam, this beam 'carrying' the exploding mix to its target. This might be why you have such a short effective range; the microwave beam loses its coherency the further it gets from the weapon, so spreading the super-combusting (to coin a phrase) pyrum-petrol mix. This might explain the technobabble about atomic agitation (or whatever it is) as this is how a microwave works anyway, at least when being used to heat stuff up.
This raises the interesting possibility that, if my supposition is in any way true, then a Melta would work better in a environment with high humidity.

GFP


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Frankly when writing the Meltagun fluff, I think people just randomly made stuff up. None of it actually works in real life physics or even make coherent sense. However we're talking about a game system with Psykers, Gods, faster-than-light travel and aliens, so we can forgive a bit of fluff BS I think!


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Giant Fossil Penguin said:


> Why couldn't a sufficiently powerful and focussed microwave beam cut through armour? We use microwaves to heat up food, and from this we know that metal doesn't interact well with the microwaves.
> An idea occurs. Microwave ovens work by heating the water molecules insode the food, yes? So, the pyrum-petrol mix is ignited and superheated by the microwave beam, this beam 'carrying' the exploding mix to its target. This might be why you have such a short effective range; the microwave beam loses its coherency the further it gets from the weapon, so spreading the super-combusting (to coin a phrase) pyrum-petrol mix. This might explain the technobabble about atomic agitation (or whatever it is) as this is how a microwave works anyway, at least when being used to heat stuff up.
> This raises the interesting possibility that, if my supposition is in any way true, then a Melta would work better in a environment with high humidity.
> 
> GFP


Yes, that makes so much more sense than just assuming that by talking about agitated gasses and whatnot they're just trying to find a more exciting way to say It's just a ramped up plasma lance that you could go out and buy today."

Microwaves are a form of radio frequency radiation. They're used in radar and communication. Why do they work so well in these applications?
Because they bounce off metal.

The description of the meltagun as presented in the first post contradicts itself multiple times.
First it says it agitates the air...which could mean it's some kind of ion weapon, or if it agitates it enough, it could be converting the air into plasma. Then it says it superheats the target instead, which (for *organic* targets) implies microwaving or some kind of maser effect. Then right after that it talks about excited gasses that are superheated and used to vape the target.

It can't be all of those things at once. If it uses superheated air or charged gasses, then the weapon itself isn't superheating the target at all, it's firing agitated air/gas/plasma, and it's that which heats the target.

Take a look at the description fo plasma weapons


> Plasma Weapons operate by converting normal gases or fuel materials into an energized state of matter known as plasma, the stuff of the stars themselves.
> 
> When fired, the fuel material is energized into plasma and unleashed as brightly glowing "bolts" of pure energy. This energy is encased in a magnetic containment field that prevents the plasma "bolt" from dissipating before reaching its target. Once the plasma comes into contact with a solid material, the magnetic field ruptures, venting the superheated energy onto the target. The enemy is then vaporised.


Sound familiar?

Except for the magnetic envelope, it sounds pretty much exactly the same as the meltagun.

The meltagun is just a plasma weapon that forgoes the magnetic sheathing and rapid-fire in favor of ejecting a lance of supercharged plasma. It doesn't overheat because it's not trying to spit out a barrage of plasma bolts like a machinegun, or charge up for one big glob, and it's not fiddling with electromagnetic fields. With a plasma gun the plasma is likely generated inside the weapon and then accelerated down the length of the weapon, accounting for its range and fast rate fo fire. That's going to cause heat issues inside the gun. The meltagun isn't trying to create a stable glob of plasma and accelerate it, it's just venting it straight out of the stubby, heavily insulated barrel. That thick, vented barrel is the only part of the weapon getting hot, so it's not as dangerous as a rapid fire plasma gun.

Is that mostly bullshit?
Sure. But it actually makes sense, which puts it a step up on all the other bullshit theories about meltaguns 
Bottom line is this...why *can't* melta weapons use a form of plasma technology? Lasguns and lascannons use the same technology to create vastly different effects in terms of power, recharge rate and effectiveness. The only reason people suppose plasma and melta have to be different is because they have different names.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

So how about the idea that the melta shoots out two streams of plasma that collide and create a small fusion reaction?


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

so a meltagun is a souped up plasma gun that has an even shorter range than a flamer?


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

I wouldn't say that a Melta is a 'souped-up' Plasma gun, more like a 'stripped-down' version. Sod the balls of plasma, magnetic containment fields and all of that jazz, we're just gonna mix the fuel, heat it hothothot with a microwave beam and let it explode straight out of the muzzle. No muss, no fuss; until it hits something, that is...
If they do use the same tech, just applied differently, then I imagine the 'Melta' name might have come about by users trying to describe what the beam did to the armour they fired it at; lit. 'Melters' that became 'Meltas'. Maybe they are the grown-up, balls-out, bastard offspring of future cutting equipment that some enterprising Combat Engineer decided to use as a weapon in the heat(no pun intended) of battle?

GFP


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Giant Fossil Penguin said:


> I wouldn't say that a Melta is a 'souped-up' Plasma gun, more like a 'stripped-down' version. Sod the balls of plasma, magnetic containment fields and all of that jazz, we're just gonna mix the fuel, heat it hothothot with a microwave beam and let it explode straight out of the muzzle. No muss, no fuss; until it hits something, that is...


hmm if that were the case, I don't see any advantage a melta would have a over a non-stripped down plasmagun


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

Well, just going by the TT rules, range and rate-of-fire.

GFP


----------



## Prince Endymion (Sep 19, 2009)

The way I see it, the Flamer is about as self-explanitory as possible. It is just a futurized version of a modern flame thrower. 

A Melta, as I see it, could even be opperating on the same primciple of a flame thrower by housing cumbustable chemicals in seperate housing chambers in the platform, which are released as the weapon is fired, mix in the chamber, ignite or fuse with one another, and are ejected from the barrel in another state. In this way, all explanations make sense. The Melta is a bulky weapon, and could house many componants for mixing various chamicals or thermal agents that could agitate one another. 

Applied to the science-fiction setting of 40k, that means that you could have 2 imaginary gasses/liquids/gels that collide and result in some sub-atomic fusion of agitated sub-molecules that are fired via mircowave like propulsion at a target. 

This explains how the weapon would be as devastating as it is, and why it would not hold its form past a short distance. it explains the sound-light patterns that would result from a Micro (small) Wave(pattern of energy similar in condition to light, etc). 

Obviously its Sci-fi so actual physics need not apply.

On the subject of Plasma... well, plasma in real life is very different that the plasme we see in the movies and in 40k. Plasma is 40k probably translates to nothing more than "really hot goo". Obviously if the plasma is so hot it could melt anything, not gun would be able to house the ammunition, so it must be created on he fly from seperate componants in the gun, and the actual projectile would have to be contained in soem sort of megnetic feild or it would simply incinerate the muzzle of the weapon as it fired.

Such Ammo is unstable and thus it "gets hot".


----------



## ejacobs (Sep 27, 2009)

I always thought that meltas were like portable microwave emitters. Essentially superheating air and anything around the area of effect. That's why they aren't a template weapon.

E


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Giant Fossil Penguin said:


> Well, just going by the TT rules, range and rate-of-fire.
> 
> GFP


I'm not too familiar* with the TT rules, are you saying meltas have much shorter range but fire faster?





*clueless


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

Melas have a short range, and within half of their full range get a bonus to damage the target. It fires a single shot, as does its larger cousin, the Multi Melta.
A Plasma gun is a 'rapid-fire' weapon. A Plasma gun has double the range of a Melta, and will fire a single shot, or, from 12" in, two shots. A Plasma cannon outranges a Multi Melta, and uses a blast template to simulate a large 'blob' of Plasma splashing over its target.
So, Plasma fire faster and at greater range. A Melta is a one-shot-at-a-time, which has a fairly short range and increases in damage potential at half-range or less.
From the C:SM, the stats for the weaons are:
Meltagun: 12" S8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta
Plasma gun: 24" S7 AP2 Rapid Fire, Gets Hot!
Multi Melta: 24: S8 AP1 Heavy 1, Melta
Plasma Cannon: 36" S7 AP2 Heavy 1, Blast, Gets Hot!

Hope that is clear(ish)!

GFP


----------



## Grand High Marine (Sep 26, 2009)

MontytheMighty said:


> hmm if that were the case, I don't see any advantage a melta would have a over a non-stripped down plasmagun


The "non-stripped down" plasma weapons have a tendency to blow their shooters' faces off! They "get hot!!!" There in lies the advantage of melta-weapons.


----------

