4820
Post by: Ailaros
As much as I have traditionally detested multilasers, it's been pretty clear even to me that the multilaser is the actual better turret weapon in 6th ed. That said, everybody always says that the best weapon to compliment it is the hull heavy flamer. I was just thinking about this, and wondering... why?
6th ed means that moving around causes you to snap fire. You can't snap fire a flamer at all. At least you could score a hit or two with a heavy bolter. 6th ed gave us slowly glancing vehicles to death, which the heavy bolter is much, much more likely to do than a heavy flamer (and better compliments the turret weapon, which is likewise fishing for glances at range). We also now have focus fire, which means that you can actually use a heavy bolter's Ap. We also have fliers, which heavy bolters are crummy against, but at least you get to SHOOT them at fliers. 6 shots from a chimera, which means you usually get at least A hit against a flier, rather than it being a complete waste half the time. Furthermore, it's now easier to hit vehicles in close combat, which makes a 0" range weapon seem awfully risky.
I guess if your opponents can't see them coming, a heavy flamer could be useful, or if you have literally nothing else to clear off an enemy objective with (and they didn't shoot the chimera before it got there), then I guess I could see a few uses for it, but it really does seem to me that the heavy bolter is a lot better than the heavy flamer.
17738
Post by: Briancj
In 5th edition, it allowed you to plow through troops, and fire that heavy flamer.
In 6th edition, it is probably less useful.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
One word: potential. A BS 1 HB will get to shoot consistently, but it will consistently fail to do any meaningful damage and will never do anything game-changing. Even when it hits it's still just a HB, which means poor effectiveness against MEQs, near-uselessness against vehicles (and completely useless against the flyers people actually use), and too little volume of fire to do anything against hordes. It's a weapon that might as well not exist.
A HF, on the other hand, will only rarely get to fire, but when it does it will do a lot of damage. You give up a tiny amount of average firepower in exchange for the potential to do game-changing things (for example, multiple tank shock + flamer to clear an objective) occasionally.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Peregrine wrote:will get to shoot consistently, but it will consistently fail to do any meaningful damage and will never do anything game-changing.
But you could make the exact same argument about the multilaser. What you're arguing for here is a 2x HF chimera, if the chance to do big damage is more important than doing a small amount consistently.
Peregrine wrote:A HF, on the other hand, will only rarely get to fire, but when it does it will do a lot of damage.
I don't see how this makes it better.
If a hull heavy bolter only kills one marine per game, while the heavy flamer goes three games without firing a shot, and then, every fourth game lands its template on an astonishing 6 marines, the heavy bolter still did three times as much damage over the course of four games.
I mean, what you're talking about is the same thing behind the deathstrike - game after game of not getting a shot off in the hopes that every once in awhile, it will do something cool. There's a reason you don't see many deathstrikes, compared to other HS options that do less damage, but do it consistently.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
IMO better synergy with a mech list.
What doesn't happen what you assault a vehicle? Consolidation. What happens when you're bunched up in the shape of a heavy flamer template, and there's a vehicle with a heavy flamer near by? Usually it flames your nuts off.
The heavy bolter is good and all, but you can be incredibly opportunistic with heavy flamers in a way that heavy bolters don't really allow...
If I play a mech army, the last thing I want is bad guys getting close to me. I've got no shortage of things with which to shoot things at range. When targets are at range < Manticore, a significant bulk of my long range shooting ceases to work and I need a new tool. Enter heavy flamers.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ailaros wrote:But you could make the exact same argument about the multilaser.
Not really. The multilaser is +1 STR, and fires at BS 3 (so 3x more effective just from BS). It's not an amazing weapon, but it's way better than the BS 1 heavy bolter.
What you're arguing for here is a 2x HF chimera, if the chance to do big damage is more important than doing a small amount consistently.
Except that:
1) The second HF gives up the more effective full- BS ML, not the worthless snap fire HB.
2) Flamers usually require moving, and moving means only shooting one of them. So the second HF is almost always redundant.
If a hull heavy bolter only kills one marine per game, while the heavy flamer goes three games without firing a shot, and then, every fourth game lands its template on an astonishing 6 marines, the heavy bolter still did three times as much damage over the course of four games.
You're assuming the HB kills even a single marine. Let's say the Chimera is alive and shooting for three turns. The HB is killing 0.3333 MEQs, or 1.3333 over the four games which is the same as the HF. Except the HF does it all at once and probably in a situation where it really counts (for example, tank shocking with multiple Chimeras and removing an entire squad from an objective) while the HB probably just occasionally kills a random tactical marine.
And of course there's the predictability factor. You might rarely choose to use the HF, but when you do it is extremely consistent (no to-hit roll, usually gets enough hits for the wound/save dice to be fairly average). This means you have full control over how well it performs. The HB, on the other hand, is completely unpredictable. It will occasionally kill something, but you can never count on it. It's a nice bonus to having a Chimera around, not a tool you can actually count on using when you need it.
I mean, what you're talking about is the same thing behind the deathstrike - game after game of not getting a shot off in the hopes that every once in awhile, it will do something cool. There's a reason you don't see many deathstrikes, compared to other HS options that do less damage, but do it consistently.
The difference is opportunity cost. Taking a Deathstrike means giving up a HS slot (incredibly valuable for IG) and a lot of points. Taking a HF on a Chimera means giving up a HB that is pretty much worthless anyway.
49720
Post by: Corollax
Peregrine hit nearly every single point. The only comment I have to add is this.
The Chimera is not a fast vehicle. It has two weapons, and the primary advantage lies in its ability to fire whichever weapon will be more effective on a turn-by-turn basis. The ability to snap-fire does not substantially change this, and that is why the dominant Chimera configuration has not changed.
The only advantage a heavy bolter has over a multi-laser is its ability to ignore 4+ and 5+ armor. If the target is in cover, this advantage is often completely irrelevant. As a template, the Heavy Flamer gets to actually capitalize on its AP advantage. The Heavy Bolter will struggle to do the same. So if we're trying to decide which weapon is more likely to outperform the Multi-laser and make it worth snap-firing its turret weapon...that decision is clear. We bring a Heavy Flamer.
TL;DR: We bring the ML/HF Chimera for the same reasons we always have, and snap firing isn't a significant enough reason to switch.
41915
Post by: BlkTom
The tactics for the arguement on what your weapon load-out is actually still the same in 6th ed as it is for 5th. If your not moving/camping, ML+HB. If your attacking, ML+HF.
The 3 shot Str 6 weapon is your best weapon, You should always have it, specially since the only location to have one is the turret.
The Hull weapon is only going to be a choice between 2 weapons. If you /could/ take a hull mounted multi-laser, I think everyone would run it over the HB or the HF, just to do the Scatter Laser War Walker effect. But since it is not an option and cover saves are so important to so many foes (ADL anyone???), you should have an option to negate that advantage while the HB, at BS 1 OR BS 3 (if you get squirrly and make the ML snap fire) will just plink off.
End of the day, it is about options and what gives you the most versitility to win. Scarabs coming at you? HF. Enemy troops going to ground in cover? HF. Enemy AV 12 you have to kill (flyer or not) or at least try to glance to death? ML. Big scary MC? ML. Terminators? HF.
Everything the HB can fire at, the ML does better. Everything else the HF is better than the HB /UNLESS/ your not moving. THEN you get synergy of fire, even if one is lower Str.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
To put this into context a snap-firing HB has the same average MEQ kills as a single lasgun. So, if you had an option to pay zero points to upgrade a single basic lasgun model from your squad to carry a HF, would you do it? Of course you'd do it, without even thinking about it. So why, when we're talking about a Chimera, does the lasgun suddenly become a "better" option?
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Peregrine wrote:The multilaser is +1 STR, and fires at BS 3 (so 3x more effective just from BS). It's not an amazing weapon, but it's way better than the BS 1 heavy bolter.
So if direct shots are better, why not the heavy bolter?
If you're talking about a BS1 heavy bolter, then you're talking about something that's still better than a BS0 heavy flamer.
Even then, you're missing my point. What is better, a weapon that consistently does a little bit of damage, or a weapon that does nothing most of the time, but has the chance of doing decent damage on rare occasion?
Peregrine wrote: Let's say the Chimera is alive and shooting for three turns. The HB is killing 0.3333 MEQs, or 1.3333 over the four games which is the same as the HF.
Well, shoddy math won't help. A HB firing for 3 turns kills 2 MEQ. Tell me, just how many shots is a HF going to get if the chimera doesn't manage to make it until turn 4?
And that's something big. The heavy bolter will start shooting turn one. It will have the chance to do ANY damage right away. A HF has a pretty serious chance of being killed before it even gets a single shot off.
Plus, come on. Let's say that a heavy bolter fires for three turns per game. Let's say that EVERY GAME, your heavy flamer gets to hit TEN space marines with a single flamer blast (which is wholly preposterous). Even in this ridiculous set of circumstances, the heavy flamer still does EQUAL damage to the heavy bolter.
Peregrine wrote:The difference is opportunity cost.
That's also true for the chimera. You're giving up taking a heavy bolter. If the heavy bolter is better, then you should just take the heavy bolter.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:What doesn't happen what you assault a vehicle? Consolidation. What happens when you're bunched up in the shape of a heavy flamer template, and there's a vehicle with a heavy flamer near by? Usually it flames your nuts off.
But this sounds like 5th ed thinking. Seriously, how many armies are there out there that are going to both be able to seriously hurt your tanks AND give any amount of a damn about a heavy flamer?
Corollax wrote:The only advantage a heavy bolter has over a multi-laser is its ability to ignore 4+ and 5+ armor. If the target is in cover, this advantage is often completely irrelevant.
Firstly, I'm talking more about the hull weapon.
Secondly, welcome to 6th edition. You get to focus fire with weapons. You snap fire at fliers. Etc. I feel like I went over this pretty well in the OP.
BlkTom wrote: cover saves are so important to so many foes (ADL anyone???), you should have an option to negate that advantage while the HB, at BS 1 OR BS 3 (if you get squirrly and make the ML snap fire) will just plink off.
But let's get realistic. How often are you going to be able to just drive your chimera straight up to troops behind an ADL completely unmolested? How often are you going to get that non-torrent flamer into a really great position against troops that are likely going to be deployed perpendicular to your vehicle.
Yes, it is possible to come up with a situation or two where this might be possible, but let's be honest, you could go through all of 6th ed without having an opponent grant you such a set of circumstances.
BlkTom wrote: Everything else the HF is better than the HB /UNLESS/ your not moving.
But this is really untrue.
The HB wins at time, being able to fire first turn at most of the targets on the board, rather than often firing never. It wins in the damage profile, always getting to fire, rather than usually never getting to fire. It works best against fliers, and against things that practice displacement.
Really, the chances of the HF doing anything are pretty rare, as your opponent has to have Sv4+ units right next to the chimera without spreading out or doing anything to damage the vehicle. Seems like that would only work on dumb opponents.
69172
Post by: CaptainGrey
Am I the only one that thinks the HB is useful because, when stationary, it nearly doubles the Chimera's firepower?
While the HF literally forces you to be in the opponent's charge-range to even hope of getting a shot off.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ailaros wrote:Even then, you're missing my point. What is better, a weapon that consistently does a little bit of damage, or a weapon that does nothing most of the time, but has the chance of doing decent damage on rare occasion?
The weapon that does decent damage on rare occasions. Because we aren't talking about a little bit of damage, we're talking about "every few games it might kill a marine". That's so close to "no damage at all" that it isn't even worth considering. A single lasgun does as much damage (granted, in rapid fire range) than a snap fire HB.
Well, shoddy math won't help. A HB firing for 3 turns kills .66 MEQ.
You're right. Shoddy math doesn't help, so you shouldn't use it.
3 shots per turn * 3 turns = 9 shots. 6s to hit = 1.5 hits. 3s to wound = 1 wound. "5s" to fail a save = 0.333 failed saves.
That's also true for the chimera. You're giving up taking a heavy bolter. If the heavy bolter is better, then you should just take the heavy bolter.
No, you're giving up nothing. A BS 1 heavy bolter is so close to nothing that it doesn't even get considered.
You snap fire at fliers.
STR 5 does nothing to AV 12, which means you can't even attempt to fire at the flyers anyone actually takes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CaptainGrey wrote:Am I the only one that thinks the HB is useful because, when stationary, it nearly doubles the Chimera's firepower?
Probably. In my experience Chimeras are rarely stationary. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ailaros wrote:Really, the chances of the HF doing anything are pretty rare, as your opponent has to have Sv4+ units right next to the chimera without spreading out or doing anything to damage the vehicle.
Of course this is also valuable. Creating a "do not enter" zone around a Chimera is way more useful than a BS 1 heavy bolter, even if the flamer never does anything but scare light infantry into staying at a safe distance.
And don't forget that you can move 6" before firing the HF, and potentially tank shock your target into a better formation.
64836
Post by: TanKoL
CaptainGrey wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks the HB is useful because, when stationary, it nearly doubles the Chimera's firepower?
Probably. In my experience Chimeras are rarely stationary.
Disagree there, you can use highly successful stationary Chimeras
There have three main pros to me :
1) decent firepower with 6 S5-6 shots
2) give a big boost in survivability to the HWT inside (actually making it decent as well)
3) give a big boost in survivability to the CCS inside (and upgrading the range of the orders / banner)
It doesn't work with a Vet/Vendetta spam, but it's very good with a gunline base
41915
Post by: BlkTom
I posted my points, you simply refuse to acknowledge them. Seriously, your not giving /us/ any evidence to think the HB is better either. You have no math and no real practical situations (seriously, AV 10 flyers?). Tossing out 3 dice a turn till you get destroyed and hoping now and then it is a 6, that you wound, and that they fail a save is not a tactic, it is a way to kill time and nearly an afterthought. HBs sucked in 5th, they didn't magically get better in 6th. But /soooo/ many armies in 6th depend on cover saves it is pretty much being pig headed to not give yourself an ability to get around that. There is a reason why the Helldrake is considered a decent flyer...because it can burn stuff out of cover. That is simply the best example I can give. I can give you 3 foot lists alone that depend on cover... IG, Orks, Eldar.
Your point about weather you can get to a ADL or not is not the point. The point is that it is /THERE/, and that /EVERYONE/ is using them and that it gives a freaking COVER SAVE. I don't know what /your/ tactics are, but if your in a Chimera and your attacking, it is because you /WANT/ to get within 12" for double plasma shots, Melta shots, or heaven forbid, Flamer shots! Automatically Appended Next Post: TanKoL wrote: CaptainGrey wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks the HB is useful because, when stationary, it nearly doubles the Chimera's firepower?
Probably. In my experience Chimeras are rarely stationary.
Disagree there, you can use highly successful stationary Chimeras
There have three main pros to me :
1) decent firepower with 6 S5-6 shots
2) give a big boost in survivability to the HWT inside (actually making it decent as well)
3) give a big boost in survivability to the CCS inside (and upgrading the range of the orders / banner)
It doesn't work with a Vet/Vendetta spam, but it's very good with a gunline base
As I stated, a camping Chimera is the only time I consider the HB to be worth it, so youg et full BS 3. Placing a Chimera behind a ADL for 25% LoS blockage is a very reasonable tactic. But the discussion here is having the HB on the hull as you move forward so you can take 3 BS 1 snap shots a turn vs taking a Flamer that you may only use 1-3 Turns in a game. As I keep mentioning, the Flamer gives you versitility that the HB doesn't give you to fight different targets the HB really can't effect. Because when your snap firing the HB, it is no longer a synergy weapon with the Str 6 ML. Automatically Appended Next Post: Heck, you know what, if you love the snap fire HB that much on your Chimera, you should seriously consider putting a HB HWT in every Vet squad or in each Infantry squad you have in those Chimeras so you have 6 dice to roll every turn for snap-fire.
If your going to do it, go big or go home. I wouldn't do this, but you seem really set in your ways. I might as well offer you constructive advice to make what your doing work better.
69938
Post by: General Annoyance
heavy flamers are better. They allow you to counterattack troops that try to assault your guardsman. a heavy bolter is just a bit... useless. I only use them when I could have more than 1 (i.e. heavy weapon squads).
commisar - anyone got anything actually bad to say about the IG?
'me sir-'
*BLAM*
thought so sergeant...
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Peregrine wrote:STR 5 does nothing to AV 12, which means you can't even attempt to fire at the flyers anyone actually takes.
And S6 does practically nothing to AV12. Once again, you're making an argument against the multilaser, not for the heavy flamer.
Peregrine wrote:In my experience Chimeras are rarely stationary.
I'll believe in a chimera highland charge when I see one.
In reality, those chimeras are going to be spending the beginning of the game being more or less stationary. Which is when you get to shoot a 36" weapon at full BS.
Peregrine wrote: A BS 1 heavy bolter is so close to nothing that it doesn't even get considered
And a BS0 flamer that never gets to shoot is even LESS than nothing.
Either you're talking about the weapon not snap firing, in which case the heavy bolter is much better than you say it is, or you're talking about snap firing, in which the heavy flamer never even gets to fire.
General Annoyance wrote:They allow you to counterattack troops that try to assault your guardsman.
Name one infantry unit that you're likely going to see on the table that will both be able to survive a cross-field charge against your guardsmen AND would actually care about a heavy flamer AND wouldn't care about a heavy bolter.
BlkTom wrote:Your point about weather you can get to a ADL or not is not the point. The point is that it is /THERE/, and that /EVERYONE/ is using them and that it gives a freaking COVER SAVE. I don't know what /your/ tactics are, but if your in a Chimera and your attacking, it is because you /WANT/ to get within 12" for double plasma shots, Melta shots, or heaven forbid, Flamer shots!
Here's the problem, though. You're talking about a heavy flamer being useful only in a situation where your opponent brings and ADL and then hides models with a 4+ Sv or worse behind it, AND they don't shoot at your chimera which is barreling down on them with a heavy flamer AND they don't disperse against an immanent flamer attack AND they allow you to outflank them and hit them from the side.
Put another way, the only situation in which your argument is valid is if your opponent is an idiot. My opponents aren't idiots, therefore your statement has no use to me.
BlkTom wrote:Seriously, your not giving /us/ any evidence to think the HB is better either. HBs sucked in 5th, they didn't magically get better in 6th.
Umm,,,
Ailaros wrote:6th ed means that moving around causes you to snap fire. You can't snap fire a flamer at all. At least you could score a hit or two with a heavy bolter. 6th ed gave us slowly glancing vehicles to death, which the heavy bolter is much, much more likely to do than a heavy flamer (and better compliments the turret weapon, which is likewise fishing for glances at range). We also now have focus fire, which means that you can actually use a heavy bolter's Ap. We also have fliers, which heavy bolters are crummy against, but at least you get to SHOOT them at fliers. 6 shots from a chimera, which means you usually get at least A hit against a flier, rather than it being a complete waste half the time. Furthermore, it's now easier to hit vehicles in close combat, which makes a 0" range weapon seem awfully risky.
I guess if your opponents can't see them coming, a heavy flamer could be useful, or if you have literally nothing else to clear off an enemy objective with (and they didn't shoot the chimera before it got there), then I guess I could see a few uses for it, but it really does seem to me that the heavy bolter is a lot better than the heavy flamer.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
I see you've abandoned your mistaken math. Thanks for not apologizing for accusing me of shoddy math when YOU were the one who was wrong.
PS: I see you also ignored the part where a snap fire HB is only equal to a single lasgun against marines.
Ailaros wrote:And S6 does practically nothing to AV12. Once again, you're making an argument against the multilaser, not for the heavy flamer.
Which would be a relevant point if a second multilaser was an option for the hull. It's very simple:
Step 1: Choose the turret weapon. ML > AC > HB, and dual HF doesn't work. So the ML is the clear choice, unless you desperately need another AC in your list. But either way you aren't taking a HB.
Step 2: Choose the hull weapon. Of the two choices HF > HB.
Also, STR 6 might not do much to AV 12, but STR 5 does nothing. Claiming improved AA ability for a Chimera if you take a hull HB is nonsense when the flyers people actually use (outside of the most casual games) are all AV 12.
In reality, those chimeras are going to be spending the beginning of the game being more or less stationary. Which is when you get to shoot a 36" weapon at full BS.
Except that's not true at all. Ignoring your "highland charge" strawman Chimeras are moving constantly. If you're 25" away you move to 24" away to fire single plasma shots. If you're too close you move back. If your opponent's anti-tank threat is in a different position you move back into cover, or change where your AV 12 is pointing. If you don't have a good shot right now you move into a position to set up a better shot next turn. Etc. You're rarely staying perfectly stationary, and moving even 1" means snap fire for the HB.
And a BS0 flamer that never gets to shoot is even LESS than nothing.
Either you're talking about the weapon not snap firing, in which case the heavy bolter is much better than you say it is, or you're talking about snap firing, in which the heavy flamer never even gets to fire.
WTF are you talking about. If you are in a position to use the HF you snap fire the turret weapon. It's really not that hard to understand:
Outside of flamer range you always fire the ML at full BS (regardless of hull weapon) and snap fire the hull gun.
Inside flamer range you fire the flamer and snap fire the turret if you have a HF, or you fire the ML at full bs and snap fire the HB if you don't.
35316
Post by: ansacs
Ailros let me use an argument you have used;
The HF is better the same reason the Lascannon is better than the autocannon. You may put down more kills over a theoretical infinite time frame with the HB but not all kills are equal.
The HB will virtually never make that game breaking move but the HF has the ability to be that weapon where you get that perfect bunched up deep strikers which you flame into oblivion, This game changer opportunity is what you pay for not the mediocre damage output over infinite turns.
There is also the deterrent factor. Mech guard are probably one of the most vulnerable armies to assault. Anything that makes an assault unit not want to get within 20" of you is fantastic.
It is also not rare for your own destroyed vehicles to pile up and start providing pretty juicy cover saves. The HF helps a little with this.
Just ask yourself would you rather have 3 bunts or a homerun? Having read your battle reports I know you understand the general concept really well with your love (some may say obsession, but don't mind the heretics) of lascannons.
69938
Post by: General Annoyance
Ailaros - ork stormboyz, large boy mobz, anything (probably) in a transport, howling banshees, termegant or hormagaunt hordes, OTHER GUARDSMAN, wyches, anything in mobs. This is just from my experience - i play on 48" by 48" boards. If they were bigger then I would agree with you.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Of course here's a better analogy:
A snap fire HB does the same damage as a lasgun within 12", or two lasguns from 12-24". So, I just edited your codex, and now every platoon infantry squad and veteran squad has the following option:
*Replace two lasguns with a heavy flamer ..................... free
Would you take this upgrade? Or would you rather have the two lasguns? And, if you would take the upgrade, why would you rather have the two lasguns on a Chimera?
3309
Post by: Flinty
I would tend to agree with the view that although you can snap fire the hull HB when moving, its not likely to do very much. Therefore if your chimera is likely to be spending most of its time moving closer to the enemy (melta vets for example) you take the heavy flamer as this changes the threat type of the vehicle. It might not ever actually fire, but the threat of the weapon can lead your opponent to do different things, hopefully including staying out of easy combat range with the clanky tin can. What you're losing by not taking the heavy bolter is a largely ineffective weapon.
1943
Post by: labmouse42
I mixed and matched. Two of my chimeras have heavy flamers, the rest have HBs.
56617
Post by: barnowl
Ailaros wrote:[
General Annoyance wrote:They allow you to counterattack troops that try to assault your guardsman.
Name one infantry unit that you're likely going to see on the table that will both be able to survive a cross-field charge against your guardsmen AND would actually care about a heavy flamer AND wouldn't care about a heavy bolter.
Ork mobs, and enduranced/Telekined genestealers/ AG hormigaunts/ AG gargoyles all are going to be more concerned about a HF than a HB. Just using an AG gaunt charge as an example, it is normally around 20 bodies and takes 2 turns to arrive, so ML+ HB is going to do a max of 12 wounds. A ML+ HF can do a max of 15, as soon as it starts moving the ML+ HF becomes a much bigger threat because the HB goes on snapfire with the ML+ HB, VS snapfire ML + template.
IF you are chimera rushing, which I do see a lot coming at me, why would you be "snapfiring"/not firing the HF when in range of viable targets. Seriously snapshot the multilaser and cook the hordes with the HF. I hate having that done to me.
50012
Post by: Crimson
labmouse42 wrote:I mixed and matched. Two of my chimeras have heavy flamers, the rest have HBs.
No! You cannot do that! There can be only one true way!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:Claiming improved AA ability for a Chimera if you take a hull HB is nonsense when the flyers people actually use (outside of the most casual games) are all AV 12.
Not that I disagree with your point overall, but...
Flyrants.
Demon Princes.
Cron-Air
Dakkajets
You don't see those outside of "the most casual games"? You play some crappy Nid players then.
67872
Post by: ALEXisAWESOME
Heavy flamers are much scarier to me then a measly heavy bolter. I play dark eldar and i rely on cover so much and that heavy flamer has a zone of fire i carnt afford to get into. I wont get my reavers anywhere near them and my haliquins poop there clown pants. But if a heavy bolter shot at me i would laugth as it bounces of my 3+ and 2+ respecitely.
Deepstrikes that choose to shoot are bunched up for the flamer. And hey, are you lacking in long range firepower as guardsmen? Are you lacking close range, hell yes! Say first turn i turbo boast all my raiders inches behind all your best tanks, what do you do? carnt hit me with blasts or risk harming your tanks, while i get a 4+ cover. next turn my wyches would jump out and shred any tanks in range, then charge your guardsmen hoard. Unless you have heavy flamers which would wipe entire squads before they get to the guardsmen.
18698
Post by: kronk
A heavy flamer kills every 1 wound dark eldar, 1 wound IG, 1 wound ork, nearly every 1 wound eldar, and all 1 wound space marine scouts by denying an amour save or a cover save. The versatility of the Heavy Flamer allows you to move the chimera and chose to fire either the HF or the multi-laser. As Peregrine said, I rarely see a stationary chimera, so you're "practically" always moving it and snap firing the HB. That has a rather poor chance of hitting anything, but at least it gets to shoot, where an HF does not. To further this point, the HB/Multi-laser loadout can shoot at and potentially damage an AV11 or lower flier with BOTH guns, where a HF/ML chimera cannot. Is there a right answer? I don't think so. I think it comes down to play style and what else is in your army. The HF/ML chimera seems like the choice for a melta-vet squad. Move the squad up to a transport, get out, shoot the transport with the meltas, HF the guys that spill out while snap-firing the ML. But what do I know? I don't play guard.
25220
Post by: WarOne
So does it seem the HF Chimera has a more psychological edge than a math-hammering one?
That seems to be what the argument is shaping up to be.
60997
Post by: zephoid
Guard arent so good at assault. Generally they want the enemy to be as far away as possible. However, as they get closer you have to start moving your chimera. That BS1 heavy bolter does nothing essentially. The heavy flamer is also useless until that instance where an enemy is within 6" of you. At that point, the option to move, fire the flamer (for a guaranteed ~4-7 hits)
With the heavy bolter, moving means the heavy bolter is the backup weapon. With the heavy flamer, moving means you may have the ability to use it as the main weapon for far increased ability to alpha strike a unit off the board. It is not always the backup, which is where a lot of the assumptions in this thread fall apart.
Also, after the chimera has unloaded, most people ignore it. With HF you cannot ignore it as it will kill things, even marines or terminators if allowed to run as it wishes. IF an enemy has to shoot or assault a chimera instead of my guardsmen, it has done its job.
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
Peregrine wrote:Of course here's a better analogy:
A snap fire HB does the same damage as a lasgun within 12", or two lasguns from 12-24". So, I just edited your codex, and now every platoon infantry squad and veteran squad has the following option:
*Replace two lasguns with a heavy flamer ..................... free
Sign me up! Too bad heavy flamers actually cost 20 pts, if I could remove 2 lasguns for a heavy flamer..... Say hello to walking wall of flame!
I vote Peregrine writes the next guard codex.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
Tank shock....
If you're driving tanks and tranports around in groups, use the first one or two to herd the enemy into lumps, then follow up slowly and roast them.
37016
Post by: More Dakka
It really hasn't changed much from 5th to 6th, it's the situational advantage of the hull HF that makes it a better option than the HB.
If you're trying to use the HF then you're doing it wrong. With a suitably built mech-list your opponent is going to be getting near you, not the other way around, and the HF is a great contingency weapon in that event.
I have had no end of enemy units closing on my T1 with drop pods, or T2 with fast assault vehicles and deepstrike/outflank units. When they get that close 1 HF on 1 chimera > all the HB on every chimera in the army.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Okay, this is all getting rather repetitive. Let me just summarize what the arguments for heavy flamers are so far:
1.) Every once in a blue moon, they do something awesome. One home run is better than 40 bunts. I LOVE deathstrikes! This one time, in my basement...
2.) My opponents are desperate enough to attempt cross-table charges with Sv4+ units that somehow get a cover save all the way there just so that they can attempt to take out my vehicles with krak and haywire grenades.
3.) My opponents are dumb enough to not shoot at my chimeras or disperse their units when a chimera is 12" or less away from their stuff.
4.) My opponents don't play space marines. Furthermore, they LOVE rushing stuff with a Sv4+ save or worse straight into my stuff.
5.) My opponents don't bring units that heavy bolters or multilasers can reliably do damage to. Multi-shot mid-strength shooting isn't useful.
6.) I move my chimeras around a lot. A weapon that fires at BS1 at range is worse than a weapon that is BS0 without any.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Wow, could you be more patronizing?
37016
Post by: More Dakka
Somehow I think so!
28300
Post by: creeping-deth87
I don't know why anyone responds to Ailaros' threads, they all go down the same way. He puts forth an opinion under the guise of starting a discussion, and then doggedly sticks to that opinion no matter what anyone says as if we're all feeble minded simpletons for him to educate.
Ultimately the heavy flamer is better because of all the reasons already mentioned. Ignores cover, keeps the enemy away, auto hits, and when it fires does a lot more for you than a sad little snap firing heavy bolter.
18698
Post by: kronk
Well, that just tells me not to ever post in an Ailaros thread again.
Thanks for saving me a lot of time.
37016
Post by: More Dakka
Yeah, and when you place the template you can say "FWOOOOOOOSH!!!" like it's really firing
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
I just slap heavy bolters on my command chimeras. Everyone else gets a heavy flamer like god intended. Why? Because I don't want my CCS to get into assault range and give away a free "Slay the Warlord" point. With everyone else, they -may- get into enough range where the heavy flamer might be useful on my own terms. To be honest, this is an arbitrary system since I could easily say that my command chimeras get heavy flamers to deter deep striking assault units and everyone else gets heavy bolters since I'm going to be camping. Or everyone gets heavy flamers to deter assault units (Or to get that once in a blue moon sweet kill) or everyone gets heavy bolters since they are going to be camping. It comes down to personal choice since, either way, a single HB/HF isn't going to do much in the first place. It's all about the tasty goods inside.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
creeping-deth87 wrote:I don't know why anyone responds to Ailaros' threads, they all go down the same way. He puts forth an opinion under the guise of starting a discussion, and then doggedly sticks to that opinion no matter what anyone says as if we're all feeble minded simpletons for him to educate.
I put forward opinions that challenge the status quo and wait for people to prove me wrong. People who are emotionally invested in their opinions get angry, but don't say anything useful.
Sometimes they do, though. I'm still waiting on this topic.
creeping-deth87 wrote:Ultimately the heavy flamer is better because of all the reasons already mentioned. Ignores cover, keeps the enemy away, auto hits, and when it fires does a lot more for you than a sad little snap firing heavy bolter.
And this is part of the problem. People who are emotionally invested in their opinions only want to accept input that confirms their existing opinion, regardless of how much they have to not listen before they speak to achieve this.
Take this quote. Everything's been addressed more than once. Heavy bolters can ignore cover saves in situations of focus firing, and heavy flamers never get to ignore cover when they never get a chance to shoot for a variety of good reasons. The only enemies it keeps away are those that are Sv4+ or worse, and can only hurt chimeras at very close ranges, often by deepstriking. There aren't many of these units. The fact that it auto-hits is meaningless if it scarcely ever gets to shoot. The fact that, once in roughly never it scores big does not make it better than something that does less damage consistently. Otherwise, everyone would take deathstrikes.
You're not being ignored straight away. You're only being ignored when you say things that have already been addressed. You have to bring something new and useful to the conversation.
kronk wrote:Well, that just tells me not to ever post in an Ailaros thread again.
creeping-deth87 wrote:I don't know why anyone responds to Ailaros' threads
rigeld2 wrote:Wow, could you be more patronizing?
Or you could take things personally, and be abrasive instead.
This really isn't an emotional thing for me. I really am looking for genuine reasons for thinking about things in a different way than I already am (or I wouldn't bother communicating with people at all). So far, it's not happening. No reason to get in a huff.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Ailaros wrote:This really isn't an emotional thing for me. I really am looking for genuine reasons for thinking about things in a different way than I already am (or I wouldn't bother communicating with people at all). So far, it's not happening. No reason to get in a huff.
Yeah, clearly not an emotional thing for you. That's why you're able to be so objective when looking at the other side's arguments.
Ailaros wrote:Okay, this is all getting rather repetitive. Let me just summarize what the arguments for heavy flamers are so far:
1.) Every once in a blue moon, they do something awesome. One home run is better than 40 bunts. I LOVE deathstrikes! This one time, in my basement...
2.) My opponents are desperate enough to attempt cross-table charges with Sv4+ units that somehow get a cover save all the way there just so that they can attempt to take out my vehicles with krak and haywire grenades.
3.) My opponents are dumb enough to not shoot at my chimeras or disperse their units when a chimera is 12" or less away from their stuff.
4.) My opponents don't play space marines. Furthermore, they LOVE rushing stuff with a Sv4+ save or worse straight into my stuff.
5.) My opponents don't bring units that heavy bolters or multilasers can reliably do damage to. Multi-shot mid-strength shooting isn't useful.
6.) I move my chimeras around a lot. A weapon that fires at BS1 at range is worse than a weapon that is BS0 without any.
Oh. Wait.
47987
Post by: Gordash
For what it's worth, I appreciate the rethinking of the status quo, especially given the new edition. I'm inclined to agree that the heavy bolter is a much better option for the Chimera. I tend to pick synergy over situation for vehicle weapons- I wouldn't take a battle tank russ with multi-melta sponsons. Heavy Bolters and Multilasers are way more synergistic than multilaser/HF.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Yes, he could. I've seen much ruder posts. Not often on Dakka, but on Warseer and BoLs.
At any rate, this is an interesting thread from a marine point of view. The Chimera is a great tank, much better than the Rhino or the Razorback. Although I must admit that this thread is making me appreciate my fast BA vehicles more.
So the quandry is to have the option to move 6" and fire a multilaser at full BS and have the template do nothing, or move 6" and fire the multilaser and snap fire the heavy bolter. Sitting still, the heavy bolter choice looks a lot better, but many are claiming this rarely happens. I need to pay more attention in my games, because I'm not used to worrying about whether my transports will fire or not when I move them. I could easily see play styles that favor either moving them or not moving them.
Let me state that I am a huge fan of the heavy flamer, and not such a fan of the heavy bolter. I feel that the ignores cover mechanic is more important than ever in 6th edition. Automatically hitting on top of ignoring cover is awesome, especially for a BS 3 list. The heavy bolter is far less killy than the heavy flamer, but it obviously has a much longer range, and can at least be fired while on the move.
It seems to me that many lists will want to close with the IG. If that's the case, it seems reasonable to think that there will be opportunities to move the tank 6" and flame something. I personally don't see this as a home run situation necessarily, but I find it hard to get close to get guard in the first place. My stuff has this horrible tendency to explode or lose all its wounds to shooting.
That being said, three or so parked Chimeras with the heavy bolter option adds some cheap torrent fire capable of putting the hurt on all kinds of targets. From games I have observed, players with monstrous creatures in particular always seem surprising how many wounds they end up taking from Chimera fire.
I don't see any definitive mathhammer solution to this particular choice, because their purposes are so different. I think it has to be answered in context of the rest of the list.
4001
Post by: Compel
Although I really shouldn't be replying to an Ailerons thread....
I've got a good mix of chimeras in my army.
If I'm not camoing behind a defence line with my warlord. He's in a chimera with multi laser and bolter.
My platoon command squad find themselves in a chimera with turret flamer and hull bolter since they're armed with 4 flamers and it helps with lining things up. They're also more mobile then my cowardly HQ....
Whereas any plasma or melta vet or command squads have the hull flamer because they need to get close to use their main guns, so I might as well soften them first with a flamer...
65298
Post by: Afrodactyl
To the heavy flamer = deathstrike point you raised Ailaros; this isnt the same, simply because we have to pay for the deathstrike, whereas I get lots of them, for free, on my chimeras. The fact that I have 5 heavy flamers rather than one means that not only am I 5 times more likely to fire one, Im also 5 times more likely to get that crucial shot that vaporises an entire unit.
5 heavy bolters at bs3 is trash. 5 heavy flamers at bs3?
Ill take 10.
752
Post by: Polonius
I challenge the idea that a hull heavy flamer only rarely does anything. It has a max range of about 13", and an effective range of 8-10". Lots of threats get that close, and having the heavy flamer there is nice. I'd say my heavy flamers get a nice shot off every other game or so. When you have more than one on the table, that means one great shot a game.
As always, this is an instance were taking a weapon that often, but not always, is devestating is better than taking a weapon that's always mediocre. Even under optimal conditions (stationary, living six turns, shooting at T3 4+ save models in the open) the HB will kill roughly 8 models. That's a nearly perect situation that will never happen. A heavy flamer can do that in one good shot, or two mediocre ones.
Still, the bigger picture for me isn't just which weapon is better in a vacuum, it's also about what weapon adds more to my army. With vendettas, and ADL with gun, and plenty of heavy weapons, I'm usually not scrapping bottom on anti-aircraft or anti-vehicle in general. With lasguns and multi-lasers, I have adequete volume of fire. What I usually need more of is a way to respond to close in threats.
I've found that a canny opponent will often ignore a chimera with a HB in assault, because there's a hard limit on the damage it can cause. They will not be blase about leaving a heavy flamer around. Unless you somehow view chimeras as valuable, you want them focusing on them over your killing units.
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
It's better to have the right tool and not need it, than need it and not have it. Heavy bolters, even when fired at full BS by a marine is fairly useless. It's nothing to write home about. Getting all up in a tizzy trying to prove that a snap fired HBolter is more useful than a flamer is a little much. Situationally the heavy flamer is far more useful, and guess what, I still have a ML. As said by previous posters the heavy bolter is better if you are sitting your chimera behind an aegis or in cover and don't plan on moving. Once the bullets start firing even the best made plans have to change to adapt to circumstance. The Hflamer not be used as often but guess what, when you need that heavy flamer a heavy bolter isn't going to be worth  . I don't have as many chimeras as most guard players, so the ones I do have intend to use more aggressively. That's where the flamer comes in handy. Heck I consider the twin linked heavy bolter on a land raider a complete waste of a weapon slot. If we could opt to shoot hellfire boss rounds from the HBolter, then that would be a different story, but we can't.
Ailaros, for all his abrasiveness, does often raise some good points. He also invites debate, like he said to challenge the status quo. That doesn't mean he's always right and we dont have to agree. If it wasn't for all the back and forth between Ailaros and peregrine I wouldn't be as good a guard player. They make us think objectively about the lists we build, the units we choose and how we outfit them.
The sad part here is we are having an extensive argument over the merits of a snap fired HBolter, a mediocre weapon to start with. Given that else where in the guard codex a Hflamer costs 20 points, upgrading one for free from a weapon that will mostly only get to snapfire seems to me a fairly obvious choice. Unless you are list tailoring or have all you chimera's magnetized so you can swap on the fly, I know which weapon I am gluing on.
752
Post by: Polonius
The comparison to the Deathstrike, while superfiically satisfying, is actually a poor one.
The Deathstrike is a lotto ticket. You don't know when it will launch, how big the blast will be, or how good a target you'll have when it goes off. Like a scratch off you might get your money back, win big, or more likely, end up with nothing.
The Hull Heavy Flamer is more like a $50 chain restaurant gift card. You can't spend it anywhere, but when you get an opportunity, it's a nice big free meal. Meaning, you don't always get a good shot with the HHF. But when you do, you auto hit with S5 ignoring cover and 4+ saves.
69172
Post by: CaptainGrey
Ailaros wrote:creeping-deth87 wrote:I don't know why anyone responds to Ailaros' threads, they all go down the same way. He puts forth an opinion under the guise of starting a discussion, and then doggedly sticks to that opinion no matter what anyone says as if we're all feeble minded simpletons for him to educate.
I put forward opinions that challenge the status quo and wait for people to prove me wrong. People who are emotionally invested in their opinions get angry, but don't say anything useful.
Sometimes they do, though. I'm still waiting on this topic.
Next Ailaros thread:
"The Penal Legion; a tournament winning unit in disguise?"
752
Post by: Polonius
Hey, I actually think Penal Legion are an underrated choice. not good in a classic sense, but they can be a part of a winning list. More so, IMO, than many other units in the book.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
CaptainGrey wrote: Ailaros wrote:creeping-deth87 wrote:I don't know why anyone responds to Ailaros' threads, they all go down the same way. He puts forth an opinion under the guise of starting a discussion, and then doggedly sticks to that opinion no matter what anyone says as if we're all feeble minded simpletons for him to educate.
I put forward opinions that challenge the status quo and wait for people to prove me wrong. People who are emotionally invested in their opinions get angry, but don't say anything useful.
Sometimes they do, though. I'm still waiting on this topic.
Next Ailaros thread:
"The Penal Legion; a tournament winning unit in disguise?"
I could see it now... "Penal Legionaries are good cause (Insert situational mathhammer here) and so they aren't so bad". "Uhh.. no, that still doesn't make them good". "Yes it does! They are better than other units at that role!".
To be fair to him, he did change my mind about how to run Leman Russ tanks. I used to think Vanquishers were "meh" until I just recently.
69172
Post by: CaptainGrey
TheCustomLime wrote:
To be fair to him, he did change my mind about how to run Leman Russ tanks. I used to think Vanquishers were "meh" until I just recently.
They're still "meh". They're just more capable of doing something when you spam five of them...
752
Post by: Polonius
Gordash wrote:For what it's worth, I appreciate the rethinking of the status quo, especially given the new edition. I'm inclined to agree that the heavy bolter is a much better option for the Chimera. I tend to pick synergy over situation for vehicle weapons- I wouldn't take a battle tank russ with multi-melta sponsons. Heavy Bolters and Multilasers are way more synergistic than multilaser/ HF.
Compared to 5th, the heavy bolter is much better now. Adding snap fire, and lowering cover to 5+ much of the time makes the humble heavy bolter merely humble, as opposed to nearly worthless.
For a pillbox/gunline style unit, the HB is a better choice.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
CaptainGrey wrote:TheCustomLime wrote:
To be fair to him, he did change my mind about how to run Leman Russ tanks. I used to think Vanquishers were "meh" until I just recently.
They're still "meh". They're just more capable of doing something when you spam five of them...
Well, Paskquishers at the very least. Those things are pretty killy. I still think LRBTs are good for spamming since they can pick up the slack for each other, much like with Lascannons. One Lascannon shot is pretty crummy at doing.. anything but that's why you take more than one.
On topic... my opinion is out there. Take either one, they both aren't much to write home about. Mix and match to your heart's content, it's not like the guard is dying for more heavy bolters or flamers.
752
Post by: Polonius
TheCustomLime wrote:Take either one, they both aren't much to write home about. Mix and match to your heart's content, it's not like the guard is dying for more heavy bolters or flamers.
This is probably more true than not. In many ways it's like the debate between shotguns and lasguns for veterans.
As stated, the difference is between a slow but steady dribble of S5 shooting, or the occasional template of doom. YMMV.
69172
Post by: CaptainGrey
Polonius wrote:TheCustomLime wrote:Take either one, they both aren't much to write home about. Mix and match to your heart's content, it's not like the guard is dying for more heavy bolters or flamers.
This is probably more true than not. In many ways it's like the debate between shotguns and lasguns for veterans.
As stated, the difference is between a slow but steady dribble of S5 shooting, or the occasional template of doom. YMMV.
I agree. The insistence that one is infinitely better, and always the go-to is ridiculous and bullheaded.
Any Chimera forcing upfield should take a HF.
Any Chimera that will park stationary for more than a turn should probably take a HB.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Afrodactyl wrote: simply because we have to pay for the deathstrike, whereas I get lots of them, for free, on my chimeras.
It's still an opportunity cost.
Polonius wrote: When you have more than one on the table, that means one great shot a game.
This sounds like spam creating the illusion of effectiveness, though. Yeah, if you had 8 heavy flamers on the table, you might be able to get a decent hit every game, but 8 heavy bolters would still be a lot better.
Polonius wrote:As always, this is an instance were taking a weapon that often, but not always, is devestating is better than taking a weapon that's always mediocre.
And here's the point of contention here. The idea that heavy flamers are going to go around racking up dozens of hits per game seems absurd to me. The range of the weapon is tiny, meaning its effectiveness is seriously questionable (people don't even take banewolves because they never get to fire, and that's on a fast chassis), given that your opponent can much, much more easily avoid a heavy flamer hit than staying out of range and LOS of a heavy bolter. If your opponents are really that afraid of them, they'll be picked off before they can do anything serious with a weapon that has a very limited range (a range of like 2 or 3 inches if you want to get more than a hit or two), or your opponents will just displace.
Game after game of racking up hits just seems like a fantasy.
I feel like it's one of those selective memory things. People remember that one time when a heavy flamer saved their butts, while ignoring that a vast majority of the time, they do nothing.
In this case, taking a weapon that is mediocre consistently is still better than a weapon that will do big damage a couple of times a rules edition. Just because the damage of a heavy bolter is less spectacular doesn't mean that you're doing less damage with it. Throw on the fact that heavy bolters can engage a wider range of targets, and can do anything on the move, and the heavy bolter looks like it consistently does more damage to more stuff over more time.
Polonius wrote:The Hull Heavy Flamer is more like a $50 chain restaurant gift card. You can't spend it anywhere, but when you get an opportunity, it's a nice big free meal.
Or, to put it another way, what would you rather have, $40 in cash, or a $50 gift certificate to a restaurant whose nearest location is 500 miles away?
In theory, the gift card is better, because you get more loot, but in practice, you're never actually going to spend that gift card, while you'd actually get some use out of the cash. In fact, this is the problem with gift cards at all, even to ones with more convenient locations. They're always inferior to cash because of the restrictions on their use.
Polonius wrote:I've found that a canny opponent will often ignore a chimera with a HB in assault, because there's a hard limit on the damage it can cause.
So, let's break this down.
Firstly, we're talking about an opponent who is getting into assault with your chimeras. What kind of units are these? Well, if they're Sv4+, then they would have been chewed up pretty badly by heavy bolters and the vets inside (much less the entire rest of your army) before they even made it to close combat. If they're Sv3+ or better, then those heavy flamers are going to be roughly as useless as the heavy bolter. So you hit five marines with a heavy flamer. So what, you only killed one. That sarge with the meltabombs or all those krak grenades are still going to eat the chimera for lunch. What was really gained here by the heavy flamer?
Secondly, getting your tanks into close combat? What horde armies are rushing across the field anymore to get into close combat? None that can't be easily beaten off. What non-horde armies aren't going to be shooting your tanks to death long before they make it into close combat? Who is even doing cross-field charges, even with Sv3+?
What you're talking about makes sense internally, but I don't see how it actually applies to reality.
Polonius wrote:Adding snap fire, and lowering cover to 5+ much of the time makes the humble heavy bolter merely humble, as opposed to nearly worthless.
And don't forget focus firing, so the Ap can be useful now. Also, you can glance vehicles to death with a heavy bolter - vehicles which you are really unlikely to ever have in heavy flamer range. And that's on top of advantages it has always had.
I feel that it's more like heavy flamers were the best of three terrible options in 5th ed. Some of the things that made the other options terrible have been done away with in 6th, while heavy flamers haven't gotten any better. I suppose it's less a matter of "why still the heavy flamer?" and more one of "why not the heavy bolter?"
CaptainGrey wrote:Any Chimera forcing upfield should take a HF.
But why? Just because you are shortening the odds that they'll get to fire the hull weapon doesn't mean that you're making the odds short. Plus, with the heavy flamer you're more beholden to charge, while the heavy bolter gives you more flexibility. And the heavy bolter still gets to shoot when you charge in, even if you never make it into flamer range.
35316
Post by: ansacs
I would agree with the pillbox HB combo is probably best for that purpose.
If you cannot deploy max distance from your enemy then a HF is usually going to be more useful.
Ailros I like your threads but you do tend to get unnecessarily combative with vast overstatements like multiplying bunts by 10. I understand the point you are trying to make but overstatements only help if you have a large media outlet to re-regurgitation them. This combativeness tends to hurt your point and leads to the above discourteous statements about "ailros threads". These posts shouldn't pop up as the threads usually do end up being interesting.
It is an interesting thread though and perhaps some people will get some real utility from HHBs. Also more people might remember to fire their snap shots w/ HB which many players seem to "forget" as it has been shown there is an extra edge there to be gained. I may have to try subbing a few if I even dig my chimera's out again.
Penal legion on the other hand can and have won games by getting line breaker and sometimes capturing an objective so they are technically "a tournament winning unit"
69172
Post by: CaptainGrey
Ailaros wrote:
CaptainGrey wrote:Any Chimera forcing upfield should take a HF.
But why? Just because you are shortening the odds that they'll get to fire the hull weapon doesn't mean that you're making the odds short. Plus, with the heavy flamer you're more beholden to charge, while the heavy bolter gives you more flexibility. And the heavy bolter still gets to shoot when you charge in, even if you never make it into flamer range.
If your Chimera is ever within 20 inches of an Aegis line, or units in Area Terrain, you can put down Heavy Flamer wounds in one turn.
Anytime you field Chimeras that will be moving upfield, you likely will be in such a situation by turn 2/3.
Chimeras moving up-field: HF.
Chimeras that will be sitting backfield, or even midfield: HB.
That is your answer, Ailaros.
38800
Post by: DaddyWarcrimes
Also, no one fields Banewolves because each one is taking up a slot that could be a Vendetta. It's the same reason Sentinels, Rough Riders, and the other Hellhound variants are all but extinct in competitive 40k.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ailaros wrote:Or, to put it another way, what would you rather have, $40 in cash, or a $50 gift certificate to a restaurant whose nearest location is 500 miles away?
Except that's not the correct analogy. A better question would be whether you'd rather have $1 in cash, or a $50 gift certificate to a restaurant 50 miles away. A snap fire HB is so utterly ineffective that even an extremely situational option like a HF is better.
752
Post by: Polonius
Ailaros wrote:
Polonius wrote: When you have more than one on the table, that means one great shot a game.
This sounds like spam creating the illusion of effectiveness, though. Yeah, if you had 8 heavy flamers on the table, you might be able to get a decent hit every game, but 8 heavy bolters would still be a lot better.
Well, except in your scenario, with eight heavy flamers, you'll probably get four or five decent shots. Still better than a heavy bolter.
Polonius wrote:As always, this is an instance were taking a weapon that often, but not always, is devestating is better than taking a weapon that's always mediocre.
And here's the point of contention here. The idea that heavy flamers are going to go around racking up dozens of hits per game seems absurd to me. The range of the weapon is tiny, meaning its effectiveness is seriously questionable (people don't even take banewolves because they never get to fire, and that's on a fast chassis), given that your opponent can much, much more easily avoid a heavy flamer hit than staying out of range and LOS of a heavy bolter. If your opponents are really that afraid of them, they'll be picked off before they can do anything serious with a weapon that has a very limited range (a range of like 2 or 3 inches if you want to get more than a hit or two), or your opponents will just displace.
Game after game of racking up hits just seems like a fantasy.
I feel like it's one of those selective memory things. People remember that one time when a heavy flamer saved their butts, while ignoring that a vast majority of the time, they do nothing.
In this case, taking a weapon that is mediocre consistently is still better than a weapon that will do big damage a couple of times a rules edition. Just because the damage of a heavy bolter is less spectacular doesn't mean that you're doing less damage with it. Throw on the fact that heavy bolters can engage a wider range of targets, and can do anything on the move, and the heavy bolter looks like it consistently does more damage to more stuff over more time.
Well, one of the reasons it's hard to imagine a heavy flamer racking up "dozens of hits a game" is because nobody here said that. Maybe if you read what people wrote, and actually thought about it with your self serving objectivity, you wouldn't put words in people's mouths.
The range of a heavy flamer is, of course, "template." Said template is 8" long, with the widest part at the end, meaning once you add the chimera's movement, you can engage an enemy unit as far as 14" away, with the sweet spot only slightly closer. So, that means even a unit that got out of a transport, or is well out of charge range, can be flamed. Add in outflanks, bikes, deepstrikes, and units that just won an assault, and I've never found a shortage of enemy units near my lines. Do you really never see enemy units close to your army? If so, you're good enough to not need to worry about this point.
Also, the reason people dont' take the banewolf is because it's over 100pts, and will die the turn after it shoots. A chimera will die as well, but probably saving an infantry squad from a charge, and costs less than half the points, with the heavy flamer representing a very small fraction of those.
Polonius wrote:The Hull Heavy Flamer is more like a $50 chain restaurant gift card. You can't spend it anywhere, but when you get an opportunity, it's a nice big free meal.
Or, to put it another way, what would you rather have, $40 in cash, or a $50 gift certificate to a restaurant whose nearest location is 500 miles away?
In theory, the gift card is better, because you get more loot, but in practice, you're never actually going to spend that gift card, while you'd actually get some use out of the cash. In fact, this is the problem with gift cards at all, even to ones with more convenient locations. They're always inferior to cash because of the restrictions on their use.
Well, at this point you're arguing degrees. I think that heavy flamers get to fire for effect relatively often. I know this because I play them in my list, and I've used them for years in multiple editions. I can think of two "big" hits from two three round tournaments. Maybe I got unusually lucky (I know I did with one), but heavy bolters just couldn't have done what the flamers did. And that's with only have three or four chimeras in my list.
Polonius wrote:I've found that a canny opponent will often ignore a chimera with a HB in assault, because there's a hard limit on the damage it can cause.
So, let's break this down.
Firstly, we're talking about an opponent who is getting into assault with your chimeras. What kind of units are these? Well, if they're Sv4+, then they would have been chewed up pretty badly by heavy bolters and the vets inside (much less the entire rest of your army) before they even made it to close combat. If they're Sv3+ or better, then those heavy flamers are going to be roughly as useless as the heavy bolter. So you hit five marines with a heavy flamer. So what, you only killed one. That sarge with the meltabombs or all those krak grenades are still going to eat the chimera for lunch. What was really gained here by the heavy flamer?
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument you hit five marines with the heavy flamer. Not a bad assumption for a "decent" shot. that's 10/3 wounds, or just over one dead marine. Getting five hits with a heavy bolter (which results in the same amount of wounds) takes just over three turns of shooting at full BS, or 10 turns of snap fires.
This is my point: the heavy flamer does not need to rack of "dozens of hits" to equal the HB. Every 1.5 hits you get with a HF is the same as a full turn of shooting with the HB (not involving cover, with the HB at full BS).
Secondly, getting your tanks into close combat? What horde armies are rushing across the field anymore to get into close combat? None that can't be easily beaten off. What non-horde armies aren't going to be shooting your tanks to death long before they make it into close combat? Who is even doing cross-field charges, even with Sv3+?
What you're talking about makes sense internally, but I don't see how it actually applies to reality.
the fact that nobody does cross field charges is why you take flamers, and not heavy bolters, assuming you want a defensive weapon. the biggest threats to an IG gunline are units that are either very fast, outflank, deep strike, or can somehow prevent getting shot. I'm not worried about threats I have to merely outshoot. That's why I have heavy weapons and tanks and vendettas. I'm always worried about the stuff that just shows up.
I suppose it's less a matter of "why still the heavy flamer?" and more one of "why not the heavy bolter?"
Simply put? The heavy bolter never does anything.
36809
Post by: loota boy
http://www.ailarian.com/folera/articles/tacticas/list-tailoring.html
I feel like this game of yours is a good example of getting use out of flamers. I realize that this is an extreme example, and I am in no way suggesting that putting heavy flamers on your chimeras will immediately toast hoards of guardsmen. I'm just using it as an example to show that getting some kills with a flamer isn't very far-fetched. You fell for it, and if we say that you are a skilled veteran player, than it seems to me that it shouldn't be hard to get some good shots out of it every now and then.
64816
Post by: washout77
Can't we just agree that there is no end all solution? Like, this is the same thing as the AC versus LC debate. There is no right answer. Both have their purposes, and trying to get one to do the other's job is gonna have it fail. Back in 5th when I used to use Chimera pill-boxes a lot for important squads in a gun-line, HB's were useful. In a list where I need to get close, like Meltavets, a HF was more useful to me than the HB.
Really, there is such a thing as choices. If there was only one end all solution, this game would get very very boring very very fast because we wouldn't have any choices in what we want to bring on our tanks and things.
Honestly, I might as well throw my opinion into the mix (as if I haven't already). A snap fired HB is basically worthless if you take into account average rolling (at least, my average rolling of crap). So is a non-firing HF. If I could take a hull mounted AC or ML I would take those instead. But we can't, unfortunately.
But the way we are approaching this is INCREDIBLY biased. We are putting both weapons in their ideal situations, and then comparing it to the other weapon that isn't even close to an ideal situation, and claiming the one weapon is better because it can do a job that it's designed to do better than a weapon that isn't. Sadly, knowing how these threads always go down when Ailaros and Peregrine go fist-a-cuffs over tactics, no one is ever going to budge from their opinion and nothing well come of it XD
63373
Post by: kestril
I think it's fairly clear-cut at this point even if you just go with the mathhammer. Even if the flamer only fires once, it deals more wounds than the snap-firing heavy bolter. I mean, Peregrine nailed it. The snap-fire HB is two lasguns.
That's not taking into account things like Dark Eldar, who want to get close, Orks, who want to get close, Eldar, who have short light anti-armor, demons, who want to get close, and tyranids, who have boatloads of guants stuck in cover on an objective somewhere.
Plus, the heavy flamer usually has more synergy with the meltavets/plasmavets inside when it comes to transport popping. Vets pop the transport, then the flamer roasts the occupants.
46080
Post by: xlEternitylx
Just to point out, as it was mentioned a few times:
Harlequins are a great example of a unit that laughs off a HB as they walk from one end of the table to the other. But I'm sure as heck not going anywhere near a flamer unless I have to. Going from a 2+ cover to a 5+ invun? Bleh!
25220
Post by: WarOne
I agree. There is no definitive answer because a HB and a HF each fit a different niche and do different things for you.
A HF on a chimera hull makes it look more intimidating, a psychological edge. Trundling 5 or 6 of these things down field with HFs means your serious about engaging in CC or at the very least, offering another threatening vector to the enemy. In chess, you want your opponent to react. If your using the chimeras along with LRs and Valks in the backfield as a gun-line, it's pretty one dimensional. Allowing the Chims to go forward with a templating weapon that can cause serious one-shots of template casualties, it inspires the opponent to focus on the more immediate threat they perceive. They will have to choose what threat to go for first; the flamer chimeras that can sweep troops off objectives, or the gunline LRs and Valks shooting in the backfield.
Of course, you cannot math hammer what situations the HF is useful as it requires forcing the opponent to make decisions and force them to make mistakes or choices that costs them advantages and opportunities. The HB and HF Chimeras are situated to do different things and control the battlefield for you in different ways.
41202
Post by: wallacethe5
I see both load outs are good.the HB works well if you have two on a chimera and remain static, treating them as AV12 bunkers.
How ever, if you run chimeras as anti MEQ and tank hunting, better have a multi laser and hull heavy flames.
See what purpose you wish the chimera to hold and load it out for such purposes. Next see what weapons the passengers hold and take into account the bubble threat range.
For example. Grey Knights henchmen consisting of 5 jakeroes bunkering in a chimera.since the passage weapons are classed as heavy, logically, your chimera will not move, hence load out witha turret HB and hull HB to get 6 HB shots.
If passengers are kitted with melta guns or plasma guns, than go for the multi laser for its S6 and the hull flamer to roast anything that is vulnerable to the S5 AP4 template. Due to the close range of passenger weapons, better kit the chimera for heavy close range fire that will do the most damage, hence, the heavy flamer.
41202
Post by: wallacethe5
Polonius wrote: Ailaros wrote:
Polonius wrote: When you have more than one on the table, that means one great shot a game.
This sounds like spam creating the illusion of effectiveness, though. Yeah, if you had 8 heavy flamers on the table, you might be able to get a decent hit every game, but 8 heavy bolters would still be a lot better.
Well, except in your scenario, with eight heavy flamers, you'll probably get four or five decent shots. Still better than a heavy bolter.
Polonius wrote:As always, this is an instance were taking a weapon that often, but not always, is devestating is better than taking a weapon that's always mediocre.
And here's the point of contention here. The idea that heavy flamers are going to go around racking up dozens of hits per game seems absurd to me. The range of the weapon is tiny, meaning its effectiveness is seriously questionable (people don't even take banewolves because they never get to fire, and that's on a fast chassis), given that your opponent can much, much more easily avoid a heavy flamer hit than staying out of range and LOS of a heavy bolter. If your opponents are really that afraid of them, they'll be picked off before they can do anything serious with a weapon that has a very limited range (a range of like 2 or 3 inches if you want to get more than a hit or two), or your opponents will just displace.
Game after game of racking up hits just seems like a fantasy.
I feel like it's one of those selective memory things. People remember that one time when a heavy flamer saved their butts, while ignoring that a vast majority of the time, they do nothing.
In this case, taking a weapon that is mediocre consistently is still better than a weapon that will do big damage a couple of times a rules edition. Just because the damage of a heavy bolter is less spectacular doesn't mean that you're doing less damage with it. Throw on the fact that heavy bolters can engage a wider range of targets, and can do anything on the move, and the heavy bolter looks like it consistently does more damage to more stuff over more time.
Well, one of the reasons it's hard to imagine a heavy flamer racking up "dozens of hits a game" is because nobody here said that. Maybe if you read what people wrote, and actually thought about it with your self serving objectivity, you wouldn't put words in people's mouths.
The range of a heavy flamer is, of course, "template." Said template is 8" long, with the widest part at the end, meaning once you add the chimera's movement, you can engage an enemy unit as far as 14" away, with the sweet spot only slightly closer. So, that means even a unit that got out of a transport, or is well out of charge range, can be flamed. Add in outflanks, bikes, deepstrikes, and units that just won an assault, and I've never found a shortage of enemy units near my lines. Do you really never see enemy units close to your army? If so, you're good enough to not need to worry about this point.
Also, the reason people dont' take the banewolf is because it's over 100pts, and will die the turn after it shoots. A chimera will die as well, but probably saving an infantry squad from a charge, and costs less than half the points, with the heavy flamer representing a very small fraction of those.
Polonius wrote:The Hull Heavy Flamer is more like a $50 chain restaurant gift card. You can't spend it anywhere, but when you get an opportunity, it's a nice big free meal.
Or, to put it another way, what would you rather have, $40 in cash, or a $50 gift certificate to a restaurant whose nearest location is 500 miles away?
In theory, the gift card is better, because you get more loot, but in practice, you're never actually going to spend that gift card, while you'd actually get some use out of the cash. In fact, this is the problem with gift cards at all, even to ones with more convenient locations. They're always inferior to cash because of the restrictions on their use.
Well, at this point you're arguing degrees. I think that heavy flamers get to fire for effect relatively often. I know this because I play them in my list, and I've used them for years in multiple editions. I can think of two "big" hits from two three round tournaments. Maybe I got unusually lucky (I know I did with one), but heavy bolters just couldn't have done what the flamers did. And that's with only have three or four chimeras in my list.
Polonius wrote:I've found that a canny opponent will often ignore a chimera with a HB in assault, because there's a hard limit on the damage it can cause.
So, let's break this down.
Firstly, we're talking about an opponent who is getting into assault with your chimeras. What kind of units are these? Well, if they're Sv4+, then they would have been chewed up pretty badly by heavy bolters and the vets inside (much less the entire rest of your army) before they even made it to close combat. If they're Sv3+ or better, then those heavy flamers are going to be roughly as useless as the heavy bolter. So you hit five marines with a heavy flamer. So what, you only killed one. That sarge with the meltabombs or all those krak grenades are still going to eat the chimera for lunch. What was really gained here by the heavy flamer?
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument you hit five marines with the heavy flamer. Not a bad assumption for a "decent" shot. that's 10/3 wounds, or just over one dead marine. Getting five hits with a heavy bolter (which results in the same amount of wounds) takes just over three turns of shooting at full BS, or 10 turns of snap fires.
This is my point: the heavy flamer does not need to rack of "dozens of hits" to equal the HB. Every 1.5 hits you get with a HF is the same as a full turn of shooting with the HB (not involving cover, with the HB at full BS).
Secondly, getting your tanks into close combat? What horde armies are rushing across the field anymore to get into close combat? None that can't be easily beaten off. What non-horde armies aren't going to be shooting your tanks to death long before they make it into close combat? Who is even doing cross-field charges, even with Sv3+?
What you're talking about makes sense internally, but I don't see how it actually applies to reality.
the fact that nobody does cross field charges is why you take flamers, and not heavy bolters, assuming you want a defensive weapon. the biggest threats to an IG gunline are units that are either very fast, outflank, deep strike, or can somehow prevent getting shot. I'm not worried about threats I have to merely outshoot. That's why I have heavy weapons and tanks and vendettas. I'm always worried about the stuff that just shows up.
I suppose it's less a matter of "why still the heavy flamer?" and more one of "why not the heavy bolter?"
Simply put? The heavy bolter never does anything.
Heavy bolters never does anything? My dear.... Space wolves long fangs would like a word with you.
65298
Post by: Afrodactyl
I think this has all come about by people being far too cautious overall with chimeras. Those things are tougher than you'd think. I actually get to fire chimera heavy flamers at least once a game, because Im very aggressive with them (as an ex green tide player). Its all about changing up mindsets and ideas, like bailing my vets out of their chimeras and sending 2 of said chimeras balls out into the teeth of an approaching ork mob. Yes, both vehicles were ripped to pieces the next turn, but I burned away about a dozen orks, and created difficult and dangerous terrain for them to get around in the process. I wouldnt have been able to do that with a hb.
Those heavy flamers are my lists anti-horde, so I treat them as such and I often get success from them. Orks, cultists, guardsmen, Marines; Ive burnt through several squads worth of each.
This thread is about changing your mindset, but not about what weapon you use; it should be on how to use the weapons we do have. Granted, the heavy bolter does have its uses, but with three shots on a bs3 frame (amongst other things), the heavy flamer is both situationally and universally better.
10424
Post by: somecallmeJack
Ailaros wrote:Peregrine wrote:will get to shoot consistently, but it will consistently fail to do any meaningful damage and will never do anything game-changing.
But you could make the exact same argument about the multilaser. What you're arguing for here is a 2x HF chimera, if the chance to do big damage is more important than doing a small amount consistently.
Peregrine wrote:A HF, on the other hand, will only rarely get to fire, but when it does it will do a lot of damage.
I don't see how this makes it better.
If a hull heavy bolter only kills one marine per game, while the heavy flamer goes three games without firing a shot, and then, every fourth game lands its template on an astonishing 6 marines, the heavy bolter still did three times as much damage over the course of four games.
I mean, what you're talking about is the same thing behind the deathstrike - game after game of not getting a shot off in the hopes that every once in awhile, it will do something cool. There's a reason you don't see many deathstrikes, compared to other HS options that do less damage, but do it consistently.
Peregrine has the way of it, but I have this to add.
I run mech vets, and every vehicle has a hull heavy flamer because it suits the style of play. My army isn't a gunline, it's very mobile, and the chances are if there are veteran units alive, they're pushing up the field to either get their special weapons in range, or to claim objectives.
If I was castling up at the back of the board, the heavy bolter might be more effective, but I consistently find myself in situations where some veterans have arrived next to a claimed objective, in cover, that they need to flush troops off of. The heavy flamer is ideal for this. It auto hits and negates cover saves, leaving my veterans free to take the objective. In such an instance I'd be firing the flamer at full BS and snapping the multilaser.
Your argument about only using the HF once every 4 games doesnt stand in my experience either, out of my last 8 games I've not used hull heavy flamers in maybe 1 or 2 of them.
At the beginning of the game I'll be using multilasers to strip hull points as I advance, but once I'm in the midfield I need that heavy flamer as my ace in the hole to deal with troops sitting on objectives.
11860
Post by: Martel732
The heavy flamer is just a much nastier weapon in 6th edition than the heavy bolter. Chimera hulls are cheap, so you can have both in a list which is even scarier.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Okay, so I'm starting to see where the fulcrum of the debate is.
How often will your heavy flamers get to fire?
Because the only serious argument for the heavy flamer here is the idea that it does more damage than a heavy bolter. If the heavy flamer doesn't actually do better damage, then there really isn't any reason to take the heavy flamer, as the heavy bolter beats out the flamer on practically every other metric (range, number of targets it can engage, flexibility, etc. etc.)
So, how much damage does a heavy flamer do?
Let's start with marines. Let's create a scenario in which a chimera gets to fire twice at full BS and twice as a snap fire before it is wrecked, and that, armed with a heavy flamer, it does no damage for two turns and then gets a 5-hit shot before it goes down.
In this scenario, the heavy bolter kills .88 marines to the heavy flamer's 1.1. The heavy flamer is technically better, but the most likely result of this scenario is one dead marine from both weapons. Roughly equal. In any case, not substantially better.
So, now let's look at the parameters of that example. Can I reasonably expect to get a few turns of stationary shooting with a chimera if I want it? Yes. Can I reasonably expect that 5 space marines will charge straight into my chimeras? Every game? Hardly.
And that's what's important here. The heavy bolter is pretty much guaranteed one space marine dead per game. The heavy flamer is only guaranteed one dead space marine PER GAME IT GETS TO FIRE AT ALL. Are you really getting a heavy flamer hit in EVERY game? Against THAT packed in of a target? No.
In fact, looking at the games I've played, and the battle reports I've read, heavy flamers don't seem to get to fire all that often unless it's on a super-mobile frame (shunting dreadknight, deepstriking terminators/obliterators, etc.), and when they do, they're usually hitting more like one or two models, because their opponents know how to displace.
This is a serious problem for the heavy flamer, because it puts a denominator underneath it. The heavy bolter kills one marine per game, so we'll call it a 1/1. How often are you getting a 5-hit blast with a particular chimera? Every other game? That's 1/2... half as good. Once every three games? Now it's a third as good. What if you get it once every three games, but you don't get a good, solid hit. Now you're looking at killing a space marine once every six games.
And that's why the heavy flamer is so much worse. You start by it not necessarily doing that much more damage than the heavy bolter to begin with, and then you have to divide it by every game in which it does literally nothing at all.
And that last part, I think, is what people are missing. You don't just look at how much damage it does when you hit, you have to also take into account its hit rate, which, for a heavy flamer is terrible. Not because you have to roll dice, but because the weapon isn't going to be able to shoot at all most of the time.
And then you look at other things. Can your opponents displace to reduce damage against a heavy flamer? Yes. Can they against a heavy bolter? No. Can your opponents easily stay out of range of a heavy flamer? Yes. Can they against a heavy bolter? No. Can your opponents easily wreck the vehicle before the heavy flamer is in range? Yes. Can they easily wreck it before the heavy bolter can at least fire once? No.
The denominator, here, is deceptively high for the heavy flamer. As such, it's pretty easy to say that the heavy bolter is twice as good, much less six or eight times as good.
So, if the heavy flamer isn't really doing more damage, then there isn't much doing for it. It does less damage, has a shorter range, has less flexibility, and can engage fewer target types than the heavy bolter. The heavy bolter is just plain better, and by no small margin.
20983
Post by: Ratius
The tactics for the arguement on what your weapon load-out is actually still the same in 6th ed as it is for 5th. If your not moving/camping, ML+HB. If your attacking, ML+HF.
I would echo this, albeit, it dosent cover every eventuality - nothing ever does but in a nutshell its sound imo.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Ailaros wrote: Can I reasonably expect that 5 space marines will charge straight into my chimeras? Every game? Hardly.
Why do you keep saying that the Marines have to charge straight at you? That's not even close to true. You're coming in here with an expectation and proving it no matter what. You do realize that you can move and fire the Flamer, right?
Clearly you came in with an open mind and objectivity at heart.
I can guarantee you that as a Nid player I'm far more scared of the HF than I am the HB. You will not always play Marines.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Ailaros wrote:
So, now let's look at the parameters of that example. Can I reasonably expect to get a few turns of stationary shooting with a chimera if I want it? Yes. Can I reasonably expect that 5 space marines will charge straight into my chimeras? Every game? Hardly.
The Marines won't charge straight into your Chimeras, but fortunately your Chimeras can charge straight into them. Additionally, there are other units such as deepstriking or outflanking reserves and fast bikes who may base their entire deployment decision on the presence or lack of a nearby heavy flamer.
Ailaros wrote:
And that's what's important here. The heavy bolter is pretty much guaranteed one space marine dead per game. The heavy flamer is only guaranteed one dead space marine PER GAME IT GETS TO FIRE AT ALL. Are you really getting a heavy flamer hit in EVERY game? Against THAT packed in of a target? No.
Actually, yes, unless you only play games against other gunlines OR your opponent deliberately avoids the Heavy Flamer Chimeras, the latter of which is actually a great thing.
Ailaros wrote:
In fact, looking at the games I've played, and the battle reports I've read, heavy flamers don't seem to get to fire all that often unless it's on a super-mobile frame (shunting dreadknight, deepstriking terminators/obliterators, etc.), and when they do, they're usually hitting more like one or two models, because their opponents know how to displace.
Displacement is not really that common at least around here. Displacing forces some of your models to leave cover, which allows them to be focus fired by, say, an executioner or something.
Ailaros wrote:
This is a serious problem for the heavy flamer, because it puts a denominator underneath it. The heavy bolter kills one marine per game, so we'll call it a 1/1. How often are you getting a 5-hit blast with a particular chimera? Every other game? That's 1/2... half as good. Once every three games? Now it's a third as good. What if you get it once every three games, but you don't get a good, solid hit. Now you're looking at killing a space marine once every six games.
Eight chimeras are basically guaranteed to get >1 good flamer hit per game, if the enemy isn't a silly static gunline.
Ailaros wrote:
And that's why the heavy flamer is so much worse. You start by it not necessarily doing that much more damage than the heavy bolter to begin with, and then you have to divide it by every game in which it does literally nothing at all.
Which is a circumstance entirely up to the players, and therefore is at least partly under your control.
Ailaros wrote:
And that last part, I think, is what people are missing. You don't just look at how much damage it does when you hit, you have to also take into account its hit rate, which, for a heavy flamer is terrible. Not because you have to roll dice, but because the weapon isn't going to be able to shoot at all most of the time.
People aren't missing anything. They understand the hit rate, and the other disadvantages, and find that the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages.
Ailaros wrote:
And then you look at other things. Can your opponents displace to reduce damage against a heavy flamer? Yes.
Which usually brings them out of cover to be focus fired by something else - there's usually not enough room on the table for displacement. Also, deepstriking units cannot displace without some pretty major sacrifices.
Because they don't need to, which means that the enemy can happily stand in BTB behind an Aegis line or in a woods and get saves for every single model.
Ailaros wrote:
Can your opponents easily stay out of range of a heavy flamer? Yes. Can they against a heavy bolter? No.
If they are deliberately altering their tactics (deep strike position, assault moves, etc) to avoid getting flamer'd, or if they are staying out of range with a unit that wants to close, then that's a tactical victory already.
Ailaros wrote:
Can your opponents easily wreck the vehicle before the heavy flamer is in range? Yes. Can they easily wreck it before the heavy bolter can at least fire once? No.
If they fire at your Chimeras and not your Leman Russes or whatnot then that's ok - and the Heavy Bolter firing once does feth all, so woop.
Ailaros wrote:
The denominator, here, is deceptively high for the heavy flamer. As such, it's pretty easy to say that the heavy bolter is twice as good, much less six or eight times as good.
So, if the heavy flamer isn't really doing more damage, then there isn't much doing for it. It does less damage, has a shorter range, has less flexibility, and can engage fewer target types than the heavy bolter. The heavy bolter is just plain better, and by no small margin.
While the heavy bolter may be able to engage more target types, it doesn't do anything hardly against most of them. Whereas the Heavy Flamer, while limited to medium and light infantry, will absolutely murder them. Consider the following:
1) Heavy bolter + multilaser, stationary, vs SM scouts at 10"
2) Heavy Flamer + multilaser, moving, vs SM scouts at 10"
EVEN reducing the Multilaser to Snap Firing, the second option remains better than the first option.
10424
Post by: somecallmeJack
Ailaros wrote:Okay, so I'm starting to see where the fulcrum of the debate is.
How often will your heavy flamers get to fire?
Because the only serious argument for the heavy flamer here is the idea that it does more damage than a heavy bolter. If the heavy flamer doesn't actually do better damage, then there really isn't any reason to take the heavy flamer, as the heavy bolter beats out the flamer on practically every other metric (range, number of targets it can engage, flexibility, etc. etc.)
So, how much damage does a heavy flamer do?
Let's start with marines. Let's create a scenario in which a chimera gets to fire twice at full BS and twice as a snap fire before it is wrecked, and that, armed with a heavy flamer, it does no damage for two turns and then gets a 5-hit shot before it goes down.
In this scenario, the heavy bolter kills .88 marines to the heavy flamer's 1.1. The heavy flamer is technically better, but the most likely result of this scenario is one dead marine from both weapons. Roughly equal. In any case, not substantially better.
So, now let's look at the parameters of that example. Can I reasonably expect to get a few turns of stationary shooting with a chimera if I want it? Yes. Can I reasonably expect that 5 space marines will charge straight into my chimeras? Every game? Hardly.
And that's what's important here. The heavy bolter is pretty much guaranteed one space marine dead per game. The heavy flamer is only guaranteed one dead space marine PER GAME IT GETS TO FIRE AT ALL. Are you really getting a heavy flamer hit in EVERY game? Against THAT packed in of a target? No.
In fact, looking at the games I've played, and the battle reports I've read, heavy flamers don't seem to get to fire all that often unless it's on a super-mobile frame (shunting dreadknight, deepstriking terminators/obliterators, etc.), and when they do, they're usually hitting more like one or two models, because their opponents know how to displace.
This is a serious problem for the heavy flamer, because it puts a denominator underneath it. The heavy bolter kills one marine per game, so we'll call it a 1/1. How often are you getting a 5-hit blast with a particular chimera? Every other game? That's 1/2... half as good. Once every three games? Now it's a third as good. What if you get it once every three games, but you don't get a good, solid hit. Now you're looking at killing a space marine once every six games.
And that's why the heavy flamer is so much worse. You start by it not necessarily doing that much more damage than the heavy bolter to begin with, and then you have to divide it by every game in which it does literally nothing at all.
And that last part, I think, is what people are missing. You don't just look at how much damage it does when you hit, you have to also take into account its hit rate, which, for a heavy flamer is terrible. Not because you have to roll dice, but because the weapon isn't going to be able to shoot at all most of the time.
And then you look at other things. Can your opponents displace to reduce damage against a heavy flamer? Yes. Can they against a heavy bolter? No. Can your opponents easily stay out of range of a heavy flamer? Yes. Can they against a heavy bolter? No. Can your opponents easily wreck the vehicle before the heavy flamer is in range? Yes. Can they easily wreck it before the heavy bolter can at least fire once? No.
The denominator, here, is deceptively high for the heavy flamer. As such, it's pretty easy to say that the heavy bolter is twice as good, much less six or eight times as good.
So, if the heavy flamer isn't really doing more damage, then there isn't much doing for it. It does less damage, has a shorter range, has less flexibility, and can engage fewer target types than the heavy bolter. The heavy bolter is just plain better, and by no small margin.
If you play guard aggressively you *will* get opportunities to use the flamer, because you'll create them. I'm always shadowing objectives with chimeras, because I know the troops who sit on them are going to be in cover most of the time. I want to cause the maximum number of hits on that squad, and negate their cover if at all possible.
If the only conceivable scenario you can think of where you might want the flamer over the bolter is 5 marines charging the chimeras then you're playing very reactively. But that might be your style of play, you play a foot/hybrid guard list if I remember from your past posts (I might have just totally made that up). In such a list, where you're using the chimera as a gunboat, in a static list, you probably do want the HB.
It's far from useless though, your assertion that it does less damage on average because it fire less doesn't hold up. The times it does fire are, more often than not, game changing (at least in my experience). The one dead marine thats statistically guaranteed from the HB is less important to me than clearing out and claiming objectives (and I run enough HFs that I use them for this in games more often than not). I'm not convinced about your spreading out argument, either. Even at max coherency, you'll probably still hit at least 3 members of the squad with the flamer, probably more. The bolter will only ever hit 3, and thats on a good roll. We're not talking about flamers vs a BS5 weapon here, chimera mounted HBs really aren't as accurate as you're giving them credit for.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
I started running heavy flamer and autocannon turret, and have not looked back.
I transport vets with a pair of meltaguns and a heavy flamer.
Autocannon gives me a good long range option, the meltaguns pop heavy armor. The pair of heavy flamers give me a lot of flex.
-Matt
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Indeed, the Autocannon turrets are on my Chimeras, but I am changing them to multi-lasers.
They were autocannons in the old ABG list when you could make them Str 8 verses vehicles. Now they're going back to multilasers and the Chimera is no longer being fielded as a light tank by me.
3309
Post by: Flinty
I agree with Unit1126.
I don't think its useful to directly compare the HB with the HF. The HB is a relatively simple beast that just increases your firepower. What the HF gives you is as much a deterrent or insurance weapon than anything else. By holding the threat of massive damage on anything that gets close to your lines it canstart to affect your opponent's battle plan, which is much more useful than a measly 1 kill per game if you're planning on moving the tank much.
Many of the scenarios in the rule book involve taking objectives of one sort or another. This makes it much more likely that you can position a HF chimera as a threat to enemy troops.
Of course there will be games when you don't do very much with the HFs but the same can be said for the HBs as well.
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
From what I've read in this thread, there seems to be common themes on both sides which are incorrect. 1) The idea that HF won't be fired. That's just not true, I field roughly 50:50 HB:HF and I'd say I get more than one flamer off per game. Consistently hitting more than 3 models. Another thing to note on the same theme, is that I've chosen to use the HHF and snap fire the ML in certain cases. 2) Relating the HHF to the Death Strike. A little silly, but I see where you're coming from. The similarities are sort of there, but when you extrapolate and argument that far it starts to fall apart. 3) Stating that the opposing player must come to you. This is false. The HF can easily be in position away from your lines, chimeras can move forward fairly well, even when I do start out cowering behind an ADL. The other side of the argument has issues too: 1) This "huge reward" or "massive damage" is an exaggeration. Sorry guys, it's just a heavy flamer. Against MEQ it pretty much sucks, and they are a rather large portion of the game. It's also more crappy against vehicles than the HB - while that's not a massive argument in favour of the HB, which is similarly crappy (albeit with 3 crappy hits instead of 1) I fail to see the "huge reward" here. As I stated, I mix and match. I don't believe there's a definitive answer for this. The HB on a stationary platform essentially doubles the output of a chimera, but there are occasions when the HF really shines. Clearing xenos off of objectives is about the only use I've gotten out of it, but it's been good at that small role.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Chimeras, like any other vehicle, can move 18" in a single turn. It can then move 6" then next turn and use the flamer. I don't see how this is that difficult.
If I were an IG player, I'd so be playing the "Here's my AV 12 wall now that you suckers traded out your meltas for plasmas! HAHAHA!"
38800
Post by: DaddyWarcrimes
Martel732 wrote:Chimeras, like any other vehicle, can move 18" in a single turn. It can then move 6" then next turn and use the flamer. I don't see how this is that difficult.
If I were an IG player, I'd so be playing the "Here's my AV 12 wall now that you suckers traded out your meltas for plasmas! HAHAHA!"
This game rules. The Chimera Cavalry charge actually works fairly well, if you are willng to try it. If you don't want to put eight of them on the board, and insist on playing like they are the pillboxes of 5th edition, you are missing out.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Even with hull points, the amount of AV 12 the IG can field is hard to deal with. Unlike my BA, the IG stil have many 5th edition lists that work just fine. (Just add a couple more vendettas)
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Indeed, I often wish I could take empty Chimeras as support tanks for my Leman Russes. With a Heavy Flamer they make great cavalry vehicles and you're not losing much if you utilize their mobility.
They're also significantly more mobile than the modern Russ, which is what would make them a great heavy flamer platform.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ailaros wrote:Let's start with marines. Let's create a scenario in which a chimera gets to fire twice at full BS and twice as a snap fire before it is wrecked, and that, armed with a heavy flamer, it does no damage for two turns and then gets a 5-hit shot before it goes down.
And here's the problem, you're creating a unrealistic scenario to make the HB look better. Not only do you have a Chimera surviving four turns (pretty optimistic in my experience) you have it stationary for two turns. That's a completely ridiculous assumption, the Chimera's job is to deliver the things inside it and that means moving every turn. There's no way you're going to spend a third of the game sitting in one place to fire your HB at full BS instead of getting the squad inside into position.
In reality you will have 3-4 turns of snap fire with the HB, which means 0.3333-0.4444 dead marines. So that's significantly worse than the HF.
In this scenario, the heavy bolter kills .88 marines to the heavy flamer's 1.1. The heavy flamer is technically better, but the most likely result of this scenario is one dead marine from both weapons. Roughly equal. In any case, not substantially better.
It's more than just technically better because you're ignoring the predictability factor.
The HB is completely unpredictable. It might kill a marine every few games, but you never know when and you can never base your plan on having its firepower available.
The HF is very predictable. You might not want to use it every game, but when you do decide to use it you can expect it to work.
Even if the average kills were exactly identical (and they aren't) that would still be a strong argument in favor of the HF.
Can I reasonably expect to get a few turns of stationary shooting with a chimera if I want it? Yes.
But why would you want it? You bought the Chimera as a transport, not a gun tank. Why would you want to sit around doing nothing to deliver the unit inside just to get some extra HB hits? You're completely losing sight of the whole point of the unit in an effort to "prove" that the HB is better.
The heavy bolter is pretty much guaranteed one space marine dead per game.
Err, no. Let's do the math.
Under your (bad) assumption of two turns stationary and two turns moving you have a 60% chance of killing at least one marine.
Under the more realistic assumption of three turns moving you have a 29% chance of killing at least one marine.
Even under your generous assumptions that is not even close to "pretty much guaranteed one space marine dead per game". If you're going to do math, you need to do it correctly instead of just making stuff up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Griddlelol wrote:The other side of the argument has issues too:
1) This "huge reward" or "massive damage" is an exaggeration. Sorry guys, it's just a heavy flamer. Against MEQ it pretty much sucks, and they are a rather large portion of the game.
But that's not the point. It's not that the HF is some kind of magic marine-destroying superweapon, it's that the HB is so utterly worthless that even a situational weapon like the HF is better.
752
Post by: Polonius
You guys do realize that Ailaros's argument is essentially "I can't imagine a situation where an enemy unit will be within 14" of my chimera." Or I suppose, where it will be there more than once every couple of games. That's it. Well, and I guess he also assumes that Chimeras don't move. Because we all know how bad the IG need 55pts worth of mediocre shooting. When a base premise is flawed and clung to, it's not an argument. Maybe I'm playing wrong, but I seem to regularly have enemy units within 12" or so of my chimeras.
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
Peregrine wrote: it's that the HB is so utterly worthless that even a situational weapon like the HF is better.
Except that the HB isn't worthless. It's not unlikely for a chimera to be sitting still, especially if I'm playing against someone who needs to come to me, or on the Emperor's Will. If there's cover mid-field, it's quite reasonable to sit that chimera still. Doubling the fire-power, even if it is only mediocre fire-power, is not something to be ignored.
It's very rare for something like this to be so absolute, and with the multitude of roles vets in chimeras can perform, I don't believe you can ever say "they're always moving" or "they're always still" as the minute changes in the game will heavily affect it.
62226
Post by: Glocknall
I think the point most people are missing is that the HHF is a defensive weapon. When placed with other chimeras it creates a 14" exclusion zone to enemy light infantry.
Not only that it allows you to punish deep strikers going after your more threatening units and push infantry out of cover. The HHB does none of those things. If you decide to pillbox behind a Aegis, then the HHB is better in those situations but still not stellar.
38800
Post by: DaddyWarcrimes
I'd argue that Emperor's Will is one of the scenarios where Chimeras need to move the most. You want to get them field so that you are fighting your opponent as far from you objective as possible, while threatening to break through and bathe his in heavy flamer and plasma fire.
It's an alien play style to someone who refuses to play anything other than a foot horde., but it works if you spend the time getting comfortable with it.
339
Post by: ender502
Alairos-
I think what we're seeing is a basic difference in how the chimeras are used and not the shot potential or stat versus stat of either weapon.
If the Chimera is just an add on to get a Multi Laser and a heavy bolter for a gun line... which from your last battle reposrt SEEMS to be how you use your IS...then the heavy bolter is the better weapon. But I think very few people actually us ethe Chimera as a way to get a few more heavy weapons (though that may be a great idea...not making an judgments on that). It seems like you see more folks advocating for Chimeras with the PCS 4x flamer combo. Basically, as an attacking tool designed to kill of mass infantry on the move or to tackle things in cover. For either of those roles the flamer in the hull becomes arguably the better weapon.
I guess it is a bit of self fulfilling prophecy for the chimera. Those that use the hull flamer will almost always get more chances to shoot because they are using the chimera in such a manner they will get that option.
ender502
10886
Post by: Phanixis
The problem with the hull HB is a problem of redundancy. For anyone who plans to be constantly moving their Chimera, only one weapon can ever be fired to full effect. Under these circumstances, it makes little sense to take two copies of the same, or very similar weapons, as you are only ever making effective use of one of them at a time. Better to take two completely different weapons, and use the one that is the most effective under the circumstances. Hence pairing the mutli-laser with the heavy flamer as opposed to the all to similar HB.
41915
Post by: BlkTom
Ailaros wrote:
6th ed means that moving around causes you to snap fire. You can't snap fire a flamer at all. At least you could score a hit or two with a heavy bolter.
Snap fire the ML and fire the hull HF as your main weapon. Odds are, since you only hit on a 6, your getting 1 hit every 2 turns. Marines are benchmark, so on average your wounding and on average they are making thier cover save. So your failing to have any effect what-so-ever snap firing your HB, on average.
Ailaros wrote:
6th ed gave us slowly glancing vehicles to death, which the heavy bolter is much, much more likely to do than a heavy flamer (and better compliments the turret weapon, which is likewise fishing for glances at range).
Ummm. 95% of the Vehicles your facing in this game are not AV 10 or 11. The Heavy Flamer is also Str 5, so your point makes no fricking sense since they are both Str 5... fact is, neither will glance a vehicle to death, because your Lascannons/melta guns and ACs/plasma guns should be killing them and doing the job ten times better due to the higher Str.
Ailaros wrote:
We also now have focus fire, which means that you can actually use a heavy bolter's Ap.
Not really, because if we use the benchmark Marine, he still gets his armor save. If your not firing on a 3+ save fig, you still need to hit. If your not firing on a 3+ save fig and it is completily in the open, this would be the only case where snap-firing the ML and putting full BS on the HB is worthwhile. To be frank, this situation is even less likily to happen then what you claim is an opportunity to use the HF to completily ignore cover. There are plenty of attacking units and defensive units that rely on cover saves, from Clowns to units that use Invisibility to units behind a ADL that are not expose for Focused Fire... and the First two are attacking units most times, so you may be facing them Turn 2 as you advance on each other... much less Orks using KFF and Bikes getting Jink or smoke screen (both cover saves).
Ailaros wrote:
We also have fliers, which heavy bolters are crummy against, but at least you get to SHOOT them at fliers. 6 shots from a chimera, which means you usually get at least A hit against a flier, rather than it being a complete waste half the time.
This is a rare moment you have a valid point, as rolling BS 1 to get 6s doesn't matter if your snap-firing or not and it is impossible to use a template weapon against a Flyer. This is where just hitting them can bring down a Swooping Flying MC, no damage required. But again, there are better units for this and really one should have a dedicated AA unit anyway. You do not rely on rolling 6s to deal with Flyers. If the Flyer is not a swooping MC, your shots are wasted and useless 95% of the time.
Ailaros wrote:
Furthermore, it's now easier to hit vehicles in close combat, which makes a 0" range weapon seem awfully risky.
I fail to see your point or why this matters. Besides, a template has a range. But I will point out if your Vets pop a transport, you can then have your Chimera HF the passangers since they are all clusered up and thier cover save is now null and void.
Ailaros wrote:
I guess if your opponents can't see them coming, a heavy flamer could be useful, or if you have literally nothing else to clear off an enemy objective with (and they didn't shoot the chimera before it got there), then I guess I could see a few uses for it, but it really does seem to me that the heavy bolter is a lot better than the heavy flamer.
Your opponent should always see them coming, since they can look at your list. I do not see it as one being better than the other, I see which one is the better fit for the tactics being used. If your camping behind a ADL with Camo-netting, the HB is the best weapon to take for that tactic. If your advancing on the foe, I see the HF as the best weapon for that tactic because your goal is to get close to your foe. Your more likily to face units with cover saves and you have the option to snap-fire the ML /and/ fire the HF as the main weapon. Your also more likily to face destroyed enemy transports where the troops are still using the cover of the wreckage.
I am not saying this tool is the superior tool over that tool. But I am saying that you use the right tool for the right job and use that tool properly. Can someone argue for having hull HFs on a rear camping unit to counter DSing units? Sure, that is a valid point. But more often than not they are sitting back using the HB to fire on units across the board because not every list is a DSing list. Can you have a Hull HB for an attacking Chimera? Sure, but if you realize that all your hitting on is 6s and maybe getting 2 hits a game in a 4 Turn game. But if your also saying that you will never be in a posistion after moving 6" a turn to run into a unit that is using a cover save (which means your at thier deploy edge by Turn 4) except for maybe 1 Turn, or that you will never use it because your destroyed...well, your not using the HB either if your destroyed (and thus down to 0-1 hit a game) and if your not able to use that HF at least 1-2 times a game... your doing something wrong. Your placing the terrain too and you should be using that to your advantage, offensivily and defensivily.
27727
Post by: Bonde
I see the desicion between the HB and HF as a quite simple one. If the Chimera will be moving, because the squad inside has short range weapons and/or needs to capture objectives (meltavets) it should have a HF. If the Chimera can allow its passengers to remain stationary, for example if it acts as a bunker for a CCS, it should have a HB. All my chimeras are intended for assault and capturin objectives, because tatical marines and terminators slaughter regular guardsmen, so all of them have heavy flamers.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
Both tempt players into a potential bad move. The HF can tempt players into closing range when they should back off. The HB tempts players into not moving when they should. In the end what matters most is positioning and movement not nickel and dime differences between 2 weapons.
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
schadenfreude wrote:Both tempt players into a potential bad move. The HF can tempt players into closing range when they should back off. The HB tempts players into not moving when they should. In the end what matters most is positioning and movement not nickel and dime differences between 2 weapons.
So it seems the best choice is secret choice three, take no hull weapon at all!
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
TheLionOfTheForest wrote: schadenfreude wrote:Both tempt players into a potential bad move. The HF can tempt players into closing range when they should back off. The HB tempts players into not moving when they should. In the end what matters most is positioning and movement not nickel and dime differences between 2 weapons.
So it seems the best choice is secret choice three, take no hull weapon at all!
It's an asset and liability. The main job of the chimera is to protect and move troops so they can score and win games. When IG players go into 4 pages of debate over the effectiveness if HB V HF it's a sign that players commonly take their eye of the ball. It's 1 low end heavy weapon, don't get greedy at the expense of your troops.
752
Post by: Polonius
I dunno. Counting on the Chimera to protect troops for more than a turn or two is... optimistic.
I mean, you're overall point that picking hull weapon isn't a big part of strategy is a good one, but lets not pretend that AV12 and 3HP are dead 'ard.
64616
Post by: Color Sgt. Kell
I never use it. Maybe in a small game, on a 4x4 when your enemy has no anti tank. Maybe in that situation and other such situations it can be useful. Otherwise, the heavy bolter has more chance of killing anything out of hf range.
44349
Post by: Tyrs13
I personally would use a ML + HF combo on my Chimeras.
I would move them up firing the ML and when i get up close to my objective throwing out a flamer and watching everything burn.
I kinda hate that my SoB have to use Rhinos ... cant even put a Flamer or Melta gun on it.
(Question that may have been covered can a Vehicle with a Flamer deal the D3 wounds when charged?)
53403
Post by: TheCaptain
Tyrs13 wrote:
(Question that may have been covered can a Vehicle with a Flamer deal the D3 wounds when charged?)
Vehicles cannot overwatch, sadly.
68672
Post by: ausYenLoWang
Tyrs13 wrote: (Question that may have been covered can a Vehicle with a Flamer deal the D3 wounds when charged?) Vehicles cant overwatch
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
This thread reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where he has to take Bania out to a nice meal. Bania keeps going over the pluses and minuses of either going to Mendy's where the meal will be good but they have been there before; or going to a new restaurant where they can try a new place but the meal might no be as good.
I think we have covered all bases where the Hflamer is better than the HBolter and vice versa. I can't really see anymore tactical data to be added to this discussion.
3309
Post by: Flinty
But you have to leave space for those who come late to the discussion and need to have their opinion heard without bothering to see if their key points have already been made... at length... repeatedly
|
|