99813
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 12:58:10
Post by: Nerak
Are flamers underpowered this edition? Should they be given 2d6 wounds? Has,anyone found a good use for them? It feels like a waste to use up your special weapon slots for a charge counter that you might not use.
Edit: got the phone working again. This was about a page long before but whatever.
59473
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 13:13:24
Post by: hobojebus
They average 3-4 automatic hits how's that underpowered?
They roll a D6 that's better than most old template weapons got in the transition.
117377
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 13:21:09
Post by: TarkinLarson
Maybe this is a candidate for 2x d3 instead, if you think it's overpowered?
53740
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 13:31:50
Post by: ZebioLizard2
They aren't as bad but they really, really need to be changed so that they deal with hordes rather then stacking the wounds on a single target.
1d6 + 2d3/1d6 per every 10 models for example.
27890
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 14:04:23
Post by: MagicJuggler
Bring back templates. Use Bolt Action AOEs instead of a scatter die.
93856
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 14:10:52
Post by: Galef
I think the real reason you don't see them is because of the many "drop outside 9 inches" rules. Flamers need to be close to be used and the current best method doesn't get them close enough
And other platforms that can get them closer are often better used for Melta/Plasma, etc
I think if Flamers got bumped to 10" we'd probably see them more often
94103
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 14:20:04
Post by: Yarium
I think Flamer's are pretty dang good, but the meta just isn't very appropriate for them. When I'm playing gribbly nids or harlequins, Flamers are really something I'm scared of. They are primarily an anti-close combat horde weapon, giving you a powerful overwatch shot as the enemy moves in, giving you a chance to reduce the number of attacks and hopefully inflict some Morale casualties on them.
However, the current meta still greatly favours shooting over close combat, and Flamers are very ineffective against Big Bugs or Dreadnaughts or other vehicles that can tank the damage easily and prevent the flamer from working against future charges.
5386
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 14:21:19
Post by: sennacherib
I like flamers.
They routinely put up 3-4 hits. Great on models with fly since you can advance and shoot the flamers, overwatch when the enemy changes, then fall back and flame again.
28305
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 14:33:58
Post by: Talizvar
Flamers are all good except for one single stat.
They can apply D6 to a unit so full points to a character model (give 'em a good dousing) or some hits to a bunch of guys (spray and pray).
Auto-hit, take that for what it is.
The problem is the 8" range.
Every setup rule ensures 9" away so we do not get a flamer alpha-strike.
It is scary close for getting into assault so there is no guarantee you get to use the weapon before you get stuck-in BUT the as-mentioned overwatch is there.
It is very much an opportunity or defensive weapon but if you change the range at all, the weapon would quickly become overpowered.
6949
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 15:07:26
Post by: zedsdead
yea... getting flamers in range to do damage is very hard this edition. The range is too short to use on DS and they need to spend at least 1 turn moving to get them in range.
I have found the only effective way of using Flamers was to put them on my super heavy tanks. Running 4 Twin heavy flamers and the tank can move and advance to get into range. Autohitting hard to hit units is great..as well as protecting the tank from charge via overwatch
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yea... getting flamers in range to do damage is very hard this edition. The range is too short to use on DS and they need to spend at least 1 turn moving to get them in range.
I have found the only effective way of using Flamers was to put them on my super heavy tanks. Running 4 Twin heavy flamers and the tank can move and advance to get into range. Autohitting hard to hit units is great..as well as protecting the tank from charge via overwatch
19750
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 15:14:27
Post by: Nym
Flamers suffer from being the same old short range weapon they've been for 7 editions, while everything else in the game has changed.
When charge distances were 6" and everybody was moving 6" a turn, you could gauge where to position yourself to use them. Nowadays unless your flamers are on a mobile plateform, they're pretty much worthless.
I think giving all flamers a 9" (yes, 9, not 10) would help as it would greatly increase their chance of being used in Overwatch.
Stronger flamers (like the Heldrake's flamer or the Redeemer's) should also be changed. D6 S6 D2 autohits is trash. Give them 2D6 S6 D1, like the Hellhound. This way they can at least clear hordes.
49704
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 15:27:56
Post by: sfshilo
Huh? It's an autohit assault weapon.
They are fantastic, with a transport you can turn 2 wreck hoard armies.
Also overwatch is a thing as well right? Flamers are fantastic.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 15:31:16
Post by: Infantryman
I can't speak for everyone's games, but the local "meta" here looks like flamers are disadvantaged due to the sheer lack of good terrain in use. It looks like typical tables have little cover, little safe approach, and little close quarters fighting - thus that 8" range just doesn't get a time to shine.
M.
91290
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 15:31:53
Post by: Kap'n Krump
I'm a bit biased, but no, I don't miss the days where 2 models get 17 hits that ignore cover and armor.
Honestly, I think flamers need just a tiny bit of a nerf - chiefly in that they always, ALWAYS, hit - after advancing, on overwatch, at flyers, etc. I think in some situations they should have limited effectiveness.
Though, they should bring back flamer's ability to ignore cover saves.
71534
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 15:33:06
Post by: Bharring
When most of your AT is CC, and the LR has 2xSuperAwesomeFlamers, it can be painful.
Or you have a bunch of Scytheguard in your face, and want to lock 'em down.
The basic flamer isn't OP, but there are some scary options that use them.
(Although many of the scary options are overcosted anyways, so not really a problem competitively.)
81759
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 15:38:15
Post by: BaconCatBug
All D6 weapons should be 2D3 instead.
110703
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 15:51:25
Post by: Galas
Flamers should be 1d6 hits +1 hits for every 10 models. So agaisn't a 30-man unit they hit 1d6+3 times. Probably make them 1 or 2 points more expensive (For the cheaper flamers, more expensive and heavy flamers should receive a bigger point costs)
And they shouldn't be able to hit flyers.
113188
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 15:58:41
Post by: pismakron
Standard flamers should be Assault 6 8" S3 AP- D1.
93856
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 17:37:21
Post by: Galef
Or D3+2 would work too. Gives a min3/max5 spread. Much better than min1/max6
110703
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 17:38:12
Post by: Galas
But that doesn't fix that Flamers aren't good enough agaisnt hordes as they should.
108023
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 17:39:57
Post by: Marmatag
Flamers: Weak against hordes, strong against single targets and flyers.
By design.
Not going to complain though. Gaunts need any help they can get.
93856
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 17:55:22
Post by: Galef
Maybe Flamers should get an addition D6 if the target unit contains 10+ models? And make it 10" range?
I'm pretty sure both of those changes would make Flamers worth their point cost.
71534
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 17:57:32
Post by: Bharring
Or always hit only on a natural 6, but get 1 attack per model in the unit?
Lots of interesting ways they can do it. The "if the target unit contains 10+ models" mechanic, if it were widely available, would feel janky (twice as effective vs a 10-man Wyche squad than a 9-man?).
113188
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:08:51
Post by: pismakron
Bharring wrote:Or always hit only on a natural 6, but get 1 attack per model in the unit?
Lots of interesting ways they can do it. The "if the target unit contains 10+ models" mechanic, if it were widely available, would feel janky (twice as effective vs a 10-man Wyche squad than a 9-man?).
Always hit on a natural 6? What good would that do?
71534
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:13:41
Post by: Bharring
Against 30-man units, you'll average 5 hits. Against a Flyer, you're unlikely to hit.
I don't think I tuned it right - perhaps a 5+. But the point is, more hits on more models, and scales without big breakpoints. Worse vs 1-model or 5-man units, better vs 10-man units.
(Specifying 'natural' 6, because impacts on aim shouldn't impact hits on a flamer.)
20901
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:15:51
Post by: Luke_Prowler
You have to be careful with extra dice combined with auto hit because of over watch. 2d6 against 10+ units doesn't seem big when you're talking about hordes (although on average that's still 3 dead boy that would make your points back instantly) but 4d6 (2 in the shooting phase, 2 in overwatch) auto hits against an assaulting unit can kill a massive chunk of a unit with no way to dodge it
110703
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:22:52
Post by: Galas
Yeah, +1d6 hits for every 10 models is too big. +1 hit for every 10 models is better.
Agaisnt a 30 man unit, your damage doubles compared with a 1-9 man unit. And the break points aren't as big.
71534
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:29:26
Post by: Bharring
I kinda wish it scaled faster. It should roast Gaunts. Lots of fried turkey (Marines need Thanksgiving, too!). But should be a minor threat to a flyer.
D3 per 5? That way, the Flyer takes 2 hits on average, most squads take d3 or 2d3, and 30 man hordes take 6d3.
(Not that I want Gaunts nerfed, but Flamers should do mean, mean things to them. Gaunts should be balanced around that - along with Conscripts and such.)
83175
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:35:15
Post by: pinecone77
 Galas wrote:Yeah, +1d6 hits for every 10 models is too big. +1 hit for every 10 models is better.
Agaisnt a 30 man unit, your damage doubles compared with a 1-9 man unit. And the break points aren't as big.
I think you could better justify D6, +1 per each 10 models Over the first ten.....a little less fierce, and other weapons do use a simular formula.
110703
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:39:05
Post by: Galas
Bharring wrote:I kinda wish it scaled faster. It should roast Gaunts. Lots of fried turkey (Marines need Thanksgiving, too!). But should be a minor threat to a flyer.
D3 per 5? That way, the Flyer takes 2 hits on average, most squads take d3 or 2d3, and 30 man hordes take 6d3.
(Not that I want Gaunts nerfed, but Flamers should do mean, mean things to them. Gaunts should be balanced around that - along with Conscripts and such.)
Flamers shouldn't hit flyers.
And thats too brutal. I assume you are trying to balance it from the perspective of Tac Marines having max 2 flamers per unit. But think about untis like Sisters of Silence or Thousand Sons with their all flamer squads.
Flamers are a cheap-anti horde weapon. d6 hits +1 for every 10 models after the first 10 ones is good enough for a weapon that cheap. They shouldn't destroy hordes by themselves at least not without a couple of flamers.
We want to balance anti-horde weapons, not to make hordes unplayable.
71534
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:40:54
Post by: Bharring
D6 +1 every 10 works.
I was also coloring my assumptions based on some of the nastier weapons that use the same rules, assuming the changes apply to them. May have overdone it.
At any rate, interesting proposed rule. I think it'd be better than current rules.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:43:58
Post by: Infantryman
 Luke_Prowler wrote:You have to be careful with extra dice combined with auto hit because of over watch. 2d6 against 10+ units doesn't seem big when you're talking about hordes (although on average that's still 3 dead boy that would make your points back instantly) but 4d6 (2 in the shooting phase, 2 in overwatch) auto hits against an assaulting unit can kill a massive chunk of a unit with no way to dodge it
Yeah, I'll agree with you, but also put forward the idea that maybe you shouldn't charge yourself up to a unit with a flamethrower and expect to have a good time.
M.
71534
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:45:37
Post by: Bharring
Which is where stuff like Scytheguard is super scary for melee threats. Even elites.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 18:58:13
Post by: Fafnir
They're pretty garbage. Yes, they auto-hit, but that's worthless when you can just walk around them anyway (and with only 8" range, why would you bother doing anything about them?). They're great on overwatch (assuming your opponent is charging from within 8"), but assault is bad, so it's not like their a priority. What's more, the inability to hit deepstrikers means that they're helpless in their role against the most dangerous of threats that they're meant to be useful against.
95191
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 20:07:21
Post by: godardc
I didn't see or take a flamer since 8th dropped.
They are so trash... 1d6 hit at 8'' ? Seriously ?
(4 hits, 2 wounds, 1 ork boys killed, 2 if you are lucky. Tell me about killing horde...)
When before you had this wonderful autohit template, ignoring cover, and ap5, and it could actually kill horde.
It lost so much, it is so sad.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 20:40:11
Post by: Infantryman
I'd maybe take them as part of a Special Weapons Squad (with demo charge, on a Chimera with its own heavy flamer) as part of a dedicated urban assault force. That's if I knew it was going to be a cover-heavy board going into the game, though...which is very unlikely.
M.
5386
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 20:44:51
Post by: sennacherib
DG have 9” range flamers.
Also, being able to advance and fire is pretty nice.
93856
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 20:53:12
Post by: Galef
I've got it! Flamers should be 10" range 1 auto hit per each model of the target unit within range. If only 1 model of the target unit is in range, it suffers D3 auto hits instead.
That way you still get 1-3 hits on single model targets, but can get as many hits on horde units as you can get into range. And that range actually works for units that drop in
110703
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 20:56:25
Post by: Galas
Thats too powerfull... in 7th edition flamers were TO GOOD agaisn't hordes. For that reason you didn't saw any kind of horde list.
27890
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 20:58:14
Post by: MagicJuggler
Galas wrote:Thats too powerfull... in 7th edition flamers were TO GOOD agaisn't hordes. For that reason you didn't saw any kind of horde list.
The only flamer people took in competitive 7th was the dual Deathshrouds on the Skatach...and EGrubs if playing a Flyrant Circus. The Acheron was a fringe case at best.
93856
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 21:07:46
Post by: Galef
Galas wrote:Thats too powerfull... in 7th edition flamers were TO GOOD agaisn't hordes. For that reason you didn't saw any kind of horde list.
Obviously a change like this would come with a points increase, but even if you priced it cheaper than Plasma or Melta, players would still choose those over flamers
Also, 7E wasn't based on models near an objective, 8E is, so horde armies would stay strong
110703
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 21:22:04
Post by: Galas
 MagicJuggler wrote: Galas wrote:Thats too powerfull... in 7th edition flamers were TO GOOD agaisn't hordes. For that reason you didn't saw any kind of horde list.
The only flamer people took in competitive 7th was the dual Deathshrouds on the Skatach...and EGrubs if playing a Flyrant Circus. The Acheron was a fringe case at best.
Because the three horde armies sucked ass. So literally there was no reason to take normal flamers. But flamers were still too powerfull agaisn't all the horde armies.
27890
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 21:29:53
Post by: MagicJuggler
Galas wrote: MagicJuggler wrote: Galas wrote:Thats too powerfull... in 7th edition flamers were TO GOOD agaisn't hordes. For that reason you didn't saw any kind of horde list.
The only flamer people took in competitive 7th was the dual Deathshrouds on the Skatach...and EGrubs if playing a Flyrant Circus. The Acheron was a fringe case at best.
Because the three horde armies sucked ass. So literally there was no reason to take normal flamers. But flamers were still too powerfull agaisn't all the horde armies.
Yet if they sucked anyway, then saying they were too good is fairly meaningless no?
61686
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 21:51:33
Post by: generalchaos34
They need to make standard flamers (the D6 S4 AP- variety) cost half as much. As it stands now they are just a bit too pricey to justify when you have better options floating around. It should be 5 points base, and HF being 10 points. At this price I now have a budget option that can offer some utility and can be more of a "why not?" upgrade option when equipping your squads.
Why would I spend 7 points on a flamer for guardsman when I can take a plasma gun for the same price and get a guaranteed death instead of hoping for 2-4 with regular saves. Same thing for space marines, they simply have better options for comparable prices. For instance, why take a heavy flamer on any squad if you can take a heavy bolter? unless that unit is mounted in a vehicle that weapon is going to be useless for a majority of the game.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 21:59:35
Post by: Fafnir
I'd consider a basic flamer to be worse than a bolter, which is often 0 points for the armies that have them. So price them at 0, and that might work.
61686
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 22:10:54
Post by: generalchaos34
 Fafnir wrote:I'd consider a basic flamer to be worse than a bolter, which is often 0 points for the armies that have them. So price them at 0, and that might work.
Too true....actually, storm bolters are 2 points and thats a bargain (and better than a flamer too), I can see them being 2-3 points
having a zero cost special weapons would be a bit much, even for a flamer
114894
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 22:42:59
Post by: vaklor4
Most hordes are melee, in my experience. Flamers hit automatically. If you put a few flamers in your front line, ANY melee army horde or not will think twice about charging. The best use for Flamers is ironically enough, defense instead of offense.
67875
Flamers @ 2017/11/21 22:58:15
Post by: raoiley
ive been running a stormlord with 4 sponsons (8 twin heavy flamers)
a tank that drives 10 and has an 8 inch flame.... 8d6 at s5ap1..auto hit? forget all the alpha legion and alaitoc denial.
played at Da Boyz this past weekend and the tank was my mvp in multiple games solely because of it's flame.
one memorable game against a world eaters list saw us destroy each other. I killed his hades tank and brass scorpion and he killed my two shadowswords.
then he had 30 bezerkers left against my one stormlord and he didn't have a chance. the overwatch killed one squad after another.
if you build around flamers and how to use them you will love them. redundancy and duplicate is key
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 02:51:42
Post by: Infantryman
Fafnir wrote:I'd consider a basic flamer to be worse than a bolter, which is often 0 points for the armies that have them. So price them at 0, and that might work.
Because of the range?
M.
8611
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 03:18:48
Post by: Drudge Dreadnought
They're pretty worthless on marines. Perhaps better on cheaper models. The problem is that they are marginal over bolters point per point, especially if you factor in the range meaning the bolter will get lots of extra shooting. And you also have to count what you're giving up to get them (plasma.)
They used to be cheap or even free, and templates meant that you could get 5-10 hits on many squads. (and let's not talk about what doom sirens and lash could do!)
So they got more expensive and way less hits. And the AP changes mean they don't pen boyz/gaunts anymore either. Point for point, plasma is more efficient even against horde units. Which could be blamed on plasma being too strong, but bolters with re-roll auras catch up to the flamer really fast anyway.
They need to do more hits vs hordes. I'd say 1d3+1 per 5 models in the target unit, or something similar (as others have said.)
We're already seeing anti-fearless swarm being a huge problem in the meta (conscripts), and Nids are about to bring a lot more of it.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 05:03:00
Post by: Infantryman
Yeah, the AP bit is a little weird. On one hand, something like a Terminator or (maybe) a Marine should be basically immune - always getting a save. Too sealed up. On the other, it's *really* weird my Guardsmen get one. Sure, even our modern combat fatigues are flame resistant, but my face and hands are definitely not, regardless of what millennium I'm in.
M.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 05:03:29
Post by: Fafnir
 Infantryman wrote: Fafnir wrote:I'd consider a basic flamer to be worse than a bolter, which is often 0 points for the armies that have them. So price them at 0, and that might work.
Because of the range?
M.
Yes. With bolters, I can shoot them down-field all game long. A flamer is likely only going to be able to shoot once in a game if at all, maybe twice if it's a long one. Flamers are also just a lot easier to walk around and ignore. The damage output is not nearly high enough to justify the work in delivery, and the range puts you at an instant disadvantage.
71704
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 05:48:47
Post by: skchsan
Maybe revise salvo weapon types to behave like assault weapon during your turn but shoots at 'stationary' profile for out of turn shooting. Make flamers salvo 1d6/2d6 so during your turn if you havent moved, it deals 2d6, while if you moved it deals 1d6. Flamers shoot 2d6 for overwatch.
8611
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 05:57:01
Post by: Drudge Dreadnought
 skchsan wrote:Maybe revise salvo weapon types to behave like assault weapon during your turn but shoots at 'stationary' profile for out of turn shooting. Make flamers salvo 1d6/ 2d6 so during your turn if you havent moved, it deals 2d6, while if you moved it deals 1d6. Flamers shoot 2d6 for overwatch.
That sounds like a cool way for some sort of weapons to work (mortars?), but not flamers. They are supposed to do well moving.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 06:38:12
Post by: Infantryman
Fafnir wrote: Infantryman wrote: Fafnir wrote:I'd consider a basic flamer to be worse than a bolter, which is often 0 points for the armies that have them. So price them at 0, and that might work.
Because of the range?
M.
Yes. With bolters, I can shoot them down-field all game long. A flamer is likely only going to be able to shoot once in a game if at all, maybe twice if it's a long one. Flamers are also just a lot easier to walk around and ignore. The damage output is not nearly high enough to justify the work in delivery, and the range puts you at an instant disadvantage.
I do wonder how far they *should* be. A real flamethrower goes surprisingly far - 20m to 40m - but what's that compared to the "effective firing range" of a bolter or lasgun? We can make it whatever, but with certain ratio a dissonance sets in.
As before, the only time I ever see myself taking flamers is in forces I can tool up for close quarters engagements ahead of time - not something for random pickup games.
M.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 06:49:32
Post by: Fafnir
10" would be a good start. It would be enough to threaten deepstrikers, which is pretty big. It wouldn't fix all the problems, but it would be a start.
Ideally though, the game needs a way to punish hordes, and flamers should be the solution to that. There needs to be a way to hurt them in an optimal fashion. Adding additional hits for high-model-count units would be a start, but the range also definitely needs to be addressed.
You have to consider opportunity cost here. In taking a flamer, I end up giving up not only the opportunity to take a plasma/melta/whatever else, I also end up giving up a bolter (or lasgun if you're IG). That's a pretty big sacrifice for a weapon that might not end up doing anything all game.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 07:14:16
Post by: Infantryman
The more I hear about them, the more it sounds like Plasma Guns have issues. I'd guess undercosting, but I'm still weirded out by the lack of Gets Hot on all fire modes.
M.
8611
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 07:16:40
Post by: Drudge Dreadnought
Infantryman wrote:The more I hear about them, the more it sounds like Plasma Guns have issues. I'd guess undercosting, but I'm still weirded out by the lack of Gets Hot on all fire modes.
M.
They do. They're really good, anti everything choices. And with abundant re-rolls and bonuses, the gets hot doesn't even really matter. But even if plasma gets nerfed, flamers won't be worth using.
Meltas and Flamers are both in a really bad place on their own merits, AND plasma is really great. So it's a double whammy.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 07:30:48
Post by: Fafnir
This much is true. Although melta at least functions within its niche. Flamers? Not so much. If flamers could at least put a dent in hordes, they'd be worth talking about on the same level as meltas. But they're pathetic at their intended role.
At least when you point a melta gun at a tank, you know that it has a good chance of doing its job, it just won't be as versatile as a plasma gun in doing so. But flamers... flamers just suck at everything.
103666
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 08:07:15
Post by: FrozenDwarf
problem aint range or dmg, it is its lack of ability to deal whit 11+ model units.
d6 hits is just fine on a 10 man units, but agasint 20 or 30 nid units it simply is a joke.
imo it should scale.
d6 for 1-10, d6+d3 for 11-20 and 2d6 for 21-30.
111146
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 08:47:45
Post by: p5freak
First, they should ignore cover, you cant hide from fire. Second, flamers should be 2D3 not 1D6. Heavy flamers should have 12" range and 3D3. Third, they need a 30% point reduction.
116685
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 08:51:33
Post by: clownshoes
 Nerak wrote:Are flamers underpowered this edition? Should they be given 2d6 wounds? Has,anyone found a good use for them? It feels like a waste to use up your special weapon slots for a charge counter that you might not use.
Edit: got the phone working again. This was about a page long before but whatever.
Obviously you have not played a tournament quality sisters list... go play one, flamers in that volume are not underpowered.
Auto hitting weapons are BS. Yes i have a pair of hemlocks, it is BS i am enjoying the BS they bring to my list. But it needs to be changed... it needs to be changed to something like the dark reapers always hitting on 2s or 3s regardless of modifers. But i also think auto hitting weapons should not be allowed in overwatch as they currently are, they need to be toned down.
i would like to see something more like
Flamer rng8 assult6 pow4 ap0 d1 - during the shooting phase this weapon hits on a 2+ regardless of any modifiers. +3 in over watch.
Removes the auto hitting nonsense, give it the infantry mulching profile without the random derp 1 and rewards aggressive play.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 09:08:44
Post by: Fafnir
Are any tournament quality sisters lists winning any major tournaments? Because I haven't heard of any, let alone ones that spam flamers. Storm bolters are so far superior to flamers that it's actually depressing.
111146
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 09:44:22
Post by: p5freak
A normal flamer, as it is right now, should cost the same as a stormbolter. For 9 points i can get 4 stormbolters, thats 16 (!) shots (10,7 hits at BS3) at 12", against 3,5 autohits at 8" for the flamer. The heavy flamer, as it is right now, should cost 4, not 17.
60684
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 11:35:50
Post by: Drager
Some flamers have the 10 inch rule and can even deepstrike!
103666
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 11:55:55
Post by: FrozenDwarf
p5freak wrote:First, they should ignore cover, you cant hide from fire.
if you are hugging a wall that is taller then your profile, and a flamer aims at the top of the wall, the flames wont magicly take a 90* down ark and hit you.
it might hit the guys that are hiding 2m behind the wall but not thouse that are near the wall. sadly rules for that is too complex for 8th, so it is better that flamers do not ingore cover.
point is, a tradition flame IS blocked by cover.
a melta on the other hand, that ignores cover as it melt true moust material.
111146
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 12:36:14
Post by: p5freak
The same can be said for a shrapnel cannon, shrapnel can't go everywhere. Still, it ignores cover. Burning liquid can creep in the tiniest gaps, shrapnel cant.
100848
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 12:38:56
Post by: tneva82
There would need to be different types of cover for both to works. Shrouding(flamer ignores cover) and blocking(flamer doesn't). Even then that's not really accurate as simply hiding behind small block isn't exactly much of help under inferno.
27903
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 13:17:59
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
The problem with basing the damage on the size of the unit that you're shooting at is that it takes time and destroys the flow of the game. Sure the first time a unit takes a hit the player knows how many models he has in his unit but after a bit of shooting/moving/melee you'd have to stop each time you shoot a flamer you have to stop and start counting models.
2771
Flamers @ 0027/11/22 15:37:59
Post by: Infantryman
p5freak wrote:First, they should ignore cover, you cant hide from fire.
I can't speak for the Grim Darkness of the Far Future, but against modern day flamethrowers you totally can. Even so much as a sheet of plywood will protect you from the flame - yes, it will catch fire, but the flame itself has basically no inertia.
That said, that's more LOS restriction than a cover based one, as gaps and viewing ports and whatnot are what makes cover and not just a brick wall.
Leo_the_Rat wrote:The problem with basing the damage on the size of the unit that you're shooting at is that it takes time and destroys the flow of the game. Sure the first time a unit takes a hit the player knows how many models he has in his unit but after a bit of shooting/moving/melee you'd have to stop each time you shoot a flamer you have to stop and start counting models.
This isn't aimed at you, so please don't take it personally, but I'm astounded at how many comments I see about not wanting to do simple counting or even dice rolling in a game of numbers and dice.
I used to play FAD - it involved division to figure out how many guys you hit. I think it would burn some brains out, here.
M.
106383
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 16:52:25
Post by: JNAProductions
Issue is, Flamers work better against Elites than Hordes.
Don't believe me?
7/2 (3.5) hits against GEQs, 7/3 wounds, 14/9 dead.6.22 points.
7/2 hits against MEQs, 7/4 wounds, 7/12 dead. 7.58 points.
7/2 hits against a Daemon Prince, 7/6 wounds, 7/18 unsaved. 8.75 points.
If they had a scaling based on squad size, like has been suggested, that'd make them a lot better against Hordes.
Personally, a suggestion I've seen before and liked is that Flamers are, say, Assault 8, with a special rule saying they get a number of auto hits up to their shot number based on the number of models in range. (Possibly with a special rule saying Vehicles and Monsters count for 3.) So, against a 5-man MEQ squad, you get 5 hits. 30-man Conscript squad, you get 8. Daemon Prince, you get 3.
94067
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 17:22:32
Post by: Jaxler
Flamers are trash. Use something else.
93856
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 17:46:48
Post by: Galef
 JNAProductions wrote:Issue is, Flamers work better against Elites than Hordes. Don't believe me? 7/2 (3.5) hits against GEQs, 7/3 wounds, 14/9 dead.6.22 points. 7/2 hits against MEQs, 7/4 wounds, 7/12 dead. 7.58 points. 7/2 hits against a Daemon Prince, 7/6 wounds, 7/18 unsaved. 8.75 points. If they had a scaling based on squad size, like has been suggested, that'd make them a lot better against Hordes. Personally, a suggestion I've seen before and liked is that Flamers are, say, Assault 8, with a special rule saying they get a number of auto hits up to their shot number based on the number of models in range. (Possibly with a special rule saying Vehicles and Monsters count for 3.) So, against a 5-man MEQ squad, you get 5 hits. 30-man Conscript squad, you get 8. Daemon Prince, you get 3.
I kinda like this idea, but could simplify it by making it D3 auto-hits +1 for each additional model in the enemy target and in range. That way you get D3 auto hits against single model targets, or potential a ton of hits if you are right up next to a large blob (exactly like prior editions). I feel like as long as you cap the number of hits to the number of models in the target unit that are actually in range, than it adds back the tactic of "not bunching up". I kinda miss that The price it about the same as a Plasma gun -
78973
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 18:27:30
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Flamers rules seems completely broken. Auto-hit flyers but can't shoot at the guy charging you because they started their charge 9" away: STUPID.
110517
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 18:30:06
Post by: Primark G
The way things are going I can see AM getting access to cheap flamers that rock 2d6 attacks.
103666
Flamers @ 2185/07/09 00:44:18
Post by: FrozenDwarf
 Primark G wrote:The way things are going I can see AM getting access to cheap flamers that rock 2d6 attacks.
well for one, flamers should be an anti horde unit weapon. it is currently not.
however it will never be buffed to flat out 2d6 as that is too strong for units that has 10 or less models.
dmg scaling system based on how many models there is in the enemy unit is the best overall solution.
116563
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 18:50:08
Post by: WatcherZero
From the Guard perspective at 7 points I think normal flamers are balanced.
Heavy flamers at 17 points for 1 more strength and AP when they lose Assault for Heavy certainly aren't balanced and obviously they only considered use on vehicles not their use in Command Squads.
110517
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 19:01:25
Post by: Primark G
Flamers are excellent charge deterrent.
90435
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 19:03:35
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Each model in the targeted unit is hit on a 4+? I dunno how that would scale, and would make it bad vs singular targets again, which is something I don't entirely want. Automatically Appended Next Post:
No they're not once you've learned the math behind them.
111146
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 19:05:06
Post by: p5freak
 FrozenDwarf wrote: Primark G wrote:The way things are going I can see AM getting access to cheap flamers that rock 2d6 attacks.
well for one, flamers should be an anti horde unit weapon. it is currently not.
however it will never be buffed to flat out 2d6 as that is too strong for units that has 10 or less models.
dmg scaling system based on how many models there is in the enemy unit is the best overall solution.
Why should a flamer scale with the number of models in a unit ? Is there a sensor who releases more or less burning stuff? That's nonsense. If a unit has less models they get the same amount of hits as a unit with more models.
110703
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 19:48:04
Post by: Galas
p5freak wrote: FrozenDwarf wrote: Primark G wrote:The way things are going I can see AM getting access to cheap flamers that rock 2d6 attacks.
well for one, flamers should be an anti horde unit weapon. it is currently not.
however it will never be buffed to flat out 2d6 as that is too strong for units that has 10 or less models.
dmg scaling system based on how many models there is in the enemy unit is the best overall solution.
Why should a flamer scale with the number of models in a unit ? Is there a sensor who releases more or less burning stuff? That's nonsense. If a unit has less models they get the same amount of hits as a unit with more models.
Because if you shot a flamer agaisnt one guy, he is gonna be hit one time, but if you shot a flamer to a group of 20 people, they will all be hit? Is pretty easy to understand really.
A grenade is used agaisn't a group of people and not an individual for a reason.
111146
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 20:13:09
Post by: p5freak
Galas wrote:p5freak wrote: FrozenDwarf wrote: Primark G wrote:The way things are going I can see AM getting access to cheap flamers that rock 2d6 attacks.
well for one, flamers should be an anti horde unit weapon. it is currently not.
however it will never be buffed to flat out 2d6 as that is too strong for units that has 10 or less models.
dmg scaling system based on how many models there is in the enemy unit is the best overall solution.
Why should a flamer scale with the number of models in a unit ? Is there a sensor who releases more or less burning stuff? That's nonsense. If a unit has less models they get the same amount of hits as a unit with more models.
Because if you shot a flamer agaisnt one guy, he is gonna be hit one time, but if you shot a flamer to a group of 20 people, they will all be hit? Is pretty easy to understand really.
A grenade is used agaisn't a group of people and not an individual for a reason.
No, one model gets hits 1D6 times, the same 1D6 that hits the 20 model unit. The one model gets hit harder, because the damage is not getting split. Its all concentrated in one large hit.
And btw grenades have two modes, flames don't.
110703
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 20:34:26
Post by: Galas
I was talking about "real life". If you hit one guy with a flamer, the flames doesn't "concentrate" on him. The amount of flames is the same. So If you are using it agaisn't just one guy, you are wasting a ton of flames that could have impacted a bunch of other dudes if they where all together.
Thats how "blast" weapons work.
Thats the problem with Flamers. They rules don't make any kind of sense to how flamers should be used. The only proper use is in the Cities of Death advanced rules where you receive the max amount of hits if you use it agaisn't a unit that has been two turns in cover for the +2 cover bonus.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 21:06:41
Post by: Infantryman
I suppose if it's one guy, you're basting him with flames for a longer segment of time (rather than just a sweep) thus increasing the chance of doing a lot of burning in a hurry (vs just catching his arm, or something).
M.
111146
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 21:39:51
Post by: p5freak
Infantryman wrote:I suppose if it's one guy, you're basting him with flames for a longer segment of time (rather than just a sweep) thus increasing the chance of doing a lot of burning in a hurry (vs just catching his arm, or something).
M.
This is how flamers work. They spill out a certain amount of flaming liquid. If one gets exposed for 5 seconds he will get more burned than five who are each exposed for one second.
29120
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 22:15:44
Post by: NH Gunsmith
Flamers are trash on Marines. My Tactical Squads with Hand Flamer/Flamer haven't been used since my first two ganes of 8th with my Blood Angels. That was when I also learned that melee is a joke too.
I see no reason to ever use a Flamer over a Plasma or Melta Gun. I get far more consistent value out of those two versus any other special weapon. They are also a far better charge deterrent than a Flamer as well, since you are potentially eating a rapid fire Plasma or Melta at 12" to the face. Way scarier than D6 S4 no AP shots if you charge within 8"
62705
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 23:05:01
Post by: AndrewGPaul
If there's one guy, I'll hold the stream steady on him. If there's a big mob, I'll play it over the whole lot. Seems straightforward.
86045
Flamers @ 0003/11/22 23:05:56
Post by: leopard
Personally not seeing the issue.
A flame thrower should be an offensive weapon, its something you use as you yourself pull up into assault range to crispy fry a few of the enemy before charging in.
Its not really a defensive weapon except that it keeps your opponent outside an easy charge distance if they wish to avoid it
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 23:11:42
Post by: Fafnir
leopard wrote:Personally not seeing the issue.
A flame thrower should be an offensive weapon, its something you use as you yourself pull up into assault range to crispy fry a few of the enemy before charging in.
Its not really a defensive weapon except that it keeps your opponent outside an easy charge distance if they wish to avoid it
The problem is that they're more of an offensive penalty than a weapon.
117663
Flamers @ 2017/11/22 23:13:54
Post by: KinGensai
p5freak wrote: Infantryman wrote:I suppose if it's one guy, you're basting him with flames for a longer segment of time (rather than just a sweep) thus increasing the chance of doing a lot of burning in a hurry (vs just catching his arm, or something).
M.
This is how flamers work. They spill out a certain amount of flaming liquid. If one gets exposed for 5 seconds he will get more burned than five who are each exposed for one second.
They will actually spew out ignited napalm, which is a combination of gasoline and gelling agent. If you're hit by a flamethrower, you are splashed with a sticky flaming gel that will continue to inflict thermal damage as long as it isn't extinguished or removed somehow. Flamers are nasty weapons.
110517
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 00:14:54
Post by: Primark G
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Each model in the targeted unit is hit on a 4+? I dunno how that would scale, and would make it bad vs singular targets again, which is something I don't entirely want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No they're not once you've learned the math behind them.
Not every unit can magically always make a 9+” every time. I have seen flamer heavy vehicles torch several units in succession attempting to charge it same turn.
98186
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 00:41:31
Post by: nateprati
I think the range and ap should be tweaked. Should have at least a 9 inch range at ap-1. I would prefer if they were high risk high reward in potential damage output. Make them work like tesla weapons in 7th, d6 auto hits but on a 6 it triggers another d6 indefanitly. Fun, scary could randomly fail or win Excessivly. I play guard and even a 6 up save against flamers wouldnt feel right, we are supposed to fear flamers.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 01:22:19
Post by: Infantryman
It *seems* like 4+ Save is the lowest with "exposed flesh" on the models you see it on. Thus, something like AP4 seems like it would make sense :p
M.
105466
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 03:34:35
Post by: fraser1191
Infantryman wrote:It *seems* like 4+ Save is the lowest with "exposed flesh" on the models you see it on. Thus, something like AP4 seems like it would make sense :p
M.
I never even thought of that. I like this point lol
111146
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 07:31:21
Post by: p5freak
I think the range of 8" is fine for a normal flamer. Thats one third of a boltgun. Todays machineguns have more than three times the range of a flamer. A boltgun actually shoots tiny rockets.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 09:26:31
Post by: Fafnir
Warhammer is not a real-world battle simulation, however. It's a game. Which means elements of abstraction are required for the sake of developing playable and balanced options. Right now, the range on flamers puts them right in the middle of 'useless.'
100848
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 09:40:14
Post by: tneva82
Fafnir wrote:Warhammer is not a real-world battle simulation, however. It's a game. Which means elements of abstraction are required for the sake of developing playable and balanced options. Right now, the range on flamers puts them right in the middle of 'useless.'
"It's a game" is only an excuse for lazy game developer who can't be bothered to make weapon useful AND make sense fluffwise.
Flamers were useful before with short range. Indeed range wise it's actually BETTER now than it's been before. Thus 8" does not make it automatically useless. It adds extra challenge but what game designers are paid for if not making workable rules?
99813
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 11:14:58
Post by: Nerak
OP here. Just read through the thread.
The most effective way to use flamers seems to be on tanks or in transports with dedicated flamer units. Those options more or less remove the range penalty. I'd like to see flamers be able to fire from deep strike so making them range 10" across the board might do the trick. To me it makes sence that a squad teleporting into action would do so to be able to bring their close range weapons to bear.
We've seen some flamer rules changes ideas being tossed around here. I think the rules are mostly fine but that 10" range would be better. Now they're arguably on par with deafult weaponry, often for the cost of 1-3 deafult weapon models.
Someone suggested you add a d6 hits per 10 models in an enemy squad. So:
1-10: 1d6
11-20: 2d6
21-30: 3d6
I guess this could work since it doesn't buff flamers vs elites and it's difficult to counter hordes today, though I find it a little too powerfull on overwatch. Maybe do the above but only let flamers do d6 on Overwatch regardless of enemy unit size? In all fairness it's more or less how flamers have always worked with templates though. The more enemy models there is the more hits you could get with a template. Templates and blasts used to scale on enemy numbers. Currently we have no game mechanics that does this, with the exception of the Leman russ demolisher.
Flamers have always negated cover in every 40k edition up untill now. The logic was that they goush an area in fire and that's really difficult to hide from (though possible irl). I don't think flamers should have ap -1 but negating cover might be a reasonable buff. If nothing else it's consistent with the previous flamers.
The one thing I feel is that hordes have for the most part been pretty bad in 40k so having a horde edition might not be too bad. I'd still like flamers to be just a little bit more powerfull though.
102537
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 11:24:06
Post by: Sgt. Cortez
Just make them cost 5points again, problem solved.
82852
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 11:27:46
Post by: KurtAngle2
Fair price is 4 points since Mortars equivalents cost this much and are much better for the most part
111337
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 11:34:03
Post by: AaronWilson
I really like flamers this edition. They make charging legit scary.
86045
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 11:42:59
Post by: leopard
This is basically the point, you can avoid them easily enough, but risk not charging to do so, they are cheap weapons, they should be useful but not “you can’t risk charging” buttons
109034
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 11:54:09
Post by: Slipspace
How? Is anyone really scared of D6 autohits? Even with a T3 model that's still only 2 wounds that you get saves against. Sure, you can load up on more flamers but then you're paying more points and further reducing your effectiveness at more useful ranges.
That's the key flamer problem for me: they're useless outside of 8" so they need to be really good inside that range to compensate, but they really aren't. The best suggestion I've seen in this thread is to have them hit every model in the target unit that's in range. That makes them worse against smaller units, but better against hordes, which makes sense to me and also provides them with a niche over plasma or melta. There are already very few good anti-horde weapons in the game so adding one in would be a welcome balance change, IMO.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 11:57:27
Post by: Fafnir
A storm bolter is considerably better and costs 2 points. A bolter is better and costs 0 points.
111337
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 12:21:25
Post by: AaronWilson
I forgot dakka dakka is a land which only hyperbole strives.
I've played against a few units of scary flamers (UM Sternguard with a bunch of flamers in one unit)
For a World Eater player using primarily Khorne Berserkers in rhinos and some deep striking terminators, I found them to pretty scary to charge against.
In before someone tells me my personal experience is wrong and they're still garbage.
97732
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 14:36:06
Post by: shortymcnostrill
As they are now flamers are more of a utility weapon. Offensively they are slightly better than a storm bolter (when within 8" ofc), but that's not very impressive.
What it does offer is autohits. 3.5 autohits on overwatch is the output of ~5 storm bolters (19.5 bolter shots). This would not dissuade a terminator squad, but what overwatching weapon would? OTOH seeing a flamer or 2 sure would convince me to send my howling banshees somewhere else. And yes, it is possible to make a 9" charge, but even with rerolls that chance doesn't get better than a coin-flip (barring some +x" charge range abilities, but these aren't that common and aren't free either).
Flamers also negate hit modifiers. It's relatively doable to get a -1 or -2 to hit modifier going on an infantry squad, neutering bolters and the like. Flamers simply laugh at these shenanigans.
I'm not claiming flamers are op or even terribly efficient* when only considering shooting phase output, but they do have some use.
* adding d6 autohits per 10 models would absolutely destroy horde/swarm armies. The average on a D6 is 3.5. A single flamer would get 10.5 hits on a horde unit and then get to do it again during overwatch. This would make 5 man tac squads dangerous opponents, not to mention units carrying more than 1 flamer. It could be a nice rule when using Movie Marines rules?
28305
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 17:18:08
Post by: Talizvar
Good posts I have seen, the flamer question is of interest.
Good:
Agreed that flamers are impressive in Overwatch.
They are good with high mobility units like tanks.
In the right situation, they are ideal on hard to hit units like aircraft (if you get the opportunity to have them in range).
Bad:
Too short a range to be used the turn a unit deep-strikes.
Uses up a slot / model carrying a flamer that could be doing damage at longer range: limited / hard to leverage utility.
The amount of hits are variable so when you finally get to use it, you may roll a one.
I find for "horde" armies, throwing a flamer in is not a bad thing.
On something like a Basilisk or other artillery vehicles it is nice to have for laying some hurt on anyone jumping the vehicle (Note, this is HEAVY flamer).
Doubling up on flamers for things like skimmers I have been wanting to try.
I guess the biggest complaint is the weapon could easily be made better but anything with "auto-hit" can quickly become OP.
86074
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 20:14:39
Post by: Quickjager
Flamers are imo aren't worth points, however as a limited free weapon swap they would be able to start coming into their own.
If a unit were able to swap 1 model to a flamer for free I could see them start gaining traction.
But if you wanted to make them actually useful, they need to scale with the size of the squad you are shooting at, or perhaps even scale with the armor save somehow.
97732
Flamers @ 2017/11/23 20:42:54
Post by: shortymcnostrill
 Talizvar wrote:
I guess the biggest complaint is the weapon could easily be made better but anything with "auto-hit" can quickly become OP.
Tyranid barbed stranglers get +1 to hit when targeting units of 10 or more models. This won't work for flamers for obvious reasons, but how about giving them +1 to wound when shooting at units of 10 or larger? It makes them more effective vs larger units, but casualties are still capped at d6 hits. Maybe drop the points cost to 5?
26322
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 03:55:49
Post by: Hoodwink
I posted in the proposed rules section that seemed to get decently positive feedback.
I feel flamers really should have the weapon type "Flamer #" where the # indicates a max value. You auto hit a number of times equal to the number of models in the enemy unit or the Flamer #, whichever comes first.
This technically gives flamers no more than one hit on each model. This makes them not as good against low count multiple wound units, but great anti-horde when numbered correctly.
Example: I have a flamer that's statblocked as a Flamer 8. I shoot a unit of 20 Boyz. I would get 8 hits because my Flamer # comes before the total number of enemy models. Now I shoot a unit of 3 Nobz. I get 3 hits because the number of models in the enemy unit comes before my Flamer #.
I know I explained it kind of long, but it is very quick and easy to play at a glance.
86074
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 04:14:49
Post by: Quickjager
That is good.
116040
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 04:28:08
Post by: NurglesR0T
 Quickjager wrote:Flamers are imo aren't worth points, however as a limited free weapon swap they would be able to start coming into their own.
If a unit were able to swap 1 model to a flamer for free I could see them start gaining traction.
But if you wanted to make them actually useful, they need to scale with the size of the squad you are shooting at, or perhaps even scale with the armor save somehow.
Flamers aren't what makes them useless. Your standard S4 0AP flamer, yeah not much more effective than 2 marines firing bolters.
What is terrifying is things like Plague Spitters, Heavy Flamers, Inferno Cannons etc. They are brilliant weapons against single models such as vehicles/monsters/characters/flyers and if you think you can just ignore the overwatch they can dish out you will be in for a surprise - especially when there is a couple of them in the unit.
Primark G wrote: Not every unit can magically always make a 9+” every time. I have seen flamer heavy vehicles torch several units in succession attempting to charge it same turn.
very much this. I've seen this so many times. Everyone in internet land somehow accepted that every DS or long charge will automatically make it every time. When you do make that 9+ charge it certainly has an impact, but it will be few and far between their occurrence.
1409
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 05:00:09
Post by: Zustiur
Serious question,
Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?
42382
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 05:20:35
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Zustiur wrote:Serious question, Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?
No. The Flamer template was 8" long, so still too short for deepstrike. Overwatching with a template would be - oh wait, d6 auto hits. All it would change is if you somehow got a unit within 8" of an enemy unit, and placed the flamer template over them, you could get I would say between 1 and 6 models underneath it (depending on coherency, etc)... ... so it's essentially the same. EXCEPT: You've just lengthened your opponent's entire movement phase, as now he has to make sure all of his models are exactly 2" apart, and lengthened your own shooting phase over whether or not you clip a friendly model's base with the template or not, and also lengthened the amount of time it takes to resolve the weapon, as now players must bend over the table and argue whether or not a sliver of a given base is touched or not (sometimes with shaking hands).
35086
Flamers @ 4141/11/24 05:27:08
Post by: Daedalus81
Fafnir wrote:
A storm bolter is considerably better and costs 2 points. A bolter is better and costs 0 points.
A bolter is not better. A bolter on overwatch is 0.167. A flamer is 1.75. An order of magnitude stronger.
A rapid fire bolter is otherwise half as good.
If you make flamers as cheap or cheaper than stormbolters and find out that you've just made assault really difficult. People need to stop and consider the implications of super cheap flamers on super cheap models.
People don't use flamers, because there are so few strong assault armies floating around. Once tyranids and blood angels get some traction it will change.
Make flamers 9". Deepstrike is "more than 9", which means flamers wouldn't screw over that part and would cut down on chargers avoiding them. Drop them by a point - MAYBE two. Any give them some 10+ model mechanic.
Half these suggestions are why most of you should not balance this game.
116040
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 05:27:20
Post by: NurglesR0T
 Unit1126PLL wrote:Zustiur wrote:Serious question,
Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?
No. The Flamer template was 8" long, so still too short for deepstrike. Overwatching with a template would be - oh wait, d6 auto hits.
All it would change is if you somehow got a unit within 8" of an enemy unit, and placed the flamer template over them, you could get I would say between 1 and 6 models underneath it (depending on coherency, etc)...
... so it's essentially the same.
EXCEPT:
You've just lengthened your opponent's entire movement phase, as now he has to make sure all of his models are exactly 2" apart, and lengthened your own shooting phase over whether or not you clip a friendly model's base with the template or not, and also lengthened the amount of time it takes to resolve the weapon, as now players must bend over the table and argue whether or not a sliver of a given base is touched or not (sometimes with shaking hands).
This is the exact same argument I make when locals complain about the removal of templates. The game is much better now that they are gone. Only negative drawback from the change is them being better against single models rather than units that the weapon type is actually designed for. Maybe just adding in a slight rule that if the target is a single model then it only does half hits rounding up?
42382
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 05:37:18
Post by: Unit1126PLL
 NurglesR0T wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Zustiur wrote:Serious question,
Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?
No. The Flamer template was 8" long, so still too short for deepstrike. Overwatching with a template would be - oh wait, d6 auto hits.
All it would change is if you somehow got a unit within 8" of an enemy unit, and placed the flamer template over them, you could get I would say between 1 and 6 models underneath it (depending on coherency, etc)...
... so it's essentially the same.
EXCEPT:
You've just lengthened your opponent's entire movement phase, as now he has to make sure all of his models are exactly 2" apart, and lengthened your own shooting phase over whether or not you clip a friendly model's base with the template or not, and also lengthened the amount of time it takes to resolve the weapon, as now players must bend over the table and argue whether or not a sliver of a given base is touched or not (sometimes with shaking hands).
This is the exact same argument I make when locals complain about the removal of templates. The game is much better now that they are gone. Only negative drawback from the change is them being better against single models rather than units that the weapon type is actually designed for. Maybe just adding in a slight rule that if the target is a single model then it only does half hits rounding up?
Why?
It never made sense that a Battlecannon (for example) did so little damage to tanks and carnifexes. Let's say we have a 7th edition Baneblade cannon - Str 9, AP2, 10" Apocalyptic Blast. And we have our regular old 7th edition lascannon, str 9 AP 2, 1 shot.
Which one would be more devastating against, say, a Carnifex? Or even a Leman Russ?
That example alone is why it never made sense to me that blast weapons did only one hit to 1 model units. Presumably, a shell penetrating the carapace and then detonating in an "apocalyptic blast" is a tad more damaging than a laser searing a hole in the same area. I think the extra hits on a single model from formerly "blast" weapons reflects this nicely.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 05:39:30
Post by: Infantryman
NurglesR0T wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Zustiur wrote:Serious question,
Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?
No. The Flamer template was 8" long, so still too short for deepstrike. Overwatching with a template would be - oh wait, d6 auto hits.
All it would change is if you somehow got a unit within 8" of an enemy unit, and placed the flamer template over them, you could get I would say between 1 and 6 models underneath it (depending on coherency, etc)...
... so it's essentially the same.
EXCEPT:
You've just lengthened your opponent's entire movement phase, as now he has to make sure all of his models are exactly 2" apart, and lengthened your own shooting phase over whether or not you clip a friendly model's base with the template or not, and also lengthened the amount of time it takes to resolve the weapon, as now players must bend over the table and argue whether or not a sliver of a given base is touched or not (sometimes with shaking hands).
This is the exact same argument I make when locals complain about the removal of templates. The game is much better now that they are gone. Only negative drawback from the change is them being better against single models rather than units that the weapon type is actually designed for. Maybe just adding in a slight rule that if the target is a single model then it only does half hits rounding up?
I still liked scattering plates into units.
M.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 05:44:10
Post by: Fafnir
Daedalus81 wrote: Fafnir wrote:
A storm bolter is considerably better and costs 2 points. A bolter is better and costs 0 points.
A bolter is not better. A bolter on overwatch is 0.167. A flamer is 1.75. An order of magnitude stronger.
A rapid fire bolter is otherwise half as good.
If you make flamers as cheap or cheaper than stormbolters and find out that you've just made assault really difficult. People need to stop and consider the implications of super cheap flamers on super cheap models.
People don't use flamers, because there are so few strong assault armies floating around. Once tyranids and blood angels get some traction it will change.
Make flamers 9". Deepstrike is "more than 9", which means flamers wouldn't screw over that part and would cut down on chargers avoiding them. Drop them by a point - MAYBE two. Any give them some 10+ model mechanic.
Half these suggestions are why most of you should not balance this game.
It doesn't matter how many wounds a flamer does if your opponent never lets you shoot it. It's very easy to walk around a flamer, or position yourself for charges that avoid the special weapon user in the squad. A flamer is lucky if it gets to fire once per game.
35086
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 05:55:13
Post by: Daedalus81
If you're expecting one flamer to do the job you're doing it wrong.
42382
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 05:58:25
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Yeah.
In my Inquisition army, I have a Valkyrie with one 5-man squad with flamers, one 6-man squad with flamers, and one Inquisitor with an Incinerator.
If you think flamers are bad, wait until this Grav-Chute Insertions right in front of your favorite infantry unit and then walks within range...
ADDENDUM:
I'm Ordo Hereticus, so for extra BBQ, just add Chaos; I get to re-roll wounds.
63936
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 05:59:06
Post by: Mmmpi
I have two big issues with flamers.
1st is the cost. Far to expensive for what you get.
2nd is actually a gripe for many other weapons. 1d6 shots is *WAY* too random. I'd rather have flamers be 1d3+3, or 1d3+2. The unreliability of so many weapons this edition is depressing. Flamers only start to become good if you can get 3+ into a unit. A squad that can only take one? Just don't bother. Take a plasma gun instead.
116040
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 06:03:39
Post by: NurglesR0T
Fafnir wrote:Daedalus81 wrote: Fafnir wrote:
A storm bolter is considerably better and costs 2 points. A bolter is better and costs 0 points.
A bolter is not better. A bolter on overwatch is 0.167. A flamer is 1.75. An order of magnitude stronger.
A rapid fire bolter is otherwise half as good.
If you make flamers as cheap or cheaper than stormbolters and find out that you've just made assault really difficult. People need to stop and consider the implications of super cheap flamers on super cheap models.
People don't use flamers, because there are so few strong assault armies floating around. Once tyranids and blood angels get some traction it will change.
Make flamers 9". Deepstrike is "more than 9", which means flamers wouldn't screw over that part and would cut down on chargers avoiding them. Drop them by a point - MAYBE two. Any give them some 10+ model mechanic.
Half these suggestions are why most of you should not balance this game.
It doesn't matter how many wounds a flamer does if your opponent never lets you shoot it. It's very easy to walk around a flamer, or position yourself for charges that avoid the special weapon user in the squad. A flamer is lucky if it gets to fire once per game.
On a flamer toting imperial guardsmen, perhaps.
Flamers on units like Bloat Drones and Hellhounds, suddenly they are scary and I guarantee, if they aren't shooting every turn, then they are doing something wrong.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 06:55:47
Post by: Infantryman
NurglesR0T wrote:
Flamers on units like Bloat Drones and Hellhounds, suddenly they are scary and I guarantee, if they aren't shooting every turn, then they are doing something wrong.
Or they're doing something terribly right and have simply exhausted their supply of targets 
M.
112889
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 07:03:56
Post by: Shas'O'Ceris
I'm really liking the idea of Assault 6 / 0 / 1 Always hits on 3+. That way it still ignores hit modifiers giving the "you can't hide from the fire" motif, keeps the roast 1 model or graze 6 models logic, and deals a good # of wounds even in overwatch. Also bring the point cost down to 4. It won't be incredibly powerful but could be worth 2 more than storm bolter for some niche operations.
I typically use them to demolish hordes by deepstriking with Tau homing beacon. 9d6 flamer shots can really mess up a unit of berserkers. Or chaos bikers to advance shoot and assault first turn but that's hardly worth it considering the cost and loss of combi-bolter shots.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 10:22:34
Post by: Fafnir
Unit1126PLL wrote:Yeah.
In my Inquisition army, I have a Valkyrie with one 5-man squad with flamers, one 6-man squad with flamers, and one Inquisitor with an Incinerator.
If you think flamers are bad, wait until this Grav-Chute Insertions right in front of your favorite infantry unit and then walks within range...
ADDENDUM:
I'm Ordo Hereticus, so for extra BBQ, just add Chaos; I get to re-roll wounds.
With the situation you've described, you're spending, at minimum, 422 points for a pump-and-dump of 38.5 S4/ AP-/D1 hits and 3.5 S6/ AP-/D1 hits (and then one multilaser and hellstrike missile, which doesn't amount to a whole lot on its own either).
That's beyond awful. Like... criminally bad.
For reference, 228 points of Dominions with storm bolters at 24" (so no rapid fire) puts out as many S4/ AP-/D1 shots (amounting to 25 hits with no buffs). You are paying an obscene amount of points for something that's absolutely terrible. It's about as far down the rabbit hole of the sunken cost fallacy that you can get.
NurglesR0T wrote:
On a flamer toting imperial guardsmen, perhaps.
Flamers on units like Bloat Drones and Hellhounds, suddenly they are scary and I guarantee, if they aren't shooting every turn, then they are doing something wrong.
Yes, but those are entirely different weapons from the standard flamer (especially in the hands of infantry), or the archetypes that come close to it. But Hellhounds have 12" flamers that hit like trucks on a fast moving frame and Blight Drones are not too far off from that.
86074
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 13:02:28
Post by: Quickjager
NurglesR0T wrote: Quickjager wrote:Flamers are imo aren't worth points, however as a limited free weapon swap they would be able to start coming into their own.
If a unit were able to swap 1 model to a flamer for free I could see them start gaining traction.
But if you wanted to make them actually useful, they need to scale with the size of the squad you are shooting at, or perhaps even scale with the armor save somehow.
Flamers aren't what makes them useless. Your standard S4 0AP flamer, yeah not much more effective than 2 marines firing bolters.
What is terrifying is things like Plague Spitters, Heavy Flamers, Inferno Cannons etc. They are brilliant weapons against single models such as vehicles/monsters/characters/flyers and if you think you can just ignore the overwatch they can dish out you will be in for a surprise - especially when there is a couple of them in the unit.
be few and far between their occurrence.
A flamer should not be more effective on a single target than a group. So your statement means yes it does need a rework.
27890
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 14:35:08
Post by: MagicJuggler
Unit1126PLL wrote:Zustiur wrote:Serious question,
Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?
No. The Flamer template was 8" long, so still too short for deepstrike. Overwatching with a template would be - oh wait, d6 auto hits.
All it would change is if you somehow got a unit within 8" of an enemy unit, and placed the flamer template over them, you could get I would say between 1 and 6 models underneath it (depending on coherency, etc)...
... so it's essentially the same.
EXCEPT:
You've just lengthened your opponent's entire movement phase, as now he has to make sure all of his models are exactly 2" apart, and lengthened your own shooting phase over whether or not you clip a friendly model's base with the template or not, and also lengthened the amount of time it takes to resolve the weapon, as now players must bend over the table and argue whether or not a sliver of a given base is touched or not (sometimes with shaking hands).
1) Players will do the same for ensuring maximal bubblewrap anyway, or they will ignore it altogether and run 40k as Napoleonic bases.
2) It's almost like the removal of bunched-up Deepstrike, Tank Shock, exploding transports, etc. have collectively killed transports. Ditto the removal of Fire Points, or Transports only granting +3" versus +6".
Realistically, the main issue Flamers and AOEs had in 6th and 7th was a gradual size creep, from the increased prevalence of Monstrous Creatures and Bikes, to Marine bases going from 28mm to 32mm. Perhaps the most extreme example of this IMO was the Barkbarkstar, which was a blob of 8-point Fenrisian Wolves on Terminator-sized 40mm bases. Ditto a creep in "weight of fire" blasts without designing the game to speed up their usage (Wyverns anyone?).
Honestly, had the game been properly rescaled for its increasing size (ex: Making all movement and ranges 4" instead of 8"), and maybe Bolt Action-style scattering used (so you don't need a protractor), then a lot of issues would have been solved there.
42382
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 15:08:36
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Fafnir wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Yeah.
In my Inquisition army, I have a Valkyrie with one 5-man squad with flamers, one 6-man squad with flamers, and one Inquisitor with an Incinerator.
If you think flamers are bad, wait until this Grav-Chute Insertions right in front of your favorite infantry unit and then walks within range...
ADDENDUM:
I'm Ordo Hereticus, so for extra BBQ, just add Chaos; I get to re-roll wounds.
With the situation you've described, you're spending, at minimum, 422 points for a pump-and-dump of 38.5 S4/ AP-/D1 hits and 3.5 S6/ AP-/D1 hits (and then one multilaser and hellstrike missile, which doesn't amount to a whole lot on its own either).
That's beyond awful. Like... criminally bad.
For reference, 228 points of Dominions with storm bolters at 24" (so no rapid fire) puts out as many S4/ AP-/D1 shots (amounting to 25 hits with no buffs). You are paying an obscene amount of points for something that's absolutely terrible. It's about as far down the rabbit hole of the sunken cost fallacy that you can get.
NurglesR0T wrote:
On a flamer toting imperial guardsmen, perhaps.
Flamers on units like Bloat Drones and Hellhounds, suddenly they are scary and I guarantee, if they aren't shooting every turn, then they are doing something wrong.
Yes, but those are entirely different weapons from the standard flamer (especially in the hands of infantry), or the archetypes that come close to it. But Hellhounds have 12" flamers that hit like trucks on a fast moving frame and Blight Drones are not too far off from that.
Yes but it is FUN. :p
100523
Flamers @ 2017/11/24 20:54:50
Post by: Brutus_Apex
3 D3 hits. No cover. D3 hits on overwatch. Call it a day
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/25 02:37:39
Post by: Infantryman
According to the leaked points values in the rumors thread, there will NOT be any changes to the price for flamers.
M.
95410
Flamers @ 2017/11/25 02:55:06
Post by: ERJAK
Infantryman wrote:According to the leaked points values in the rumors thread, there will NOT be any changes to the price for flamers.
M.
Except handflamers
116040
Flamers @ 2017/11/25 03:24:51
Post by: NurglesR0T
Quickjager wrote: NurglesR0T wrote: Quickjager wrote:Flamers are imo aren't worth points, however as a limited free weapon swap they would be able to start coming into their own.
If a unit were able to swap 1 model to a flamer for free I could see them start gaining traction.
But if you wanted to make them actually useful, they need to scale with the size of the squad you are shooting at, or perhaps even scale with the armor save somehow.
Flamers aren't what makes them useless. Your standard S4 0AP flamer, yeah not much more effective than 2 marines firing bolters.
What is terrifying is things like Plague Spitters, Heavy Flamers, Inferno Cannons etc. They are brilliant weapons against single models such as vehicles/monsters/characters/flyers and if you think you can just ignore the overwatch they can dish out you will be in for a surprise - especially when there is a couple of them in the unit.
be few and far between their occurrence.
A flamer should not be more effective on a single target than a group. So your statement means yes it does need a rework.
Absolutely - I had a post earlier in this thread to that effect
NurglesR0T wrote:This is the exact same argument I make when locals complain about the removal of templates. The game is much better now that they are gone. Only negative drawback from the change is them being better against single models rather than units that the weapon type is actually designed for. Maybe just adding in a slight rule that if the target is a single model then it only does half hits rounding up?
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/25 04:11:29
Post by: Infantryman
ERJAK wrote: Infantryman wrote:According to the leaked points values in the rumors thread, there will NOT be any changes to the price for flamers.
M.
Except handflamers
:|
Yeah I did not disambiguate well enough.
M.
86074
Flamers @ 2017/11/25 04:50:31
Post by: Quickjager
NurglesR0T wrote: Quickjager wrote: NurglesR0T wrote: Quickjager wrote:Flamers are imo aren't worth points, however as a limited free weapon swap they would be able to start coming into their own.
If a unit were able to swap 1 model to a flamer for free I could see them start gaining traction.
But if you wanted to make them actually useful, they need to scale with the size of the squad you are shooting at, or perhaps even scale with the armor save somehow.
Flamers aren't what makes them useless. Your standard S4 0AP flamer, yeah not much more effective than 2 marines firing bolters.
What is terrifying is things like Plague Spitters, Heavy Flamers, Inferno Cannons etc. They are brilliant weapons against single models such as vehicles/monsters/characters/flyers and if you think you can just ignore the overwatch they can dish out you will be in for a surprise - especially when there is a couple of them in the unit.
be few and far between their occurrence.
A flamer should not be more effective on a single target than a group. So your statement means yes it does need a rework.
Absolutely - I had a post earlier in this thread to that effect
NurglesR0T wrote:This is the exact same argument I make when locals complain about the removal of templates. The game is much better now that they are gone. Only negative drawback from the change is them being better against single models rather than units that the weapon type is actually designed for. Maybe just adding in a slight rule that if the target is a single model then it only does half hits rounding up?
Ahh sorry bout that.
95818
Flamers @ 2017/11/25 21:43:48
Post by: Stux
Flamers generally at fine. But I'd make 2 tweaks for sanity:
1) You must roll to hit Vs flyers
2) You can always use flamers on Overwatch, regardless of how far away the charging unit is
99813
Flamers @ 2017/11/26 13:39:09
Post by: Nerak
Stux wrote:Flamers generally at fine. But I'd make 2 tweaks for sanity:
1) You must roll to hit Vs flyers
2) You can always use flamers on Overwatch, regardless of how far away the charging unit is
I like this. I'd change 2) too all flamers get 10" range instead though, for basicly the same effect and call it a day. Any charge made from 11"+ only has a 1/6 chance to succeed (without the command point re-roll).
Giving it 10" would give the flamer more interactions with deep strike, allowing you to fire it from deep strike and allowing deep striking charging units to get overwatched. Deepstriking units full of flamers might sound pretty powerfull, but look below where I do the math of 4plasma vs 4flamers. There's also ways to counterplay around deep strike. You can deny your valuable units by putting stuff that don't matter as much in the way of flamers, and with only one damadge they aren't reliable at killing multi wound units, tanks or monsters. You will always know how many flamers are deep striking so you can make informed decisions. I feel if this change is made, plus the roll to hit against flyers, the flamer would be much more viable and logical pick. Without being powerfull enough to break the game. A deep striking marine unit with 4 flamers do 14 hits, 7 wounds and 2.3 kills on a marine squad. Compare that to four plasmas on standard mode that do 6.6 hits, 4.4 wounds and 2.2 kills. The plasma is relatively easy to buff with overcharge and re-rolls to hit making it more powerfull, this is the weakest possible plasma shot.
DS 4x marine flamers vs marines: 2.3 kills
DS 4x marine plasma on standard vs marines: 2.2 kills
-Not broken or overpowered-
Edit:
For you who will mention flamers vs hordes...
DS 4x marine flamers vs ork boys: 5.835 kills (≈6kills)
DS 4x marine plasma on standard vs ork boys: 4.4 kills (≈4kills)
DS 4x marine plasma on supercharge with re-roll 1 vs orks boys: 5.84 kills (≈6 kills, 12dmg)
-Not broken or overpowered-
Edit 2:
I can write the entire formula if requested. Also I'm well aware that the flamers would get to Shoot again if the enemy charges them but as stated above there's ways to play around this. Move 6" away from the marines, Shoot them or charge with cheap tank (like a rhino) to never allow them to Shoot again. Chances are 4dmg per turn won't be enough to bring a transport down through 2 game turns, at which point it will hardly matter. If the deepstriking happens turn 1 the squad would be free to what it wants on turn 4 if a rhino kept charging it.
114775
Flamers @ 2017/11/26 18:03:26
Post by: CassianSol
Stux wrote:Flamers generally at fine. But I'd make 2 tweaks for sanity:
1) You must roll to hit Vs flyers
2) You can always use flamers on Overwatch, regardless of how far away the charging unit is
Agreed. The roll to hit vs flyers is more of a game logic thing, rather than a balance issue. Flamers are not doing damage to flyers. I understand why they left it out for simplicity purposes.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/26 18:51:17
Post by: Infantryman
Yeah, it seems weird my supersonic spacejet can be touched by one at all, ever.
M.
114775
Flamers @ 2017/11/26 20:28:13
Post by: CassianSol
In practice though I can't recall it ever actually happening in game.
111146
Flamers @ 2017/11/26 20:46:49
Post by: p5freak
Where does it say that flyers are immune to flamers ? I cant find it in the rules.
117059
Flamers @ 2017/11/26 23:07:14
Post by: Esmer
With Conscripts being nerfed to oblivion, infantry squads with only flamers are going to be my "horde guard" option for the time being. Swarm them towards the enemy with "Move, move, move", some of them are bound to survive long enough for flamer range.
I also really like the idea of a "1 Heavy Flamer + 3 Flamers + 5 Shotguns + Chimera with double Flamers" Veteran BBQ wagon. Haven't tested it in practice yet though. Make them Catachan and give them a Platoon Commander for the Catachan order, and they sound like they could dish out a lot of hurt at light and medium infantry.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/27 00:33:53
Post by: Infantryman
 Esmer wrote:With Conscripts being nerfed to oblivion, infantry squads with only flamers are going to be my "horde guard" option for the time being. Swarm them towards the enemy with "Move, move, move", some of them are bound to survive long enough for flamer range.
I also really like the idea of a "1 Heavy Flamer + 3 Flamers + 5 Shotguns + Chimera with double Flamers" Veteran BBQ wagon. Haven't tested it in practice yet though. Make them Catachan and give them a Platoon Commander for the Catachan order, and they sound like they could dish out a lot of hurt at light and medium infantry.
Do we even have a heavy flamer model yet?
Interesting squad comp, though - I was looking at adding vets to my 1.5k list to help bring it to 2k, and had a similar idea, though with a Griphonne pattern twin-linked heavy bolter setup instead.
(Side note: I can't find what Twin Linked stuff DOES anymore...where is that in the BRB?)
M.
52054
Flamers @ 2017/11/27 06:08:33
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Infantryman wrote: Esmer wrote:With Conscripts being nerfed to oblivion, infantry squads with only flamers are going to be my "horde guard" option for the time being. Swarm them towards the enemy with "Move, move, move", some of them are bound to survive long enough for flamer range.
I also really like the idea of a "1 Heavy Flamer + 3 Flamers + 5 Shotguns + Chimera with double Flamers" Veteran BBQ wagon. Haven't tested it in practice yet though. Make them Catachan and give them a Platoon Commander for the Catachan order, and they sound like they could dish out a lot of hurt at light and medium infantry.
Do we even have a heavy flamer model yet?
Interesting squad comp, though - I was looking at adding vets to my 1.5k list to help bring it to 2k, and had a similar idea, though with a Griphonne pattern twin-linked heavy bolter setup instead.
(Side note: I can't find what Twin Linked stuff DOES anymore...where is that in the BRB?)
M.
Command squad boxes do, and there have been heavy flamer metal models in the past. Anytime you see a twin barreled flamer on a guardsman with a tank it's a heavy flamer.
96209
Flamers @ 2017/11/27 19:41:07
Post by: MacPhail
With the CA points reduction, hand flamers on Seraphim are starting to look pretty good. Down to 6 points per pair doing d3 hits each. Range and strength are worse, but having them on jump troops, firing after fall back, and using them in melee are all nice perks at the price. I'm gli ng to at least try them at their new price point. Sisters Rhinos with 4 heavy flamers are fun too, and may get some use with all these new -1 to hit armies.
114775
Flamers @ 2017/11/27 20:28:12
Post by: CassianSol
p5freak wrote:
Where does it say that flyers are immune to flamers ? I cant find it in the rules.
It is clear from context that I don't mean that. Flamers are no threat to vehicles (with rare exception) in practice, so the oddity that flamers can hit flyers is nota real problem.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/11/27 20:29:30
Post by: Infantryman
 MrMoustaffa wrote: Infantryman wrote: Esmer wrote:With Conscripts being nerfed to oblivion, infantry squads with only flamers are going to be my "horde guard" option for the time being. Swarm them towards the enemy with "Move, move, move", some of them are bound to survive long enough for flamer range.
I also really like the idea of a "1 Heavy Flamer + 3 Flamers + 5 Shotguns + Chimera with double Flamers" Veteran BBQ wagon. Haven't tested it in practice yet though. Make them Catachan and give them a Platoon Commander for the Catachan order, and they sound like they could dish out a lot of hurt at light and medium infantry.
Do we even have a heavy flamer model yet?
Interesting squad comp, though - I was looking at adding vets to my 1.5k list to help bring it to 2k, and had a similar idea, though with a Griphonne pattern twin-linked heavy bolter setup instead.
(Side note: I can't find what Twin Linked stuff DOES anymore...where is that in the BRB?)
M.
Command squad boxes do, and there have been heavy flamer metal models in the past. Anytime you see a twin barreled flamer on a guardsman with a tank it's a heavy flamer.
I need to pick me up one of those boxes when I next get down to the FLGS...
M.
75469
Flamers @ 2017/11/28 22:59:43
Post by: Mayk0l
Ugh. I've had different flamer experiences. Shoot the Starweaver and it becomes impossible for my troupes to charge a unit with flamers. Such a deterrent.
88903
Flamers @ 2017/11/29 00:29:46
Post by: Kaiyanwang
Nerak wrote: Edit: For you who will mention flamers vs hordes... DS 4x marine flamers vs ork boys: 5.835 kills (≈6kills) DS 4x marine plasma on standard vs ork boys: 4.4 kills (≈4kills) DS 4x marine plasma on supercharge with re-roll 1 vs orks boys: 5.84 kills (≈6 kills, 12dmg) -Not broken or overpowered-
I think this is the simplest improvement. Possibly the best for practical reasons. It even makes the wapon more palatable on platforms like terminators. How much would it change Sternguard, Burnas, Sisters, and Scion command squads? One could argue that is still not enough, but at least the flamer would keep the charge-deterrent aspect of the weapon, and have a larger threat on the field. Fo sure, this basic " d6" for the area effects was a huge failure, but I guess the designers would be more willing to change the range than to alter the d6 roll. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Mayk0l wrote:Ugh. I've had different flamer experiences. Shoot the Starweaver and it becomes impossible for my troupes to charge a unit with flamers. Such a deterrent.
Which unit you were going to charge?
107077
Flamers @ 2017/12/02 16:55:14
Post by: Thousand-Son-Sorcerer
Okay there is a lot to sift through so im just going to make this simple and put the suggestion then my response.
10" range/ Range increase
You dont want people being able to DS and hit you with flamers. This would completely cut out to hit rolls which means all they need to do is fugure out how to get rerolls with to wound rolls and they could do massive amounts of damage if you thought hordes were strong before they would be in a massivly more powerful position if you did that.
Scaling Damage
This is a good idea but 1d6 per 10 is ridiculous 4 guys killing 18 from a 30 man squad is too powerful. 1d3 per 5 (max 4d3) seems like the most reasonable. I didn't see this suggested.
WTFlyer
Yeah its dumb...I cant hit the guy 12 feet away but I can hit the Jet that Zooms by going 200 MPH at an altitude of 300 feet? Just make it so they cant hit flyers with Hard To Hit.
Price Reduction
NO. As it is Flamers are scary good at killing Elites making them cheaper would only exacerbate the problem.
Overwatch
This is an espically sore subject for me since my army is trash in CC and almost exclusivly relies on flamers to deal with this. To me it seems like there should be some sort of upgrade that you could purchase to enable you to fire up to 12 in. for overwatch. Again this would be mostly for armies that rely on Flamers to stop charges. Flamers are supposed to be a deterrant and they are, but the problem is they are a deterrant to units that would rather shoot you anyways, and the units you really need the overwatch against can simply stand outside the range and get the charge off more then 50 percent of the time. Let me be clear these units can absolutly TRASH my 145 point unit in a single turn at the cost of 84 points for a unit of Zerkers. So I think that some armies should have access to a way to ensure that before you gobble up 150 poits of models with almost half the cost you can at least kill 2 or 3.
106383
Flamers @ 2017/12/02 20:25:35
Post by: JNAProductions
So, the odds of killing 18/30 people (assuming GEQs and, hell, let's say a Heavy Flamer) are:
((1/6)^3)*((2/3)^18)*((5/6)^18)
Or, in an easier to understand number, .0000117%. Yes, that's percent.
111146
Flamers @ 2017/12/02 21:56:57
Post by: p5freak
Really ? A unit with 5 flamers against terminators. They score 17,5 hits, 8 wounds, termis make their 2+ sv roll and 1 model loses 1 wound. Wow, very impressive.
Lets see how 22 stormbolters compare to that, for the same point cost as 5 flamers. The 22 stormbolters have 88 shots at 8", they hit on 3+, thats 58 hits, 29 wounds, termis make their 2+ sv, and 2 terminators die.
Flamers are scary good at killing elites
95410
Flamers @ 2017/12/03 11:11:54
Post by: ERJAK
CassianSol wrote:p5freak wrote:
Where does it say that flyers are immune to flamers ? I cant find it in the rules.
It is clear from context that I don't mean that. Flamers are no threat to vehicles (with rare exception) in practice, so the oddity that flamers can hit flyers is nota real problem.
Immolation flamers do okay, you'll still only strip maybe 2-3 hulpoints off but that's about the same as 2 lascannons so...
2771
Flamers @ 2017/12/03 19:18:26
Post by: Infantryman
The heck are hull points?
M.
52054
Flamers @ 2017/12/03 23:24:40
Post by: MrMoustaffa
6th and 7th version of wounds for vehicles.
107077
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 06:51:52
Post by: Thousand-Son-Sorcerer
p5freak wrote:
Really ? A unit with 5 flamers against terminators. They score 17,5 hits, 8 wounds, termis make their 2+ sv roll and 1 model loses 1 wound. Wow, very impressive.
Lets see how 22 stormbolters compare to that, for the same point cost as 5 flamers. The 22 stormbolters have 88 shots at 8", they hit on 3+, thats 58 hits, 29 wounds, termis make their 2+ sv, and 2 terminators die.
Flamers are scary good at killing elites
MY GOD YOUR RIGHT.
Oh wait you have to attach those to models. Which means you made a
comparison that every one should ignore. Not to mention you used Termies and only Termies in your example. Which means your comparison should be ignored twice.
You also started from 8" for some reason which isn't the threat range of flamers it would be more like 12" but that makes little difference.
And why are you using the point cost of Flamers for SM and not for AM? Well lets see if we can sbore tbis up a bit.
The cheapest flamer you can put on the field is 11 points with the cheapest Stormbolter you can put on the field is 15 points so right there your comparison was off by a pretty large factor. That's 3 Strombolters to 4 Flamers or 12 bolter SHOTS to 14 Flamer HITS.
12*.66*.5*.165=.653
14*.5*.165=.99
Oh my, what happened you were so right when you left out impirtant information like how much the frame these weapons come on was taken out.
Lets not stop there what about MEQ?
12*.66*.5*.33=1.30
14*.5*.33=1.98
Damn again your wrong.
Maybe next time try being honest and compare like with like rather then comparing the least expensive frame to the most expensive one.
111146
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 11:12:07
Post by: p5freak
You want a comparison with model pts. included ? Very well. 5 company veterans with 5 stormbolters are 90 pts. How many flamers do we get for them at 90 pts. ? One Now, lets recalculate.
20*0,67*0,5*0,165=1,1
3,5*0,5*0,165=0,28875
Against MEQ :
20*0,67*0,5*0,33=2,211
3,5*0,5*0,33=0,5775
Damn again im right.
60684
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 11:47:04
Post by: Drager
p5freak wrote:You want a comparison with model pts. included ? Very well. 5 company veterans with 5 stormbolters are 90 pts. How many flamers do we get for them at 90 pts. ? One Now, lets recalculate.
20*0,67*0,5*0,165=1,1
3,5*0,5*0,165=0,28875
Against MEQ :
20*0,67*0,5*0,33=2,211
3,5*0,5*0,33=0,5775
Damn again im right.
WHy would you only get 1 Flamer for 90 points? There are units in the game that can come with all flamers last I checked.
110308
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 12:05:11
Post by: Earth127
Is it just me or does there sound something false about comparing one model shooting with 5?
On the very least you need to add 0.583 wounds of lasgun shots against MEQ and 0.291 wounds against terminators.
Also overwatch needs to compared (it's a flamers primary function in 8th) and in overwatch the one flamer guy does as much dmg on average as the enite storm bolter squad together.
While we are on the subject there is another interesting numbet that needs to be taken into consideration here: standad deviation. I don't have the time to run the numbers on that right now but it can be important because flamers eliminate a roll (the hit roll) and that is a massive advantage in a game of chance. Also that math sucks because you are not dealing with normal chances here.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 12:35:13
Post by: Fafnir
 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
The cheapest flamer you can put on the field is 11 points with the cheapest Stormbolter you can put on the field is 15 points
What the hell?
117381
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 12:44:20
Post by: AdmiralHalsey
I think he's comparing Guardsmen special weapon squads with flamers, to MEQs with stormbolters, while ignoring that the Guardsmen have infinately less durability, range, and no innate way of delivering the flamers, and will die after their shots.
10347
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 13:09:08
Post by: Fafnir
His comparisons make absolutely no sense, which doesn't help that he's being really gakky about it too.
110308
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 13:54:10
Post by: Earth127
This thread doesn't make any sense atm.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 14:39:06
Post by: Infantryman
Flamers need a price decrease and an AP increase.
Burning fuel gets in gaps and burns away oxygen - both of these effectively ignore armor...and cover.
My gakky suggestion is AP4, because Sv 3+ seems to be about where you see "sealed" suits.
I think AP doesn't remove Cover, yes? If not, Flamers should ignore it, probably.
Range is...fine. But only because of alpha strike type situations. Really, you shouldn't bring a flamethrower to an open field battle and expect great results - it is for built up areas, bushes, and bunkers.
How about 6 points for 8", S4, AP-4, Auto Hit, Ignore Cover?
Slightly cheaper than a Plasma gun, always hits, good wounding odds, but with much less range.
M.
60684
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 14:48:37
Post by: Drager
That is crazy crazy strong. No save for Spacemarines or anything worse. Even a marine in cover (who has a 5+ save against plasma) gets nothing against this. Does it still do d6 hits? If so... why would you ever take anything else? Strongest gun in 40k. It averages 1 wound against a battle tank! Against MEQ it's 3 wounds and only 4 against GEQ. For terminators it absolutely brutalises them, killing on average 1 terminator (2 wounds!) for 6 points. Load up on these as much as possible.
"New Flamer vs Toughness: 8 Save: 3+ Wounds: 12
Average Damage: 1 Wounds
Probability of 2 or more wounds: 12%"
"New Flamer vs Toughness: 4 Save: 3+ Wounds: 1
Average Damage: 3 Wounds
Probability of 3 or more wounds: 27%"
"New Flamer vs Toughness: 3 Save: 5+ Wounds: 1
Average Damage: 4 Wounds
Probability of 3 or more wounds: 43%"
"New Flamer vs Toughness: 4 Save: 1+ Wounds: 2
Average Damage: 2 Wounds
Probability of 3 or more wounds: 11%"
27903
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 15:21:07
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
I think that he is referring to the old system where AP4 means that if your armor had a save value of 4+ you didn't get a save but 3+ took a normal save.
In the new system it would be AP -3.
Also heavier flamers should have not just more S but also a longer range. So: flamer S4 AP -1 Range 8", Heavy flamer S5 AP -2 range 10" and, Flame cannon S 6 AP -2 range 12". The range increase is justified fluffwise due to the launching system of the gel.
110703
Flamers @ 6017/12/05 15:32:10
Post by: Galas
Isn't the cheapest stormbolter a Sisters of Battle with Stormbolter for 11 points?
2771
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 15:47:15
Post by: Infantryman
Drager wrote:
That is crazy crazy strong. No save for Spacemarines or anything worse. Even a marine in cover (who has a 5+ save against plasma) gets nothing against this. Does it still do d6 hits? If so... why would you ever take anything else? Strongest gun in 40k. It averages 1 wound against a battle tank! Against MEQ it's 3 wounds and only 4 against GEQ. For terminators it absolutely brutalises them, killing on average 1 terminator (2 wounds!) for 6 points. Load up on these as much as possible.
"New Flamer vs Toughness: 8 Save: 3+ Wounds: 12
Average Damage: 1 Wounds
Probability of 2 or more wounds: 12%"
"New Flamer vs Toughness: 4 Save: 3+ Wounds: 1
Average Damage: 3 Wounds
Probability of 3 or more wounds: 27%"
"New Flamer vs Toughness: 3 Save: 5+ Wounds: 1
Average Damage: 4 Wounds
Probability of 3 or more wounds: 43%"
"New Flamer vs Toughness: 4 Save: 1+ Wounds: 2
Average Damage: 2 Wounds
Probability of 3 or more wounds: 11%"
 I jacked it up all kinds of good...I actually had it right the first time, then mucked it up before hitting Submit
BUT now we're back on track! I'll put my fixes below.
Leo_the_Rat wrote:I think that he is referring to the old system where AP4 means that if your armor had a save value of 4+ you didn't get a save but 3+ took a normal save.
In the new system it would be AP -3.
Also heavier flamers should have not just more S but also a longer range. So: flamer S4 AP -1 Range 8", Heavy flamer S5 AP -2 range 10" and, Flame cannon S 6 AP -2 range 12". The range increase is justified fluffwise due to the launching system of the gel.
You are absolutely correct - I had The Old Ways creep back into my head.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that 4+ saves *seem* to be about the best you get without going to a completely sealed suit. That informed my reasoning for not wanting 4+ to work against it. In retrospect that is a little harsh, so I think probably AP-2 is best. Someone in Flak Armor (and equiv) shouldn't get a save against a flamethrower - they're on fire.
So, to uncross myself, I'd have thought a flamer to be: 8" S4 AP-2, 1 Damage, Auto Hit 1d6 (or 2d3), Ignore Cover
I will agree that a Heavy Flamer should have further range, though I'm not super sold on it having higher strength or AP because it is still burning fuel, isn't it?
M.
60684
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 15:51:48
Post by: Drager
Infantryman wrote:
So, to uncross myself, I'd have thought a flamer to be: 8" S4 AP-2, 1 Damage, Auto Hit 1d6 (or 2d3), Ignore Cover
M.
That sitll has the same problem, but to a lesser extent. Now a marine in cover gets a 5+ same as against plasma, but with a bunch of autohits at a lower price point. As an elite infantry killer it's pretty cool and probably worth, say 12 points (if 1d6, more if 2d3), but as a horde killer it's not as good. Still great against terminators as well.
27903
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 16:07:51
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Infantryman wrote:I will agree that a Heavy Flamer should have further range, though I'm not super sold on it having higher strength or AP because it is still burning fuel, isn't it?.
My thought is the delivery system not only boosts the range but also the amount of goo that spews out of it. Alternately you could put a more volatile mixture in larger tanks by adding more chemicals (I'm not a scientist but it sounds like good pseudo science).
111146
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 17:25:57
Post by: p5freak
Drager wrote:
WHy would you only get 1 Flamer for 90 points? There are units in the game that can come with all flamers last I checked.
Earth127 wrote:Is it just me or does there sound something false about comparing one model shooting with 5?
The point was to compare the damage a flamer for 11 pts. can do, to 5 stormbolters which only cost 10 pts. and, in addition, have 14" more range. He complained that i didnt consider model pts. And he was right, 22 stormbolters need 22 models. Thats why i compared 5 veterans with 5 stormbolters for 90 points against 5 veterans with 1 flamer for 89 pts.
Earth127 wrote:
Also overwatch needs to compared (it's a flamers primary function in 8th) and in overwatch the one flamer guy does as much dmg on average as the enite storm bolter squad together.
Lets compare overwatch, the flamer scores 3,5 hits. 5 stormbolters score 3,3 hits. So 0,2 more hits on the flamer. Wow. A game changer
56055
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 17:31:16
Post by: Backspacehacker
Flamers are fine, for the most part. Imo I think they should actually be 2d3 rather then 1d6 as there is a 33% chance you just paid for a short range bolter. Assuming standard marine flamer, which is the same profile as a bolter but at shorter range. So I'd you roll a 2 will be the same as a regular bolter. Or good for bit roll a 1 then it would have been better to take a bolter.
60684
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 17:35:06
Post by: Drager
p5freak wrote:
The point was to compare the damage a flamer for 11 pts. can do, to 5 stormbolters which only cost 10 pts. and, in addition, have 14" more range. He complained that i didnt consider model pts. And he was right, 22 stormbolters need 22 models. Thats why i compared 5 veterans with 5 stormbolters for 90 points against 5 veterans with 1 flamer for 89 pts
That seems incredibly disingenuous. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare a unit of flamers to a unit of stormbolters? 5 Acolytes with a stormbolters vs 5 Acolytes with flamers say?
111146
Flamers @ 2018/02/18 18:16:32
Post by: p5freak
Drager wrote:p5freak wrote:
The point was to compare the damage a flamer for 11 pts. can do, to 5 stormbolters which only cost 10 pts. and, in addition, have 14" more range. He complained that i didnt consider model pts. And he was right, 22 stormbolters need 22 models. Thats why i compared 5 veterans with 5 stormbolters for 90 points against 5 veterans with 1 flamer for 89 pts
That seems incredibly disingenuous. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare a unit of flamers to a unit of stormbolters? 5 Acolytes with a stormbolters vs 5 Acolytes with flamers say?
You could do that. But 5 flamers are 55 points. 5 stormbolters are 10 points. That not a fair point comparison. The 5 flamers barely do more damage.
20*0,67*0,5*0,33=2,211
17,5*0,5*0,33=2,8875
Not even 1 wound more. A normal flamer shouldnt be more than 3-4 pts. 11 is way to much.
60684
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 18:57:52
Post by: Drager
And that makes the point much better than shenanigans. I agree that flashers are overcosted.
90435
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 19:10:47
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Drager wrote:p5freak wrote:
The point was to compare the damage a flamer for 11 pts. can do, to 5 stormbolters which only cost 10 pts. and, in addition, have 14" more range. He complained that i didnt consider model pts. And he was right, 22 stormbolters need 22 models. Thats why i compared 5 veterans with 5 stormbolters for 90 points against 5 veterans with 1 flamer for 89 pts
That seems incredibly disingenuous. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare a unit of flamers to a unit of stormbolters? 5 Acolytes with a stormbolters vs 5 Acolytes with flamers say?
You need to incorporate cost into it. That's about half the math in the game.
60684
Flamers @ 2017/12/05 19:13:07
Post by: Drager
Yes you do. That was part of my point.
110308
Flamers @ 2017/12/07 11:16:22
Post by: Earth127
Is there a unit that can take 5 storm bolters or 5 flamers in the same squad?
60684
Flamers @ 2017/12/07 12:02:37
Post by: Drager
Earth127 wrote:Is there a unit that can take 5 storm bolters or 5 flamers in the same squad?
Yep, inquisitorial Acolytes can.
99813
Flamers @ 2017/12/07 12:16:11
Post by: Nerak
Earth127 wrote:Is there a unit that can take 5 storm bolters or 5 flamers in the same squad?
SoB Dominon squads can. 4 flamers+1 combi-flamer or 5 storm bolters
110308
Flamers @ 2017/12/07 12:58:58
Post by: Earth127
Since I don't have index imperium II, I did the comparison for 5 basic rubricae inferno boltguns vs warpflamers.
Interestingly if you can fire them the warpflamers are better for the points cost of the squad then vs MEQ then.
5 warpflamers deal 3.54 wounds/ 100 points where as inferno boltguns do 2,22 on average. The biggest gain in points efficiency is adding 1-3 warpflamers where as the 4th annd fifth are minor gains that may be better spend elsewhere.
Tough if you are pressed for points it totals to 65 points extra.
Upon re-reading; I've found infantryman's suggested flamers.
88903
Flamers @ 2017/12/07 16:38:07
Post by: Kaiyanwang
Earth127 wrote:Is there a unit that can take 5 storm bolters or 5 flamers in the same squad?
Combi-flamer chaos termies count?
None will equip them like that but well.
90435
Flamers @ 2017/12/07 17:58:15
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Earth127 wrote:Is there a unit that can take 5 storm bolters or 5 flamers in the same squad?
Veteran equivalents for Marines, Chosen (well it's a Combi-Bolter but same profile and price), Sisters have two units, then Acolytes. That's about all off the top of my head.
111146
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 12:21:28
Post by: p5freak
Wanna know how an insane flamer looks like ? The tyranid acid spray on the tyrannofex is a 2D6 18" flamethrower with S7 (dropping to 6 or 5 as the tyrannofex strength goes down when he loses wounds) AP-1 D3 dice damage. Yes, D3 dice damage for every wound. If the tyrannofex didnt move in the movement phase it can fire its weapons twice. Thats 4D6 shots. The acid spray is 25 pts. Compare that to the heavy flamer.
113188
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 12:27:30
Post by: pismakron
Flamers should be Assault 6, Range 6", S3, AP0, auto hit. That would give flamers s nice buff against hordes.
Damage should definitely not be dependent on the number of models in the targeted unit, as that would require each weapon to be evaluated separately. And everybody would hate that.
100848
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 12:44:54
Post by: tneva82
Nice buff against hordes, even better against elite units.
113188
Flamers @ 0007/04/14 12:46:23
Post by: pismakron
tneva82 wrote:Nice buff against hordes, even better against elite units.
So what is your suggestion? S2?
100848
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 12:51:01
Post by: tneva82
That still makes them better at killing elites. Thing is there's no real anti-horde weapon. Lots of shots? Yeah it's good for hordes by virtue of having lots of shots _but every shot more also helps against elites_. And elites cost more. If you kill more points of elites than hordes you know weapon is better against elite than horde even if it is seemingly good anti-horde weapon with lots of shots. It's good against horde by simply being best of poor options. It's still better against elites.
Only way to get weapon that is TRULY better against horde than elite is, funnily that, make damage output depend on size of target unit. That or elite's defences needs to be buffed but anti-elite weapons needs to be buffed as well. Enough that anti-horde weapons would suffer efficiency drop against elites but elite killer weapons would still kill them. But that's harder to do.
113188
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 13:00:36
Post by: pismakron
tneva82 wrote:
That still makes them better at killing elites. Thing is there's no real anti-horde weapon. Lots of shots? Yeah it's good for hordes by virtue of having lots of shots _but every shot more also helps against elites_. And elites cost more. If you kill more points of elites than hordes you know weapon is better against elite than horde even if it is seemingly good anti-horde weapon with lots of shots. It's good against horde by simply being best of poor options. It's still better against elites.
Only way to get weapon that is TRULY better against horde than elite is, funnily that, make damage output depend on size of target unit. That or elite's defences needs to be buffed but anti-elite weapons needs to be buffed as well. Enough that anti-horde weapons would suffer efficiency drop against elites but elite killer weapons would still kill them. But that's harder to do.
The most prevalent and durable of all horde units is the Imperial Guardsman by a considerable margin. And they are always taken in squads of ten. On the other hand, some non-horde infantry like Necron Warriors or Chaos Space Marines can be taken in squads of 20.
It is true that there is no (or only one, really) weapon that is more effective against cheap single wound T3 models than against tac-marines, but this is not something that can be redressed without balancing the price of those cheap wounds. A T3 5+ wound should be about half the price of a T4 3+ wound, not less than a third. Regards
111146
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 13:44:11
Post by: p5freak
pismakron wrote:
It is true that there is no (or only one, really) weapon that is more effective against cheap single wound T3 models than against tac-marines
What are you talking about ? A flamer ?
113188
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 13:53:34
Post by: pismakron
p5freak wrote:pismakron wrote:
It is true that there is no (or only one, really) weapon that is more effective against cheap single wound T3 models than against tac-marines
What are you talking about ? A flamer ?
No. Buffed gretchins in CC are more effective at killing Guardsmen than Tacticals. But it is admittedly kind of a corner-case.
But here is a flamer profile that is better against hordes: Assault 20, Range 8", S2 AP+1, D1, autohits
117053
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 19:46:14
Post by: Gwarok
Nerak wrote:Are flamers underpowered this edition? Should they be given 2d6 wounds? Has,anyone found a good use for them? It feels like a waste to use up your special weapon slots for a charge counter that you might not use.
Edit: got the phone working again. This was about a page long before but whatever.
I used to dislike them too until I realized that:
1) You WILL get assaulted a lot, and having marines swamped by hordes is the most common and serious threat to your boys
2) Autohit on Overwatch is amazing, guys trying to close with you won't care about much, but they fear flamers
3) Putting them on units that can fall back and still shoot is a lot more effective than I thought it would be
4) People tie units up all the time with otherwise negligible squads, this will make them pay for it
I'm currently making a list with Sternguard with flamers, and more assault marines with them too. I even put together a list with Immolators and Retributor Sisters to fit more flamers in. Stagger your units so that when they tie something up and it falls back, you can swoop in with flamers and make them eat it again when they Assault you, which they will.
61618
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 19:53:52
Post by: Desubot
Earth127 wrote:Is there a unit that can take 5 storm bolters or 5 flamers in the same squad?
Sternguard,...(?) at the minimum they can run with combi flamers.
i believe command squads as well.
86074
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 20:10:28
Post by: Quickjager
Grey Knight Strike Squads, Purifiers, Terminators, Paladins, Inquisitorial Acolytes, Sisters of Battle Dominion Squads, I think Custodes?
106383
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 20:17:08
Post by: JNAProductions
Quickjager wrote:Grey Knight Strike Squads, Purifiers, Terminators, Paladins, Inquisitorial Acolytes, Sisters of Battle Dominion Squads, I think Custodes?
Custodes cannot.
112618
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 20:31:35
Post by: Arachnofiend
Infantryman wrote:You are absolutely correct - I had The Old Ways creep back into my head.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that 4+ saves *seem* to be about the best you get without going to a completely sealed suit. That informed my reasoning for not wanting 4+ to work against it. In retrospect that is a little harsh, so I think probably AP-2 is best. Someone in Flak Armor (and equiv) shouldn't get a save against a flamethrower - they're on fire.
So, to uncross myself, I'd have thought a flamer to be: 8" S4 AP-2, 1 Damage, Auto Hit 1d6 (or 2d3), Ignore Cover
I will agree that a Heavy Flamer should have further range, though I'm not super sold on it having higher strength or AP because it is still burning fuel, isn't it?
M.
So with this change a warpflamer would be what, AP-4? The rubric might actually be worth his 33 points with that.
61686
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 21:10:31
Post by: generalchaos34
As much as there have been some great ideas on how to fix flamers, I think the easiest (and most likely to be used by GW) is to make them extra cheap, like 5 pts for just about everyone and HF at 10 pts.
Barring that I would like to see a demolisher style rule where you get +1 (or D3) shots for every 5 models past 5, which would return the flamer to its anti horde roots while also making it no more effective against smaller squads and vehicles.
Alternatively you can do a bonus D6 shots for every 10 past 10, which would have a similar effect and be less punishing on elites.
OR! You can just make it so that instead of D6 shots it would flat 6 hits when firing at a unit larger than 10, not too unlike AoS weapons and make it extra brutal against large units.
114894
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 21:18:51
Post by: vaklor4
I think making them d6 , but 6 standard against 10+ models would make it work fine. It keeps the random nature for when you're only targeting one guy (not all the flames are gonna pinpoint him), but if you hit a barnside door of Conscripts, you're pretty guarenteed to get all your worth out of the spray.
61686
Flamers @ 2017/12/14 21:23:34
Post by: generalchaos34
 vaklor4 wrote:I think making them d6 , but 6 standard against 10+ models would make it work fine. It keeps the random nature for when you're only targeting one guy (not all the flames are gonna pinpoint him), but if you hit a barnside door of Conscripts, you're pretty guarenteed to get all your worth out of the spray.
Its hard to miss when you're surrounded! They really should be taking more cues from the more successful weapons in AoS since that game has huge hordes (although their hordes are heavily blunted by leadership, I know 40k handles it differently because of fluff)
90435
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 00:15:18
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
 Desubot wrote:Earth127 wrote:Is there a unit that can take 5 storm bolters or 5 flamers in the same squad?
Sternguard,...(?) at the minimum they can run with combi flamers.
i believe command squads as well.
Think I read someone saying that Sternguard can equip themselves with all Storm Bolters because they're on the Combi Weapon list. I dunno but I'd have to look.
2771
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 16:36:24
Post by: Infantryman
Arachnofiend wrote:
So with this change a warpflamer would be what, AP-4? The rubric might actually be worth his 33 points with that.
I don't know anything about Warpflamers, unfortunately.
generalchaos34 wrote:As much as there have been some great ideas on how to fix flamers, I think the easiest (and most likely to be used by GW) is to make them extra cheap, like 5 pts for just about everyone and HF at 10 pts.
Barring that I would like to see a demolisher style rule where you get +1 (or D3) shots for every 5 models past 5, which would return the flamer to its anti horde roots while also making it no more effective against smaller squads and vehicles.
Alternatively you can do a bonus D6 shots for every 10 past 10, which would have a similar effect and be less punishing on elites.
OR! You can just make it so that instead of D6 shots it would flat 6 hits when firing at a unit larger than 10, not too unlike AoS weapons and make it extra brutal against large units.
Scaling weapon damage is terrible and slows down the game.
As the damage comes from being on fire, I don't think a single model should ever be able to take more than a single hit from it. That should help the elite / character issue. Any extra wounds beyond the number of models in the group are lost.
Then again, this involves counting.
61618
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 16:49:52
Post by: Desubot
Infantryman wrote:
Scaling weapon damage is terrible and slows down the game.
As the damage comes from being on fire, I don't think a single model should ever be able to take more than a single hit from it. That should help the elite / character issue. Any extra wounds beyond the number of models in the group are lost.
Then again, this involves counting.
I dunno Just saying take 6 hits rather than rolling d6 would be pretty fast.
and i figure the damage is coming from the fact that if there is a bunch of people the flamer guy is sweeping the area catching as much stuff on fire as possible vs against a single guy or monster they are tracking and making sure its fully engulfed.
90435
Flamers @ 51175118/02/24 13:04:22
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Desubot wrote: Infantryman wrote:
Scaling weapon damage is terrible and slows down the game.
As the damage comes from being on fire, I don't think a single model should ever be able to take more than a single hit from it. That should help the elite / character issue. Any extra wounds beyond the number of models in the group are lost.
Then again, this involves counting.
I dunno Just saying take 6 hits rather than rolling d6 would be pretty fast.
and i figure the damage is coming from the fact that if there is a bunch of people the flamer guy is sweeping the area catching as much stuff on fire as possible vs against a single guy or monster they are tracking and making sure its fully engulfed.
Which makes sense, but the issue of hordes not caring about flamers at all is real.
61618
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 17:07:27
Post by: Desubot
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Which makes sense, but the issue of hordes not caring about flamers at all is real.
Would auto 6 hits make them care?
35086
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 17:12:44
Post by: Daedalus81
"Change this weapons type to Assault 6 when firing at a unit with more than 10 models. "
Seems easy enough.
113188
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 17:18:32
Post by: pismakron
Daedalus81 wrote:
"Change this weapons type to Assault 6 when firing at a unit with more than 10 models. "
Seems easy enough.
As said earlier, the most prevalent and durable horde unit always comes in squads of ten Guardsmen. It is not necessarily true, that hordes come in larger unit sizes than medium or heavy infantry. Genestealers and Necron Warriors are often taken in units of 20, for example.
28499
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 18:22:48
Post by: Cheeslord
One hit per 2 models in the target unit WHEN THE FIRING UNIT WAS PICKED TO FIRE rounding up (to a maximum of 8)?
61686
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 19:14:39
Post by: generalchaos34
pismakron wrote:Daedalus81 wrote: "Change this weapons type to Assault 6 when firing at a unit with more than 10 models. " Seems easy enough.
As said earlier, the most prevalent and durable horde unit always comes in squads of ten Guardsmen. It is not necessarily true, that hordes come in larger unit sizes than medium or heavy infantry. Genestealers and Necron Warriors are often taken in units of 20, for example.
Individual guard squads are still pretty squishy, especially compared to very large units of brimstones, conscripts, and cultists. You can only do so much damage to a 30 man unit wherein a 10 man will be reduced in effectiveness enough it may not be a threat any more, or may be even wiped off the board with casualties (esp with the change in commissars). People complain about guard but the majority of the really big horde units out there are cultists and brimstone when it comes to staying power now. Dealing with hordes is more effective with weapons that scale to do more damage with larger groups, any weapon with just a lot of shots is going to skewed to be better against ANYTHING, because of how the rules work.
35086
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 20:33:15
Post by: Daedalus81
pismakron wrote:
As said earlier, the most prevalent and durable horde unit always comes in squads of ten Guardsmen. It is not necessarily true, that hordes come in larger unit sizes than medium or heavy infantry. Genestealers and Necron Warriors are often taken in units of 20, for example.
10 man light infantry is not relevant. They're going to get pasted by enough already. I think Alien taught us that flamers are best used on dirty aliens like GS.
You're still dealing with short range. It also isn't going to make it the ONLY weapon on the table. Everyone won't run out and slap flamers on. Some lists will take dedicated units and you'll have to navigate how to do deal with them.
113188
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 20:34:06
Post by: pismakron
 generalchaos34 wrote:
Individual guard squads are still pretty squishy, especially compared to very large units of brimstones, conscripts, and cultists. You can only do so much damage to a 30 man unit wherein a 10 man will be reduced in effectiveness enough it may not be a threat any more, or may be even wiped off the board with casualties (esp with the change in commissars). People complain about guard but the majority of the really big horde units out there are cultists and brimstone when it comes to staying power now. Dealing with hordes is more effective with weapons that scale to do more damage with larger groups, any weapon with just a lot of shots is going to skewed to be better against ANYTHING, because of how the rules work.
Individual Guard squads are point for point one of the most durable units in the game. FAR more durable per point than 20-model Genestealer or Necron Warrior mobs. And they are also far more durable than other horde units like hormagaunts, boyz, bloodletters etc.
And it is not because of the basic rules, that almost any possible 40k weapon kills space marines more efficiently than Guardsmen. Rather it is because Guardsmen are too few points per wound and marines are too many points per wound. In 8th edition a T4 3+ wound should be about twice the amount of points than a T3 5+ wound, but GW has consistently overcosted that extra point of T and 4+/3+ save. This is probably a leftover over from 7th where 3+ saves were extremely good but 5+ saves almost never made a difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Guard Infantry Squad is easily the best troop choice in the game. By a considerable margin. They are very, very relevant.
112618
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 20:36:16
Post by: Arachnofiend
Infantryman wrote:Arachnofiend wrote:
So with this change a warpflamer would be what, AP-4? The rubric might actually be worth his 33 points with that.
I don't know anything about Warpflamers, unfortunately.
Warpflamers are the Rubric flamer weapon that's identical to a regular flamer, except it costs 15 points and is AP-2.
35086
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 20:47:45
Post by: Daedalus81
pismakron wrote:
The Guard Infantry Squad is easily the best troop choice in the game. By a considerable margin. They are very, very relevant.
Not for screening. At least not in my experience.
100848
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 21:09:28
Post by: tneva82
Yes but elite units care even more.
61618
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 21:13:26
Post by: Desubot
Elite in a unit of 10 or more? i guess though most elite units come in 3 or 5 (original premises that flamers should follow the demolisher idea of doing different things depending on the size of the unit)
113188
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 21:47:01
Post by: pismakron
Desubot wrote:
Elite in a unit of 10 or more? i guess though most elite units come in 3 or 5
Genestealers and Necron Warriors are as elite as space marines and are very often taken in units of 20. The archetypical cheap horde unit is the Guard infantry squad, that always comes in units of 10. The premise that "horde" equals larger unit sizes simply does not always hold true.
61618
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 21:52:23
Post by: Desubot
pismakron wrote: Desubot wrote:
Elite in a unit of 10 or more? i guess though most elite units come in 3 or 5
Genestealers and Necron Warriors are as elite as space marines and are very often taken in units of 20. The archetypical cheap horde unit is the Guard infantry squad, that always comes in units of 10. The premise that "horde" equals larger unit sizes simply does not always hold true.
Perhaps above average in their respective abilities but elites? that seems like a stretch.
113188
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 22:01:34
Post by: pismakron
Desubot wrote:pismakron wrote: Desubot wrote:
Elite in a unit of 10 or more? i guess though most elite units come in 3 or 5
Genestealers and Necron Warriors are as elite as space marines and are very often taken in units of 20. The archetypical cheap horde unit is the Guard infantry squad, that always comes in units of 10. The premise that "horde" equals larger unit sizes simply does not always hold true.
Perhaps above average in their respective abilities but elites? that seems like a stretch.
Warriors are 12 points per wound, whereas Genestealers are 12-16 points per wound. That is right up there with Primaris Marines. And both Necron Warriors and Stealers are very fragile for that reason, whereas Guardsmen are heinously durable because they are only 4 points per wound. Flamers and other horde-killers need to be able to kill the latter more efficiently than the former, and that is a difficult thing to accomplish.
61618
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 22:06:51
Post by: Desubot
pismakron wrote:
Warriors are 12 points per wound, whereas Genestealers are 12-16 points per wound. That is right up there with Primaris Marines. And both Necron Warriors and Stealers are very fragile for that reason, whereas Guardsmen are heinously durable because they are only 4 points per wound. Flamers and other horde-killers need to be able to kill the latter more efficiently than the former, and that is a difficult thing to accomplish.
But wait
Flamers are st4 it does kill the latter more efficiently. 3s vs 4s.
113188
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 22:14:15
Post by: pismakron
Desubot wrote:pismakron wrote:
Warriors are 12 points per wound, whereas Genestealers are 12-16 points per wound. That is right up there with Primaris Marines. And both Necron Warriors and Stealers are very fragile for that reason, whereas Guardsmen are heinously durable because they are only 4 points per wound. Flamers and other horde-killers need to be able to kill the latter more efficiently than the former, and that is a difficult thing to accomplish.
But wait
Flamers are st4 it does kill the latter more efficiently. 3s vs 4s.
An S4 AP0 attack will kill 1.7 points of Guardsman, 3 points of Necron Warrior, or 4 points of Genestealer.
100848
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 22:15:10
Post by: tneva82
Desubot wrote:pismakron wrote:
Warriors are 12 points per wound, whereas Genestealers are 12-16 points per wound. That is right up there with Primaris Marines. And both Necron Warriors and Stealers are very fragile for that reason, whereas Guardsmen are heinously durable because they are only 4 points per wound. Flamers and other horde-killers need to be able to kill the latter more efficiently than the former, and that is a difficult thing to accomplish.
But wait
Flamers are st4 it does kill the latter more efficiently. 3s vs 4s.
Yes but they also cost lot less...
Here's the thing. You have T4 2+ save guy vs T3 6+ save guy. Obviously your assault 20 S3 AP0 is going to kill more T3+ 6+ save guys than T4 2+ save guys. HOWEVER when you factor in PRICE of target unit you tend to find out that wait a sec I killed more points(ie bigger part of opponents army) from T4 2+ save guys than T3 6+ save guys! Yes in terms of models you killed more of the horde but in terms of value of targets elites suffered more. Bigger chunk of his army got blown than horde army that laughs at it.
This is why there's currently no real anti-horde weapon. Yes assault 20 is all nice and good but those 20 shots will still shred bigger chunk out of elite army. In 7th ed and before blast weapons at least served as anti-horde weapons as they got more hits against horde army. Now that doesn't work. Unless something can be done that simulates that only real solution would be buff survivability of elite units against anti-horde weapons and as neccessary buff the anti-elite weapons to compensate thus ensuring that weapons thare supposed to be anti-horde takes efficiency drop against elite units while anti-elite guns are just as effective vs them(but not buff enough they would step in way of anti-horde weapons least we end up with use against all weapon!) as they are now.
61618
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 22:16:17
Post by: Desubot
pismakron wrote: Desubot wrote:pismakron wrote:
Warriors are 12 points per wound, whereas Genestealers are 12-16 points per wound. That is right up there with Primaris Marines. And both Necron Warriors and Stealers are very fragile for that reason, whereas Guardsmen are heinously durable because they are only 4 points per wound. Flamers and other horde-killers need to be able to kill the latter more efficiently than the former, and that is a difficult thing to accomplish.
But wait
Flamers are st4 it does kill the latter more efficiently. 3s vs 4s.
An S4 AP0 attack will kill 1.7 points of Guardsman, 3 points of Necron Warrior, or 4 points of Genestealer.
then mathematically its impossible to beat guardsman. the only thing that could possible even the playing field is for battle shock to take a bunch more with them.
113188
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 22:21:44
Post by: pismakron
Desubot wrote:pismakron wrote: Desubot wrote:pismakron wrote:
Warriors are 12 points per wound, whereas Genestealers are 12-16 points per wound. That is right up there with Primaris Marines. And both Necron Warriors and Stealers are very fragile for that reason, whereas Guardsmen are heinously durable because they are only 4 points per wound. Flamers and other horde-killers need to be able to kill the latter more efficiently than the former, and that is a difficult thing to accomplish.
But wait
Flamers are st4 it does kill the latter more efficiently. 3s vs 4s.
An S4 AP0 attack will kill 1.7 points of Guardsman, 3 points of Necron Warrior, or 4 points of Genestealer.
then mathematically its impossible to beat guardsman. the only thing that could possible even the playing field is for battle shock to take a bunch more with them.
It is nothing that cannot be changed by simple points adjustment. A T4 3+ wound should be just about slightly more than twice as expensive as a T3 5+ wound. Say 11 points to 5 points respectively. Then there would be lots of weapons that killed either wound-profile more efficiently than the other. Heavy bolters vs lasguns for example.
61618
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 22:27:21
Post by: Desubot
pismakron wrote: Desubot wrote:pismakron wrote: Desubot wrote:pismakron wrote: Warriors are 12 points per wound, whereas Genestealers are 12-16 points per wound. That is right up there with Primaris Marines. And both Necron Warriors and Stealers are very fragile for that reason, whereas Guardsmen are heinously durable because they are only 4 points per wound. Flamers and other horde-killers need to be able to kill the latter more efficiently than the former, and that is a difficult thing to accomplish.
But wait Flamers are st4 it does kill the latter more efficiently. 3s vs 4s.
An S4 AP0 attack will kill 1.7 points of Guardsman, 3 points of Necron Warrior, or 4 points of Genestealer.
then mathematically its impossible to beat guardsman. the only thing that could possible even the playing field is for battle shock to take a bunch more with them.
It is nothing that cannot be changed by simple points adjustment. A T4 3+ wound should be just about slightly more than twice as expensive as a T3 5+ wound. Say 11 points to 5 points respectively. Then there would be lots of weapons that killed either wound-profile more efficiently than the other. Heavy bolters vs lasguns for example.
Then yeah this isnt a problem with the flamer which this thread is about but rather the efficiency or lack there of for a few other elite like units. I think this sort of flamers gets more efficient against bigger units is the right step in making it more of a viable (or at least consider taking over plasma) weapon. also curious as to why flamers no longer ignore cover.
113188
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 22:30:46
Post by: pismakron
tneva82 wrote: In 7th ed and before blast weapons at least served as anti-horde weapons as they got more hits against horde army. Now that doesn't work. Unless something can be done that simulates that only real solution would be buff survivability of elite units against anti-horde weapons and as neccessary buff the anti-elite weapons to compensate thus ensuring that weapons thare supposed to be anti-horde takes efficiency drop against elite units while anti-elite guns are just as effective vs them(but not buff enough they would step in way of anti-horde weapons least we end up with use against all weapon!) as they are now.
A much more straightforward solution would be to adjust the point-costs of the wounds. A T3 5+ model should be about 5 points per wound, whereas a T4 3+ model should be around 11 points per wound. Something in that vicinity. Then the already existing weapons would be slightly more efficient at killing hordes and slightly less efficient at killing power-armour dudes.
112618
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 22:43:14
Post by: Arachnofiend
Desubot wrote:
Elite in a unit of 10 or more? i guess though most elite units come in 3 or 5
(original premises that flamers should follow the demolisher idea of doing different things depending on the size of the unit)
Rubric Marines can come in a squad of up to 20, and if Rubrics aren't elite then nothing short of Custodes are.
61686
Flamers @ 2017/12/15 23:15:45
Post by: generalchaos34
pismakron wrote:tneva82 wrote: In 7th ed and before blast weapons at least served as anti-horde weapons as they got more hits against horde army. Now that doesn't work. Unless something can be done that simulates that only real solution would be buff survivability of elite units against anti-horde weapons and as neccessary buff the anti-elite weapons to compensate thus ensuring that weapons thare supposed to be anti-horde takes efficiency drop against elite units while anti-elite guns are just as effective vs them(but not buff enough they would step in way of anti-horde weapons least we end up with use against all weapon!) as they are now.
A much more straightforward solution would be to adjust the point-costs of the wounds. A T3 5+ model should be about 5 points per wound, whereas a T4 3+ model should be around 11 points per wound. Something in that vicinity. Then the already existing weapons would be slightly more efficient at killing hordes and slightly less efficient at killing power-armour dudes.
I can live with guardsman being 5 pts apiece, it gives conscripts a purpose and they cost that much pretty much for 3 editions (when you factored in the cost of a mandatory sgt at 10pts). It also makes veterans a nice alternative since they are 6 points and lines up everything nice and neat making your choices more meaningful to playstyle and tactical purpose (all rounder, screen/objectives, fire power) than to pure mathematics like it is now.
As for flamers, we can go even further and make it 3+D3 hits for units above 5 and then a solid 6 against 10+ units. This is favorable to flamers being anti horde while not punishing vehicles and elites. really can't get better than that, especially when you consider that you are in easy charge range when using them and you can't use them on deep strike. BAM, toasty guardsman
|
|
