flamers are supposed to be anti-hoard weapons, but with D6 shots, a roll of 1 or 2, even 3 on a S4 weapon tends to have underwhelming results even against guard.
so how about a buff?
i'm thinking D6+1 or 2D3

If you're not happy when you roll a 2 or 3 on 1d6, why would you be happy if you got that result on some other combo?

which flamer are you using that DOESN'T have a buff? To my knowledge, both Knights and Tau have buffed Flamers, I was under the impression that everyone had them.

ccs wrote:
If you're not happy when you roll a 2 or 3 on 1d6, why would you be happy if you got that result on some other combo?

Because your odds of getting that result are significantly lower?

I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

As a Salamander, they don't need more hits, they need more effective hits...

Racerguy180 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

As a Salamander, they don't need more hits, they need more effective hits...

Hence why I gave my two fixes. The latter part doesn't do much with the core rules but I think 100% of people agree LD needs to be a more useful stat and that the core rules don't help with it.

Flamers should go back to using templates (somehow templates still work as a game mechanic long as everything in the game is wearing power armour, according to GW. Curious...)

Cover should also change from a save buff to a hit debuff, which would make auto-hitting template weapons a more useful weapon for attacking units in terrain.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Flamers should go back to using templates (somehow templates still work as a game mechanic long as everything in the game is wearing power armour, according to GW. Curious...)

But there's no significant difference in power by using templates or D6. Hits are basically the same. With the D6 system you can actually get more hits vs enemy units with spread out models or enemy units with a very low models count. With a template you get max one hit against a single model, while you can get 6 by using the D6 system. Several flamer weapons also have longer range now or tools to increase their range.

Flamers might look less powerful than they used to be because they don't bypass lowest armour saves anymore and some chaff got tougher (like orks with their T5, marines with their 2W, etc...). And in the current meta there's a lot of standard units that are extremely tough compared to what used to be the standard for an infantry model. Like T5 3W instead of T4 1W.

Make the game more focussed on 1W models and flamers would be good again.

 carldooley wrote:
which flamer are you using that DOESN'T have a buff? To my knowledge, both Knights and Tau have buffed Flamers, I was under the impression that everyone had them.

This highlights the issue perfectly. The flamers that do get used are the ones that are buffed. Anyone who only has access to regular flamers just doesn't use them. I think the game is far too lethal as it is, so I'd rather not see the damage output of flamers buffed too much, especially for units that can take multiple of them. However, I do think flamers should probably be a free upgrade for units that can take them. If you look at something like a Tactical squad, you give up your bolter to get a flamer, which has identical S and AP. By the time you're in range to fire your flamer, you've probably given up at least the same number of shots as the flamer will get hits. The fact nobody takes them right now suggests they're simply not better than just taking a basic gun.

I once (8th ed) killed 11 bloodletters with two flamers, and that felt pretty great. Maybe they should just change it to straight up 6 hits instead of d6. And probably add a rule that they cant hit flyers.

 Gitdakka wrote:
I once (8th ed) killed 11 bloodletters with two flamers, and that felt pretty great. Maybe they should just change it to straight up 6 hits instead of d6. And probably add a rule that they cant hit flyers.

They'd be too powerful vs units with low model count then. Maybe they should get the blast equivalent rule though. If a model carrying a flamer weapon targets a unit with 11+ models it gets max autohits, and at least 3 if it targets a unit with 6+ models.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Flamers should go back to using templates (somehow templates still work as a game mechanic long as everything in the game is wearing power armour, according to GW. Curious...)

Cover should also change from a save buff to a hit debuff, which would make auto-hitting template weapons a more useful weapon for attacking units in terrain.

My main gripes with templates were
1) the fights over how many models were underneath them and the inability of people to understand how perspective works
2) making every single model placement matter

Personally I would prefer if they got a rule that would simulate what templates do, which is essentially to generate more hits if there are more models nearby.

My idea would be a mix of the blast and rapid fire rules - if within half range, you default the number of hits to the number models in the target unit.
Examples:
Guardsmen with flamers jump out of their chimera right in front of a unit of 30 ork boyz, each flamer gets 6 hits
If they do the same to a unit of custodes guardians, they get d6 hits, minimum 3
If they flame a rhino, they get d6 hits

This makes them good against hordes, not that good against elites and as bad as they are now versus single models or when arriving from deep strike.

In a word? Yes.

Unless you got ways to "cheat" (Sisters, Salamanders, etc) then regular flamers are pretty terrible.

Them not having the Blast-rule (or something similar) makes no sense.

Edit: I heard that flamers are D6+2 hits in the upcomming CSM-codex, was this just a rumor?

 MinscS2 wrote:
In a word? Yes.

Unless you got ways to "cheat" (Sisters, Salamanders, etc) then regular flamers are pretty terrible.

Them not having the Blast-rule (or something similar) makes no sense.

Edit: I heard that flamers are D6+2 hits in the upcomming CSM-codex, was this just a rumor?

Nah it's part of their doctrines equivalent, "let the galaxy burn".

Slipspace wrote:

This highlights the issue perfectly. The flamers that do get used are the ones that are buffed. Anyone who only has access to regular flamers just doesn't use them. I think the game is far too lethal as it is, so I'd rather not see the damage output of flamers buffed too much, especially for units that can take multiple of them. However, I do think flamers should probably be a free upgrade for units that can take them. If you look at something like a Tactical squad, you give up your bolter to get a flamer, which has identical S and AP. By the time you're in range to fire your flamer, you've probably given up at least the same number of shots as the flamer will get hits. The fact nobody takes them right now suggests they're simply not better than just taking a basic gun.

100% this. Which SM (other than something like the BT flamer), Guard, or GSC player takes their flamers? The regular flamer either needs:
- A point drop. Around 3 points.
- Ignore light cover.
- AP-1.
- S5.
- D6 + 2 shots.

Which ork player takes their flamers?

And if you buff the regular flamer to S5, AP-1, etc... what about the heavy flamer then?

I use flamers with my Tau, but only because they are D6+2 hits each, are cheap and so can easily double up on flamers on crisis suits, and combo nicely with a strat to get mortal wounds on 6s to wound.

If it wasn't for that strat, I probably wouldn't bother with them.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I use flamers with my Tau, but only because they are D6+2 hits each, are cheap and so can easily double up on flamers on crisis suits, and combo nicely with a strat to get mortal wounds on 6s to wound.

If it wasn't for that strat, I probably wouldn't bother with them.

Yeah, the extra hits, plus the way weapon costs work on suits and the overwatch damage definitely encourages flamers on suits. I just think it's the wrong way to go, to make them even more lethal to the extent they did.

Blast and Ignore Cover should help without making them too overpowered.

 Blackie wrote:
Which ork player takes their flamers?

And if you buff the regular flamer to S5, AP-1, etc... what about the heavy flamer then?

You don’t do both, either/or.

Personally though, I’d just prefer regular flamers to be cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Karhedron wrote:
Blast and Ignore Cover should help without making them too overpowered.

I wouldn’t give flamers blast. Then you can’t fire them from vehicles or monsters into engagement range.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
flamers are supposed to be anti-hoard weapons, but with D6 shots, a roll of 1 or 2, even 3 on a S4 weapon tends to have underwhelming results even against guard.
so how about a buff?
i'm thinking D6+1 or 2D3

In a word...No.

a Flamer averages 3.5 hits a turn, in terms of a bolter that is equivalent to 5.25 Bolter shots or 2.6 Marines shooting their bolters at half range. So 5pts more then doubles your RoF for a bolter. Whether you view that as worth 5pts is a question, maybe drop it to 3pts, but buff it? No. You start making Flamers too powerful and you will quickly run into flamer bombs where players just max out the # of flamers they can take and keep them in reserve for a deep strike bomb.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

Yep, you just went crazy. A LD Debuff would have little to no impact on most factions especially Power armored armies, Orkz on the other hand...you just likely caused them to fail morale. Similar impact for ignoring cover. Doesn't matter for Space Marines all that much, but for those same orkz, you just reduced their armor save by 50% The problem a lot of people run into is that they adjust the game in their heads to target their most common opponent and damn the consequences against the other factions who would be more significantly impacted.

Racerguy180 wrote:

As a Salamander, they don't need more hits, they need more effective hits...

Again, it more than doubles the RoF for the model. you want more effective hits? Buy a heavy flamer.

 Jidmah wrote:


My main gripes with templates were
1) the fights over how many models were underneath them and the inability of people to understand how perspective works
2) making every single model placement matter

Rare moment of agreement with jid.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


And if you buff the regular flamer to S5, AP-1, etc... what about the heavy flamer then?

You don’t do both, either/or.

Yeah, I got what you said. But heavy flamers and their equivalents make sense as long as they are +1S and -1AP compared to regular flamers. If they had just +1S or -1AP they'd be too similar to flamers. Hence if GW buffs either S or AP on regular flamers they have to do the same to heavy flamers too, to justify the differentiation between the two weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:


I wouldn’t give flamers blast. Then you can’t fire them from vehicles or monsters into engagement range.

Which make sense though. Firing a flame thrower point blank seems pretty stupid, the bearer would burn himself.

Can we stop with the "Do X need Buffs?" threads? Nothing in this edition needs buffs. Enough with the power creep. Laspistols and flamers can wound Titans. The only thing I would ever change about flamers is a side change. Make them Heavy d3+3 shots.

I think there's a strong argument that all D6/D3/2D3+X^2 weapons should get a flat number and be balanced accordingly.

I'm not convinced flamers would be overpowered if they always did 3 or 4 hits. Any more than Lascannons would be broken if they did flat 3-4 damage.

Tyel wrote:
I think there's a strong argument that all D6/D3/2D3+X^2 weapons should get a flat number and be balanced accordingly.

I'm not convinced flamers would be overpowered if they always did 3 or 4 hits. Any more than Lascannons would be broken if they did flat 3-4 damage.

100% agree, get rid of the random amount of shots/damage, it slows down the game and only serves for feelbad moments

Well...CSM flamers, from the new WC update, are getting a buff.

Colour me unimpressed. One weapon maketh not a codex.

ccs wrote:
If you're not happy when you roll a 2 or 3 on 1d6, why would you be happy if you got that result on some other combo?

2D3 guarantees no result lower than a 2. 2 or 3 isn't great for hoard clearing, but 2 minimum i can stomach.
personally i'd prefer the D6+1 shots, gives you a minimum of 2, with a maximum of 7


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
which flamer are you using that DOESN'T have a buff? To my knowledge, both Knights and Tau have buffed Flamers, I was under the impression that everyone had them.

This highlights the issue perfectly. The flamers that do get used are the ones that are buffed. Anyone who only has access to regular flamers just doesn't use them. I think the game is far too lethal as it is, so I'd rather not see the damage output of flamers buffed too much, especially for units that can take multiple of them. However, I do think flamers should probably be a free upgrade for units that can take them. If you look at something like a Tactical squad, you give up your bolter to get a flamer, which has identical S and AP. By the time you're in range to fire your flamer, you've probably given up at least the same number of shots as the flamer will get hits. The fact nobody takes them right now suggests they're simply not better than just taking a basic gun.

i agree the game is too lethal, but i don't think guaranteeing a minimum of 2 hits and a possible max of 7 is asking too much.
i'm just asking for the weapon to make sense for the role it is supposed to fill


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Flamers should go back to using templates (somehow templates still work as a game mechanic long as everything in the game is wearing power armour, according to GW. Curious...)

Cover should also change from a save buff to a hit debuff, which would make auto-hitting template weapons a more useful weapon for attacking units in terrain.

My main gripes with templates were
1) the fights over how many models were underneath them and the inability of people to understand how perspective works
2) making every single model placement matter

Personally I would prefer if they got a rule that would simulate what templates do, which is essentially to generate more hits if there are more models nearby.

My idea would be a mix of the blast and rapid fire rules - if within half range, you default the number of hits to the number models in the target unit.
Examples:
Guardsmen with flamers jump out of their chimera right in front of a unit of 30 ork boyz, each flamer gets 6 hits
If they do the same to a unit of custodes guardians, they get d6 hits, minimum 3
If they flame a rhino, they get d6 hits

This makes them good against hordes, not that good against elites and as bad as they are now versus single models or when arriving from deep strike.

i've never understood how there's an argument about if a model is under the template or not...especially if everything is measured from the base...is the base under the template? yes, it is, or no it isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


And if you buff the regular flamer to S5, AP-1, etc... what about the heavy flamer then?

You don’t do both, either/or.

Yeah, I got what you said. But heavy flamers and their equivalents make sense as long as they are +1S and -1AP compared to regular flamers. If they had just +1S or -1AP they'd be too similar to flamers. Hence if GW buffs either S or AP on regular flamers they have to do the same to heavy flamers too, to justify the differentiation between the two weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:give heavies an option for mortal wounds, or D2 then?

Jarms48 wrote:


I wouldn’t give flamers blast. Then you can’t fire them from vehicles or monsters into engagement range.

Which make sense though. Firing a flame thrower point blank seems pretty stupid, the bearer would burn himself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop with the "Do X need Buffs?" threads? Nothing in this edition needs buffs. Enough with the power creep. Laspistols and flamers can wound Titans. The only thing I would ever change about flamers is a side change. Make them Heavy d3+3 shots.

so you agree...they need a buff to how many shots they can get...why didn't you just say so from the start?

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

Yep, you just went crazy. A LD Debuff would have little to no impact on most factions especially Power armored armies, Orkz on the other hand...you just likely caused them to fail morale. Similar impact for ignoring cover. Doesn't matter for Space Marines all that much, but for those same orkz, you just reduced their armor save by 50% The problem a lot of people run into is that they adjust the game in their heads to target their most common opponent and damn the consequences against the other factions who would be more significantly impacted.

You actually didn't say why my idea was crazy, just that you don't like it because Orks. Orks shouldn't be taken into consideration because their codex needs an overhaul anyway.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You actually didn't say why my idea was crazy, just that you don't like it because Orks. Orks shouldn't be taken into consideration because their codex needs an overhaul anyway.

Spotted the GW rules dev.

Back to templates! Thats the buff we need

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i've never understood how there's an argument about if a model is under the template or not...especially if everything is measured from the base...is the base under the template? yes, it is, or no it isn't.

Unless you are playing TTS, there always is room for discussion when models just barely touch the edge of the teardrop - especially if people are looking through the template at an angle, they see more models covered than there actually are. This especially happens when the target unit is near the table center, but also when you can't actually place the template on top of models because of terrain, other tall model nearby or banners/boss poles. Last, but not least, people often don't get that hitting the model isn't enough when that model is hanging off the base.

The new solution sucks, but the old one was one of the worst parts of playing 40k.

 Jidmah wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You actually didn't say why my idea was crazy, just that you don't like it because Orks. Orks shouldn't be taken into consideration because their codex needs an overhaul anyway.

Spotted the GW rules dev.

I'm a GW Rules Dev because I think they need a complete overhaul?

No, because you think orks shouldn't be taken into consideration for sweeping rules changes, just like them.

 Jidmah wrote:
No, because you think orks shouldn't be taken into consideration for sweeping rules changes, just like them.

Orks have so many inherent problems that they need a sweeping rules change themselves. Buffed flamers are the least of their problems to be frank.

On the idea of simulating template effects;

AoS has some flamer-like weapons, or sweeping weapons, where you roll a number of dice/attempt hit rolls for each enemy model within range of the weapon.

It needs an exception for monsters/vehicles, etcs to work obviously, and at least for AoS, when my Skaven warpfire or Lumineth Bladelords get stuck in to an enemy horde unit, it can take quite a long time to resolve how many dice I'm using. Then I have to actually roll all the damn dice.

But, I could see it being a solid alternative to just a d6 autohitting shots.

 Jidmah wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i've never understood how there's an argument about if a model is under the template or not...especially if everything is measured from the base...is the base under the template? yes, it is, or no it isn't.

Unless you are playing TTS, there always is room for discussion when models just barely touch the edge of the teardrop - especially if people are looking through the template at an angle, they see more models covered than there actually are. This especially happens when the target unit is near the table center, but also when you can't actually place the template on top of models because of terrain, other tall model nearby or banners/boss poles. Last, but not least, people often don't get that hitting the model isn't enough when that model is hanging off the base.

The new solution sucks, but the old one was one of the worst parts of playing 40k.

literally never had an issue figuring out what models are under the template, and the center of table is even less of an issue now that table sizes are smaller.

also it seems to be plenty fine for necromunda and HH.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You actually didn't say why my idea was crazy, just that you don't like it because Orks. Orks shouldn't be taken into consideration because their codex needs an overhaul anyway.

The intent behind the OP is to buff flamers vs Hordes, Orkz are a horde therefore the changes target them specifically. Almost all the solutions offered so far would make the flamers better vs Marines or other tougher targets, especially the +1S -1AP suggestion. The suggestion of more hits is fine except i do want to point out my main contention with the OP's statement. NOBODY IS BRINGING HORDES. GW did your work for you already OP, they effectively murdered hordes by making them either too expensive, too crappy or too dangerous to even remotely think about bringing. Killing 6 boyz out of a blob of 30 pretty much guarantees 5 more dead Orkz from Morale for example

As far as "Their codex needs an overhaul" i agree. Historically how often have Orkz gotten 2 codexs in a single edition. I'll give you a hint, we are in 9th edition and orkz have only ever had 6 codex. GW didn't give us one in 5th or 6th. And most of us wish they hadn't given us one in 7th with how badly it was written. So going back to the point we aren't likely to receive an overhaul so any proposed rules right now would impact orkz as they currently exist. Also, even if they did it wouldn't change the fact that buffing a flamer making it more better vs hordes isn't going to be any better then either because as mentioned it already more than doubles the RoF of a bolter on average. You want it to be more reliable? Fine, make it flat 3 shots a turn.

 Jidmah wrote:
Spotted the GW rules dev.

Twice Jid in a day, I laughed thanks.

Also, historically, flamethrowers have not been a weapon you use against massed infantry in an open field. A much more effective weapon for that is your basic belt fed machine gun.

You use flamethrowers to clear infantry out of entrenched positions such as trenches, pillboxes, bunkers etc.

 Blackie wrote:

Which make sense though. Firing a flame thrower point blank seems pretty stupid, the bearer would burn himself.

Which is understandable for infantry, bikers, etc. However, they can't fire into engagement anyway.

What's a flame thrower going to do against the front or side of a tank? Molotovs worked in WW2 by have flammable chemicals drip into the engine compartment, but flame throwers would avoid that by being directed away from that area.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, historically, flamethrowers have not been a weapon you use against massed infantry in an open field. A much more effective weapon for that is your basic belt fed machine gun.

You use flamethrowers to clear infantry out of entrenched positions such as trenches, pillboxes, bunkers etc.

unless they're going to get a special rule to make them more effective against troops in various types of cover/terrain, that doesn't change anything.

also while i do like mechanics/rules making sense from a real life standpoint with some suspension of disbelief, how flamerthrowers were used historically isn't particularly relevant since the 40kverse has flamers that operate quite differently, using a single small fuel tank in many cases for example, rather than two large fuel tanks that fit on a backpack.

point being that the flamers are supposed to be anti-hoard weapons, their current statline makes them hit or miss at best in that regard. even with catachan rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
flamers are supposed to be anti-hoard weapons, but with D6 shots, a roll of 1 or 2, even 3 on a S4 weapon tends to have underwhelming results even against guard.
so how about a buff?
i'm thinking D6+1 or 2D3

In a word...No.

a Flamer averages 3.5 hits a turn, in terms of a bolter that is equivalent to 5.25 Bolter shots or 2.6 Marines shooting their bolters at half range. So 5pts more then doubles your RoF for a bolter. Whether you view that as worth 5pts is a question, maybe drop it to 3pts, but buff it? No. You start making Flamers too powerful and you will quickly run into flamer bombs where players just max out the # of flamers they can take and keep them in reserve for a deep strike bomb.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

Yep, you just went crazy. A LD Debuff would have little to no impact on most factions especially Power armored armies, Orkz on the other hand...you just likely caused them to fail morale. Similar impact for ignoring cover. Doesn't matter for Space Marines all that much, but for those same orkz, you just reduced their armor save by 50% The problem a lot of people run into is that they adjust the game in their heads to target their most common opponent and damn the consequences against the other factions who would be more significantly impacted.

Racerguy180 wrote:

As a Salamander, they don't need more hits, they need more effective hits...

Again, it more than doubles the RoF for the model. you want more effective hits? Buy a heavy flamer.

 Jidmah wrote:


My main gripes with templates were
1) the fights over how many models were underneath them and the inability of people to understand how perspective works
2) making every single model placement matter

Rare moment of agreement with jid.

should flamers be better than bolters? considering they're an upgrade for tactical marines, and a few other squads, i would say yes, they should be better at nearly everything in the game than a bolter, otherwise it's not really and upgrade is it? sidegrade or even possibly a downgrade.

What if we think like GW for a moment. What if instead of auto-hitting, it instead invalidates infantry saves? Still d6 shots, but now base infantry (Troops with no Invuln or FNP) get no save against it. Vehicles get a save, as does anything with a vehicle keyword.

Auto-wounds infantry. Basically it should auto-wound troops and Elite infantry with no secondary save.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if we think like GW for a moment. What if instead of auto-hitting, it instead invalidates infantry saves? Still d6 shots, but now base infantry (Troops with no Invuln or FNP) get no save against it. Vehicles get a save, as does anything with a vehicle keyword.

Auto-wounds infantry. Basically it should auto-wound troops and Elite infantry with no secondary save.

Well someone complained my idea of ignoring cover and a small LD debuff was too powerful, so clearly you're heading the right direction.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if we think like GW for a moment. What if instead of auto-hitting, it instead invalidates infantry saves? Still d6 shots, but now base infantry (Troops with no Invuln or FNP) get no save against it. Vehicles get a save, as does anything with a vehicle keyword.

Auto-wounds infantry. Basically it should auto-wound troops and Elite infantry with no secondary save.

Well someone complained my idea of ignoring cover and a small LD debuff was too powerful, so clearly you're heading the right direction.

So far people have asked for:

Auto-hitting 3/4 shots
Ignores Cover
Ignores LoS
And making it S5 AP1.

Right now, base stock, a Salamander Space Marine does +1 to wound with a standard flamer. If we are going to look at buffing a base weapon, we have to consider all faction uses.

An "ignores armor save" option does that. The best flamer units in the game, (Salamanders and Baal Preds) already have rediculous +wound ratios, so is an "auto wound cheap trash units" really that big of a buff? Especially if we upgrade the cost. Guard don't take them because it makes them have to get up close, which is not where guard want to be. SM don't take them because there are flat out better options. Burna boys, well, no one takes Burna boys, so is that really an issue?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if we think like GW for a moment. What if instead of auto-hitting, it instead invalidates infantry saves? Still d6 shots, but now base infantry (Troops with no Invuln or FNP) get no save against it. Vehicles get a save, as does anything with a vehicle keyword.

Auto-wounds infantry. Basically it should auto-wound troops and Elite infantry with no secondary save.

Well someone complained my idea of ignoring cover and a small LD debuff was too powerful, so clearly you're heading the right direction.

So far people have asked for:

Auto-hitting 3/4 shots
Ignores Cover
Ignores LoS
And making it S5 AP1.

Right now, base stock, a Salamander Space Marine does +1 to wound with a standard flamer. If we are going to look at buffing a base weapon, we have to consider all faction uses.

An "ignores armor save" option does that. The best flamer units in the game, (Salamanders and Baal Preds) already have rediculous +wound ratios, so is an "auto wound cheap trash units" really that big of a buff? Especially if we upgrade the cost. Guard don't take them because it makes them have to get up close, which is not where guard want to be. SM don't take them because there are flat out better options. Burna boys, well, no one takes Burna boys, so is that really an issue?

Well so far we don't have to include ALL fix ideas.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
should flamers be better than bolters? considering they're an upgrade for tactical marines, and a few other squads, i would say yes, they should be better at nearly everything in the game than a bolter, otherwise it's not really and upgrade is it? sidegrade or even possibly a downgrade.

One more time, at 12' a flamer averages 3.5 hits a turn, a bolter averages 1.33. That is a dmg increase of 263% So 5pts buys you a 263% increase in dmg at 12' range....I would argue that is already better then a bolter by a significant amount.

The problem isn't that its not already an upgrade, its that its a situational upgrade and that is what bothers a lot of people. People don't like situational upgrades, they like no brainers. Why pay 5pts for an upgrade you might not get to use because of its relative short range? Its not that great of a weapon to base a drop strike around so therefore its being talked about here LOL.

The problem is not that you may not get to use it for Xpts. The problem with flamer weapons, other then does like pre nerf liquifires, is that no one wants to get in to flamer range and then see a 1 rolled for number of hits. it is the same problem regular lascannons have. The weapon is too swingy.

Thadin wrote:On the idea of simulating template effects;

AoS has some flamer-like weapons, or sweeping weapons, where you roll a number of dice/attempt hit rolls for each enemy model within range of the weapon.

It needs an exception for monsters/vehicles, etcs to work obviously, and at least for AoS, when my Skaven warpfire or Lumineth Bladelords get stuck in to an enemy horde unit, it can take quite a long time to resolve how many dice I'm using. Then I have to actually roll all the damn dice.

But, I could see it being a solid alternative to just a d6 autohitting shots.

The problem with both that and the return to templates is that it punishes people for not painstakingly spreading their models out as far as possible every time they move them. Which is annoying to do and annoying to wait on. So it feels bad to spread your models out, but then it also feels bad to not spread them out because then your opponents flamers become more effective. So you end up with a mechanic that ends up feeling unpleasant regardless of what you do. And that goes double if you happen to be playing a melee horde army that relies on clumping up models in engagement range.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Also, historically, flamethrowers have not been a weapon you use against massed infantry in an open field. A much more effective weapon for that is your basic belt fed machine gun.

You use flamethrowers to clear infantry out of entrenched positions such as trenches, pillboxes, bunkers etc.

Yeah. This is a matter of flamethrowers being cool but the rules of the game kind of getting away from them. In previous editions, my eldar rangers could have a 3+ cover save while in terrain but no save at all when they got hit by a flamer. So you had an interesting bit of back and forth there. The short-ranged flamer would ruin the rangers' day if I let it get close to me, but my opponent passed up a plasma or melta gun to take that flamer. Now, the flamers only "ignore cover" if said cover is dense. And even if we let flamers ignore the benefits of light cover, they'd still feel a little lackluster even against units like my rangers.

So while it feels like flamers should be used to clear out enemy bunkers, I'm not sure the current cover rules lend themselves to that.

Karol wrote:The problem is not that you may not get to use it for Xpts. The problem with flamer weapons, other then does like pre nerf liquifires, is that no one wants to get in to flamer range and then see a 1 rolled for number of hits. it is the same problem regular lascannons have. The weapon is too swingy.

Well, sort of. "Swingy" implies that flamers perform well a reasonable percentage of the time. Like, I'm bummed when a lascannon rolls a 1 for damage, but at least it will roll a 6 just as often. And its high strength and decent AP mean that I make it to the damage roll semi-reliably. But even if a flamer had a flat 6 shots, it would still be kind of an iffy choice against anything but lightly-armored T3 units.

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

Why the hell is everyone so hell bent on making a 5pt weapon upgrade so ridiculously powerful?

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

Why the hell is everyone so hell bent on making a 5pt weapon upgrade so ridiculously powerful?

Some of these are a little silly.
I just don’t think an anti-hoard weapon should ever get only 1 shot.
A 2 shot minimum seems perfectly reasonable
It doesn’t really matter what the mathhammer of random shot weapons is, because that doesn’t change the fact that 4 flamers can each roll 1 for their number of shots in a single turn. What’s the average number of shots then?

It doesn’t need to be devastating by any means.

Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon. A dedicated AT gun should never cause only 1 wound as a base damage (ya know before any damage reduction rules are applied)

Make flame weapons Assault weapons, and slap the Blast rule on them.

Done

SemperMortis wrote:

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

- Ministorum flamer is S5 and 5 points.
- Witchseeker flamer is AP-1 and comes free on the datasheet on a 14 point model.
- Cognis flamer is D6+2 shots and 5 points.
- Incinerator is S6 AP-1 and 5 points.
- T’au flamer is D6+2 shots and 5/10/15 points.

I hardly see how it's overpowered when similar options already exist, and I didn't even cover them all. Out of this entire list the only one even taken is the Tau Flamer. No-one is taking the rest.

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

Overpowered by what metric? If we're talking about a squad of tactical marines, going from a bolter to a flamer means going from 1 or 2 (depending on movement) shots at 12.1"-24" of range to 0 shots and spending points to do so. And you're using up that slot to add anti-infantry shooting to squad that already has it rather than adding another plasma or meltagun to your army. So hitting a little harder when you are in range doesn't seem ridiculous. Also, we're talking about 2 extra hits. So an extra...
...1 Wound VS a marine which becomes an extra 0.67~ unsaved wounds after a 3+ save.
...0.67 Wounds VS an ork boy which becomes an extra 0.56~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.
...1.33~ Wounds VS a termagaunt which becomes an extra 1.11~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.

Are you of the opinion that a flamer killing an extra 1/4th of a marine, 1/2 of an ork, or a single extra termagaunt takes the weapon from being balanced to being overpowered? And if so, do you feel the flamer is in a good place currently?

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

Overpowered by what criteria? Obviously this variant would have more defensive benefits than the others. The point of this version is to trade the superior offense boosts of other special weapons for defensive benefits that are more situational by virtue of only kicking in when you face an opponent that's likely to charge a unit that happens to contain a flamer. If you're facing Tau or Thousand Sons or any number of armies that don't rely on melee to finish units off, it's entirely possible that you'll never get the chance to overwatch with the flamer. And if you do get to use it, well, congrats on taking an average of 0.67 Wounds off of the meq squad coming your way. But if you're facing daemons or tyranids, knowing your tac squad has a flamer might make your opponent reconsider trying to finish your tacs off with charging gargoyles. In other words, the weapon has a niche and an impact on decision making but doesn't strike me as overpowered. But hey. Maybe I'm missing something.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

My suggestion was that units would get hit by the mortal wounds if they opted to hold still and stand in the middle of the flames. If you're not within 3" of the token at the end of the Movement phase, you're fine. Granted, larger units might have more trouble getting clear than MSU. Which indirectly comes back around to making the flamer useful against hordes.

I'm willing to have my mind changed, but it seems like you're being really disingenuous here.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
It doesn’t really matter what the mathhammer of random shot weapons is, because that doesn’t change the fact that 4 flamers can each roll 1 for their number of shots in a single turn. What’s the average number of shots then?

The average sum of 4d6 would remain 14 even if you occasionally roll badly because that's how averages work. The average is 14 not despite the possibility of rolling four 1s, but because of that possibility.

It doesn’t need to be devastating by any means.

Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon. A dedicated AT gun should never cause only 1 wound as a base damage (ya know before any damage reduction rules are applied)

Agreed that the humble flamer doesn't need to be a stupendously powerful weapon. Honestly, I don't think the flamer is all that bad for its current cost. That said, I think the case could be made that it would be more viscerally, emotionally, and mechanically satisfying to give the flamer a little more oomph (and presumably raise its points cost accordingly.) Currently, the average performance of a flamer against a squad of termagaunts is something like 3.5 hits = 2.33~ wounds = 1.94~ dead termagaunts. Which is okay and probably about right for 5 points versus an ideal target, but also not very exciting. It lacks the same feeling of satisfaction that comes with killing a marine with a plasma gun or taking a big chunk out of a vehicle's Wounds with a meltagun.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

Yep, you just went crazy. A LD Debuff would have little to no impact on most factions especially Power armored armies, Orkz on the other hand...you just likely caused them to fail morale. Similar impact for ignoring cover. Doesn't matter for Space Marines all that much, but for those same orkz, you just reduced their armor save by 50% The problem a lot of people run into is that they adjust the game in their heads to target their most common opponent and damn the consequences against the other factions who would be more significantly impacted.

You actually didn't say why my idea was crazy, just that you don't like it because Orks. Orks shouldn't be taken into consideration because their codex needs an overhaul anyway.

And power armour dudes don't need additional buffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make flame weapons Assault weapons, and slap the Blast rule on them.

Done

Basic flamers are all assault weapons already, while heavy ones are mostly carried by stuff (starting with vehicles) that ignores the penalty for moving and firing anyway.

Blast would be the obvious fix as the template since historically flamer and blast weapons all used templates.

 Blackie wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

Yep, you just went crazy. A LD Debuff would have little to no impact on most factions especially Power armored armies, Orkz on the other hand...you just likely caused them to fail morale. Similar impact for ignoring cover. Doesn't matter for Space Marines all that much, but for those same orkz, you just reduced their armor save by 50% The problem a lot of people run into is that they adjust the game in their heads to target their most common opponent and damn the consequences against the other factions who would be more significantly impacted.

You actually didn't say why my idea was crazy, just that you don't like it because Orks. Orks shouldn't be taken into consideration because their codex needs an overhaul anyway.

And power armour dudes don't need additional buffs.

Ah yes, all those Space Marines that are ALWAYS lugging Flamers all the time LOL.

Got an actual criticism?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Ah yes, all those Space Marines that are ALWAYS lugging Flamers all the time LOL.

Got an actual criticism?

I mean, power armour factions don't need another good tool to be added in their deck of options.

So an eventual buff to flamer that just ignores cover and decrease LD is almost useless against units that have really high saves, AoC and really high LD or ways to be immune to LD shenanigans. On the other hand it would be a massive nerf for other kinds of units. Sounds like a bespoke solution, rather than a universal one. Just like "make flamers completely ignore saves!", which would make ork burnas crazy with 10-12 flamer guys while SM flamers would not be that good against hordes with low saves.

A universal blast special rule added to all flamers would make those weapons more useful for all the factions, without breaking anything.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon.

Nah, the hoard equivalent of a lascannon would be a gold-plated lascannon - much more appealing to a dragon's avarice.

Now, the flamer is definitely anti-horde in the same way that a lascannon is anti-armour - though, depending on the composition of a given dragon's hoard, the fire could well be seen as anti-hoard as well. Bad for artwork or books, but melting gold means you still have the gold at the end, just in a less-useful form...

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Well...CSM flamers, from the new WC update, are getting a buff.

Colour me unimpressed. One weapon maketh not a codex.

btw at the same time we got access to flamers and combiflamers severly restricted
so instead of 5 flamers /combiflamer chosen squad you get 3 flamers which in essence just ammount to the average rolls of 5 former flamer chosen.

actually under the average

because 5 x3.5 = 17.5 flamer shots from old chosen
new chosen get 3x3.5 +6 =16.5 average.

so we are now worse at "letting the galaxy burn" .

and don't get started on the legionaires which are not allowed anymore to double up on flamers

SemperMortis wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
should flamers be better than bolters? considering they're an upgrade for tactical marines, and a few other squads, i would say yes, they should be better at nearly everything in the game than a bolter, otherwise it's not really and upgrade is it? sidegrade or even possibly a downgrade.

One more time, at 12' a flamer averages 3.5 hits a turn, a bolter averages 1.33. That is a dmg increase of 263% So 5pts buys you a 263% increase in dmg at 12' range....I would argue that is already better then a bolter by a significant amount.

The problem isn't that its not already an upgrade, its that its a situational upgrade and that is what bothers a lot of people. People don't like situational upgrades, they like no brainers. Why pay 5pts for an upgrade you might not get to use because of its relative short range? Its not that great of a weapon to base a drop strike around so therefore its being talked about here LOL.

No, the problem is many armies struggle to get units into the situation where it's good and even when you do, the return on your investment is often pitiful, and the opportunity cost not worth it. I have multiple inferno pistols in my BA army because I find the trade-off worth it even though they are very situational. They also do something my regular weapons don't, which is another problem with the flamer - it's a boltgun that gets more hits at close range when most armies that can take them are already armed with boltguns. The most common one even gets bonus shots with that boltgun if they stand still.

The problem with your damage increase numbers is they only apply once you're in range (they also don't take into account very common to-hit bonuses, that often apply to bolters). They don't account for the shots you missed out on because a model had a flamer instead of a boltgun.

Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

Overpowered by what metric? If we're talking about a squad of tactical marines, going from a bolter to a flamer means going from 1 or 2 (depending on movement) shots at 12.1"-24" of range to 0 shots and spending points to do so. And you're using up that slot to add anti-infantry shooting to squad that already has it rather than adding another plasma or meltagun to your army. So hitting a little harder when you are in range doesn't seem ridiculous. Also, we're talking about 2 extra hits. So an extra...
...1 Wound VS a marine which becomes an extra 0.67~ unsaved wounds after a 3+ save.
...0.67 Wounds VS an ork boy which becomes an extra 0.56~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.
...1.33~ Wounds VS a termagaunt which becomes an extra 1.11~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.

Are you of the opinion that a flamer killing an extra 1/4th of a marine, 1/2 of an ork, or a single extra termagaunt takes the weapon from being balanced to being overpowered? And if so, do you feel the flamer is in a good place currently?

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

Overpowered by what criteria? Obviously this variant would have more defensive benefits than the others. The point of this version is to trade the superior offense boosts of other special weapons for defensive benefits that are more situational by virtue of only kicking in when you face an opponent that's likely to charge a unit that happens to contain a flamer. If you're facing Tau or Thousand Sons or any number of armies that don't rely on melee to finish units off, it's entirely possible that you'll never get the chance to overwatch with the flamer. And if you do get to use it, well, congrats on taking an average of 0.67 Wounds off of the meq squad coming your way. But if you're facing daemons or tyranids, knowing your tac squad has a flamer might make your opponent reconsider trying to finish your tacs off with charging gargoyles. In other words, the weapon has a niche and an impact on decision making but doesn't strike me as overpowered. But hey. Maybe I'm missing something.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

My suggestion was that units would get hit by the mortal wounds if they opted to hold still and stand in the middle of the flames. If you're not within 3" of the token at the end of the Movement phase, you're fine. Granted, larger units might have more trouble getting clear than MSU. Which indirectly comes back around to making the flamer useful against hordes.

I'm willing to have my mind changed, but it seems like you're being really disingenuous here.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
It doesn’t really matter what the mathhammer of random shot weapons is, because that doesn’t change the fact that 4 flamers can each roll 1 for their number of shots in a single turn. What’s the average number of shots then?

The average sum of 4d6 would remain 14 even if you occasionally roll badly because that's how averages work. The average is 14 not despite the possibility of rolling four 1s, but because of that possibility.

It doesn’t need to be devastating by any means.

Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon. A dedicated AT gun should never cause only 1 wound as a base damage (ya know before any damage reduction rules are applied)

Agreed that the humble flamer doesn't need to be a stupendously powerful weapon. Honestly, I don't think the flamer is all that bad for its current cost. That said, I think the case could be made that it would be more viscerally, emotionally, and mechanically satisfying to give the flamer a little more oomph (and presumably raise its points cost accordingly.) Currently, the average performance of a flamer against a squad of termagaunts is something like 3.5 hits = 2.33~ wounds = 1.94~ dead termagaunts. Which is okay and probably about right for 5 points versus an ideal target, but also not very exciting. It lacks the same feeling of satisfaction that comes with killing a marine with a plasma gun or taking a big chunk out of a vehicle's Wounds with a meltagun.

14 is the theoretical average, but the average of 4 results rolled in a single turn is not likely to be the same as a theoretical average. If you’d like I can get 4D6 out and roll them to see what the average of that actual roll was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the heretics can get D6+2 damage lascannons (which makes sense for their role) it’s likely all lascannons will be getting buffed, then flamers can get D6+1

This could all be resolved easily by two main changes.

1. Make the game based around a D10, not a D6.

2. Make weapons affect given targets in a substantially different manner.

A Anti-infantry ranged weapons like Flamers against keyword infantry targets now deals auto D6+2 hits. Flamers against Vehicles deal 1 hit, at half strength.

Anti-Tank ranged weapons like Lascannons (S9+) deal D6+6 wounds if against keyword vehicle units.. Or flat 3 against infantry.

 Blackie wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Ah yes, all those Space Marines that are ALWAYS lugging Flamers all the time LOL.

Got an actual criticism?

I mean, power armour factions don't need another good tool to be added in their deck of options.

So an eventual buff to flamer that just ignores cover and decrease LD is almost useless against units that have really high saves, AoC and really high LD or ways to be immune to LD shenanigans. On the other hand it would be a massive nerf for other kinds of units. Sounds like a bespoke solution, rather than a universal one. Just like "make flamers completely ignore saves!", which would make ork burnas crazy with 10-12 flamer guys while SM flamers would not be that good against hordes with low saves.

A universal blast special rule added to all flamers would make those weapons more useful for all the factions, without breaking anything.

You realize it isn't just Marines that can take Flamers, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This could all be resolved easily by two main changes.

1. Make the game based around a D10, not a D6.

2. Make weapons affect given targets in a substantially different manner.

A Anti-infantry ranged weapons like Flamers against keyword infantry targets now deals auto D6+2 hits. Flamers against Vehicles deal 1 hit, at half strength.

Anti-Tank ranged weapons like Lascannons (S9+) deal D6+6 wounds if against keyword vehicle units.. Or flat 3 against infantry.

Personally I'm a fan of D8. It isn't as much to transition and still allows a little more granularity.

Were I to do a whole brand new system completely from scratch, yeah a D10 would be better.

If they ever decide to move away from the D6 (very unlikely), I hope it's for the D12.
It rolls way better than D8, D10 or other alternatives.

D8, D10, D12 doesn’t change the fact that a weapon meant to clear large numbers of infantry can still result in a roll of 1.
Imho the minimum should be 2, and maximum somewhere over 6.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This could all be resolved easily by two main changes.

1. Make the game based around a D10, not a D6.

2. Make weapons affect given targets in a substantially different manner.

A Anti-infantry ranged weapons like Flamers against keyword infantry targets now deals auto D6+2 hits. Flamers against Vehicles deal 1 hit, at half strength.

Anti-Tank ranged weapons like Lascannons (S9+) deal D6+6 wounds if against keyword vehicle units.. Or flat 3 against infantry.

Making the game based around a d10 wouldn't help any of that.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

Overpowered by what metric? If we're talking about a squad of tactical marines, going from a bolter to a flamer means going from 1 or 2 (depending on movement) shots at 12.1"-24" of range to 0 shots and spending points to do so. And you're using up that slot to add anti-infantry shooting to squad that already has it rather than adding another plasma or meltagun to your army. So hitting a little harder when you are in range doesn't seem ridiculous. Also, we're talking about 2 extra hits. So an extra...
...1 Wound VS a marine which becomes an extra 0.67~ unsaved wounds after a 3+ save.
...0.67 Wounds VS an ork boy which becomes an extra 0.56~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.
...1.33~ Wounds VS a termagaunt which becomes an extra 1.11~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.

Are you of the opinion that a flamer killing an extra 1/4th of a marine, 1/2 of an ork, or a single extra termagaunt takes the weapon from being balanced to being overpowered? And if so, do you feel the flamer is in a good place currently?

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

Overpowered by what criteria? Obviously this variant would have more defensive benefits than the others. The point of this version is to trade the superior offense boosts of other special weapons for defensive benefits that are more situational by virtue of only kicking in when you face an opponent that's likely to charge a unit that happens to contain a flamer. If you're facing Tau or Thousand Sons or any number of armies that don't rely on melee to finish units off, it's entirely possible that you'll never get the chance to overwatch with the flamer. And if you do get to use it, well, congrats on taking an average of 0.67 Wounds off of the meq squad coming your way. But if you're facing daemons or tyranids, knowing your tac squad has a flamer might make your opponent reconsider trying to finish your tacs off with charging gargoyles. In other words, the weapon has a niche and an impact on decision making but doesn't strike me as overpowered. But hey. Maybe I'm missing something.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

My suggestion was that units would get hit by the mortal wounds if they opted to hold still and stand in the middle of the flames. If you're not within 3" of the token at the end of the Movement phase, you're fine. Granted, larger units might have more trouble getting clear than MSU. Which indirectly comes back around to making the flamer useful against hordes.

I'm willing to have my mind changed, but it seems like you're being really disingenuous here.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
It doesn’t really matter what the mathhammer of random shot weapons is, because that doesn’t change the fact that 4 flamers can each roll 1 for their number of shots in a single turn. What’s the average number of shots then?

The average sum of 4d6 would remain 14 even if you occasionally roll badly because that's how averages work. The average is 14 not despite the possibility of rolling four 1s, but because of that possibility.

It doesn’t need to be devastating by any means.

Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon. A dedicated AT gun should never cause only 1 wound as a base damage (ya know before any damage reduction rules are applied)

Agreed that the humble flamer doesn't need to be a stupendously powerful weapon. Honestly, I don't think the flamer is all that bad for its current cost. That said, I think the case could be made that it would be more viscerally, emotionally, and mechanically satisfying to give the flamer a little more oomph (and presumably raise its points cost accordingly.) Currently, the average performance of a flamer against a squad of termagaunts is something like 3.5 hits = 2.33~ wounds = 1.94~ dead termagaunts. Which is okay and probably about right for 5 points versus an ideal target, but also not very exciting. It lacks the same feeling of satisfaction that comes with killing a marine with a plasma gun or taking a big chunk out of a vehicle's Wounds with a meltagun.

14 is the theoretical average, but the average of 4 results rolled in a single turn is not likely to be the same as a theoretical average. If you’d like I can get 4D6 out and roll them to see what the average of that actual roll was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the heretics can get D6+2 damage lascannons (which makes sense for their role) it’s likely all lascannons will be getting buffed, then flamers can get D6+1

The odds of rolling a 14 on 4d6 is only 11.27%.

However, the odds of rolling 13, 14, or 15 is 32.87%.
12-16 is more than 50%.
For reference, the odds of rolling 4 on 4d6 is .08%. Less than one in a thousand. Hell, you've got 90% odds of rolling a 10+.

The more dice you roll, the closer to the average you'll get consistently.

Its a reasonable argument that the flamer should be buffed (along with grenade launchers, all special weapons etc) - but these should in turn be chunkier, 20+ point upgrades that push a unit in that direction.

If weapons are going to be 5 points, obviously their effect has to be somewhat marginal.

Tyel wrote:
Its a reasonable argument that the flamer should be buffed (along with grenade launchers, all special weapons etc) - but these should in turn be chunkier, 20+ point upgrades that push a unit in that direction.

If weapons are going to be 5 points, obviously their effect has to be somewhat marginal.

Bad take is bad.

Plasma Guns aren't 20 points and don't have only a marginal effect. Plasma isn't broken either.

Why do we need to buff Grenade Launchers when Plasma and Melta are already super powerful? Just retire them to legends and be done with it. Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Sniper rifles, serve really zero purpose in the Guard these days. As they are currently the only faction that includes them as special weapons (Launchers and Sniper Rifles) dropping them off the books wouldn't really hurt anything.

I agree Sniper Rifles have zero place in Infantry squads, but I think there's room for the Grenade Launcher to shine with some slight buffs. I'm for ignoring LOS and bringing back pinning mechanics for weapons like said Grenade Launchers and Autocannons.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
14 is the theoretical average, but the average of 4 results rolled in a single turn is not likely to be the same as a theoretical average. If you’d like I can get 4D6 out and roll them to see what the average of that actual roll was.

The odds of rolling a 14 on 4d6 is only 11.27%.

However, the odds of rolling 13, 14, or 15 is 32.87%.
12-16 is more than 50%.
For reference, the odds of rolling 4 on 4d6 is .08%. Less than one in a thousand. Hell, you've got 90% odds of rolling a 10+.

The more dice you roll, the closer to the average you'll get consistently.

JNA is out here doing the Emperor's work. Thank you. Math isn't my strong suit, but I swear I once had a guy defend 60" serpent shields in their prime by saying, "Well sometimes you'll roll badly." And on a separate occasion, I had to explain what standards of deviation were and assure him that the possibility of a bad roll doesn't somehow invalidate more likely rolls.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

Overpowered by what metric? If we're talking about a squad of tactical marines, going from a bolter to a flamer means going from 1 or 2 (depending on movement) shots at 12.1"-24" of range to 0 shots and spending points to do so. And you're using up that slot to add anti-infantry shooting to squad that already has it rather than adding another plasma or meltagun to your army. So hitting a little harder when you are in range doesn't seem ridiculous. Also, we're talking about 2 extra hits. So an extra...
...1 Wound VS a marine which becomes an extra 0.67~ unsaved wounds after a 3+ save.
...0.67 Wounds VS an ork boy which becomes an extra 0.56~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.
...1.33~ Wounds VS a termagaunt which becomes an extra 1.11~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.

Are you of the opinion that a flamer killing an extra 1/4th of a marine, 1/2 of an ork, or a single extra termagaunt takes the weapon from being balanced to being overpowered? And if so, do you feel the flamer is in a good place currently?

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

Overpowered by what criteria? Obviously this variant would have more defensive benefits than the others. The point of this version is to trade the superior offense boosts of other special weapons for defensive benefits that are more situational by virtue of only kicking in when you face an opponent that's likely to charge a unit that happens to contain a flamer. If you're facing Tau or Thousand Sons or any number of armies that don't rely on melee to finish units off, it's entirely possible that you'll never get the chance to overwatch with the flamer. And if you do get to use it, well, congrats on taking an average of 0.67 Wounds off of the meq squad coming your way. But if you're facing daemons or tyranids, knowing your tac squad has a flamer might make your opponent reconsider trying to finish your tacs off with charging gargoyles. In other words, the weapon has a niche and an impact on decision making but doesn't strike me as overpowered. But hey. Maybe I'm missing something.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

My suggestion was that units would get hit by the mortal wounds if they opted to hold still and stand in the middle of the flames. If you're not within 3" of the token at the end of the Movement phase, you're fine. Granted, larger units might have more trouble getting clear than MSU. Which indirectly comes back around to making the flamer useful against hordes.

I'm willing to have my mind changed, but it seems like you're being really disingenuous here.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
It doesn’t really matter what the mathhammer of random shot weapons is, because that doesn’t change the fact that 4 flamers can each roll 1 for their number of shots in a single turn. What’s the average number of shots then?

The average sum of 4d6 would remain 14 even if you occasionally roll badly because that's how averages work. The average is 14 not despite the possibility of rolling four 1s, but because of that possibility.

It doesn’t need to be devastating by any means.

Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon. A dedicated AT gun should never cause only 1 wound as a base damage (ya know before any damage reduction rules are applied)

Agreed that the humble flamer doesn't need to be a stupendously powerful weapon. Honestly, I don't think the flamer is all that bad for its current cost. That said, I think the case could be made that it would be more viscerally, emotionally, and mechanically satisfying to give the flamer a little more oomph (and presumably raise its points cost accordingly.) Currently, the average performance of a flamer against a squad of termagaunts is something like 3.5 hits = 2.33~ wounds = 1.94~ dead termagaunts. Which is okay and probably about right for 5 points versus an ideal target, but also not very exciting. It lacks the same feeling of satisfaction that comes with killing a marine with a plasma gun or taking a big chunk out of a vehicle's Wounds with a meltagun.

14 is the theoretical average, but the average of 4 results rolled in a single turn is not likely to be the same as a theoretical average. If you’d like I can get 4D6 out and roll them to see what the average of that actual roll was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the heretics can get D6+2 damage lascannons (which makes sense for their role) it’s likely all lascannons will be getting buffed, then flamers can get D6+1

The odds of rolling a 14 on 4d6 is only 11.27%.

However, the odds of rolling 13, 14, or 15 is 32.87%.
12-16 is more than 50%.
For reference, the odds of rolling 4 on 4d6 is .08%. Less than one in a thousand. Hell, you've got 90% odds of rolling a 10+.

The more dice you roll, the closer to the average you'll get consistently.

the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do we need to buff Grenade Launchers when Plasma and Melta are already super powerful? Just retire them to legends and be done with it. Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Sniper rifles, serve really zero purpose in the Guard these days. As they are currently the only faction that includes them as special weapons (Launchers and Sniper Rifles) dropping them off the books wouldn't really hurt anything.

i mean some people like the options, and taking options away isn't really a good answer, when people are just asking for all options to be useful. not necessarily meta, but useful.

hell players like me who got most of their models when they were kids might have primarily only grenade launchers, and flamers for their special weapons because for years those were the only special weapons that came in a kit.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Its a reasonable argument that the flamer should be buffed (along with grenade launchers, all special weapons etc) - but these should in turn be chunkier, 20+ point upgrades that push a unit in that direction.

If weapons are going to be 5 points, obviously their effect has to be somewhat marginal.

Bad take is bad.

Plasma Guns aren't 20 points and don't have only a marginal effect. Plasma isn't broken either.

Think we're splitting hairs over the word "marginal" here. A plasma gun has more of an impact than a flamer does, but a lone plasma gun doesn't make me nervous the same way a multi-melta does.

The flamer feels like it has less impact than a plasma gun does despite both taking up special weapon slots. There is probably room to make the flamer more powerful (without making it overpowered) if we're willing to up its price a smidge.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

Overpowered by what metric? If we're talking about a squad of tactical marines, going from a bolter to a flamer means going from 1 or 2 (depending on movement) shots at 12.1"-24" of range to 0 shots and spending points to do so. And you're using up that slot to add anti-infantry shooting to squad that already has it rather than adding another plasma or meltagun to your army. So hitting a little harder when you are in range doesn't seem ridiculous. Also, we're talking about 2 extra hits. So an extra...
...1 Wound VS a marine which becomes an extra 0.67~ unsaved wounds after a 3+ save.
...0.67 Wounds VS an ork boy which becomes an extra 0.56~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.
...1.33~ Wounds VS a termagaunt which becomes an extra 1.11~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.

Are you of the opinion that a flamer killing an extra 1/4th of a marine, 1/2 of an ork, or a single extra termagaunt takes the weapon from being balanced to being overpowered? And if so, do you feel the flamer is in a good place currently?

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

Overpowered by what criteria? Obviously this variant would have more defensive benefits than the others. The point of this version is to trade the superior offense boosts of other special weapons for defensive benefits that are more situational by virtue of only kicking in when you face an opponent that's likely to charge a unit that happens to contain a flamer. If you're facing Tau or Thousand Sons or any number of armies that don't rely on melee to finish units off, it's entirely possible that you'll never get the chance to overwatch with the flamer. And if you do get to use it, well, congrats on taking an average of 0.67 Wounds off of the meq squad coming your way. But if you're facing daemons or tyranids, knowing your tac squad has a flamer might make your opponent reconsider trying to finish your tacs off with charging gargoyles. In other words, the weapon has a niche and an impact on decision making but doesn't strike me as overpowered. But hey. Maybe I'm missing something.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

My suggestion was that units would get hit by the mortal wounds if they opted to hold still and stand in the middle of the flames. If you're not within 3" of the token at the end of the Movement phase, you're fine. Granted, larger units might have more trouble getting clear than MSU. Which indirectly comes back around to making the flamer useful against hordes.

I'm willing to have my mind changed, but it seems like you're being really disingenuous here.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
It doesn’t really matter what the mathhammer of random shot weapons is, because that doesn’t change the fact that 4 flamers can each roll 1 for their number of shots in a single turn. What’s the average number of shots then?

The average sum of 4d6 would remain 14 even if you occasionally roll badly because that's how averages work. The average is 14 not despite the possibility of rolling four 1s, but because of that possibility.

It doesn’t need to be devastating by any means.

Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon. A dedicated AT gun should never cause only 1 wound as a base damage (ya know before any damage reduction rules are applied)

Agreed that the humble flamer doesn't need to be a stupendously powerful weapon. Honestly, I don't think the flamer is all that bad for its current cost. That said, I think the case could be made that it would be more viscerally, emotionally, and mechanically satisfying to give the flamer a little more oomph (and presumably raise its points cost accordingly.) Currently, the average performance of a flamer against a squad of termagaunts is something like 3.5 hits = 2.33~ wounds = 1.94~ dead termagaunts. Which is okay and probably about right for 5 points versus an ideal target, but also not very exciting. It lacks the same feeling of satisfaction that comes with killing a marine with a plasma gun or taking a big chunk out of a vehicle's Wounds with a meltagun.

14 is the theoretical average, but the average of 4 results rolled in a single turn is not likely to be the same as a theoretical average. If you’d like I can get 4D6 out and roll them to see what the average of that actual roll was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the heretics can get D6+2 damage lascannons (which makes sense for their role) it’s likely all lascannons will be getting buffed, then flamers can get D6+1

The odds of rolling a 14 on 4d6 is only 11.27%.

However, the odds of rolling 13, 14, or 15 is 32.87%.
12-16 is more than 50%.
For reference, the odds of rolling 4 on 4d6 is .08%. Less than one in a thousand. Hell, you've got 90% odds of rolling a 10+.

The more dice you roll, the closer to the average you'll get consistently.

the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?
and just a side rant, i hate when people use numbers like 2.5 or 3.5 average shots or wounds for X weapons. those are pointless, useless numbers since you can't have half a hit or half a wound in game.
sure for many purposes decimals work, but not for warhammer. if it's not a a full whole number, the number behind the decimal doesn't really matter. .98 wounds in game just translates to still mean 0 wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do we need to buff Grenade Launchers when Plasma and Melta are already super powerful? Just retire them to legends and be done with it. Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Sniper rifles, serve really zero purpose in the Guard these days. As they are currently the only faction that includes them as special weapons (Launchers and Sniper Rifles) dropping them off the books wouldn't really hurt anything.

i mean some people like the options, and taking options away isn't really a good answer, when people are just asking for all options to be useful. not necessarily meta, but useful.

hell players like me who got most of their models when they were kids might have primarily only grenade launchers, and flamers for their special weapons because for years those were the only special weapons that came in a kit.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?

I just rolled* two multi-melta shots, and I got a 1 and a 2 on the to-hit roll.
Conclusion: Multi-meltas are bad at anti-tank.

I agree that, if we want the flamer to be a dedicated anti-horde weapon, raising the floor of its performance has merit, but an anecdotal subpar dice roll on a tiny number of dice isn't a compelling argument.


Edited for more analogous example.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do we need to buff Grenade Launchers when Plasma and Melta are already super powerful? Just retire them to legends and be done with it. Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Sniper rifles, serve really zero purpose in the Guard these days. As they are currently the only faction that includes them as special weapons (Launchers and Sniper Rifles) dropping them off the books wouldn't really hurt anything.

Because they could be made a specialist options. Grenades that slow units down or ones that lower the stats of units for the turn or make it impossible for the unit to perform actions. Then it would be an actual choice. Do I want to have more plasma for extra punch or would I rather have some grenade launchers that could give -2"M to enemy units. Same with snipers. They should be powerful 1 model kill weapons, but to balance out the losing of a heavy weapon or special weapon slot, should impact the unit shot in some way. Maybe if the unit loses a model from a sniper it has to go down and can't perform actions. Maybe it gets a Ld debuff for a turn etc. The sniper rifle wouldn't have to chance in to some sort of weapon of doom that one shots a 9W characters on avarge. But if a hit to a chapter master would mean no auro or no casting of psychic powers by a librarian, it would be at least a utilty option

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do we need to buff Grenade Launchers when Plasma and Melta are already super powerful? Just retire them to legends and be done with it. Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Sniper rifles, serve really zero purpose in the Guard these days. As they are currently the only faction that includes them as special weapons (Launchers and Sniper Rifles) dropping them off the books wouldn't really hurt anything.

Can we just retire you and your daft ideas to the "Forgotten Footnotes" box instead? Sheesh.

And both grenade launchers and sniper rifles were in the SM 'dex last I checked, though possibly with slightly different names (Scout Bikers and Scouts, for reference).

Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?

I just rolled* two multi-melta shots, and I got a 1 and a 2 on the to-hit roll.
Conclusion: Multi-meltas are bad at anti-tank.

I agree that, if we want the flamer to be a dedicated anti-horde weapon, raising the floor of its performance has merit, but an anecdotal subpar dice roll on a tiny number of dice isn't a compelling argument.


Edited for more analogous example.

edited for a more analogous example, yet was an awful analogous example…
Rolling a 1 for damage on a lascannon would have been a better analogy.

Would it make you feel better if I rolled an average of 1 or 2 on 4 dice for 100 rolls?

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?

I just rolled* two multi-melta shots, and I got a 1 and a 2 on the to-hit roll.
Conclusion: Multi-meltas are bad at anti-tank.

I agree that, if we want the flamer to be a dedicated anti-horde weapon, raising the floor of its performance has merit, but an anecdotal subpar dice roll on a tiny number of dice isn't a compelling argument.


Edited for more analogous example.

edited for a more analogous example, yet was an awful analogous example…
Rolling a 1 for damage on a lascannon would have been a better analogy.

Would it make you feel better if I rolled an average of 1 or 2 on 4 dice for 100 rolls?

If that happened, your dice are probably weighted.

And 2.5 S4 AP0 D1 hits are still close to twice as good as two BS 3+ shots of the same.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?

I just rolled* two multi-melta shots, and I got a 1 and a 2 on the to-hit roll.
Conclusion: Multi-meltas are bad at anti-tank.

I agree that, if we want the flamer to be a dedicated anti-horde weapon, raising the floor of its performance has merit, but an anecdotal subpar dice roll on a tiny number of dice isn't a compelling argument.


Edited for more analogous example.

edited for a more analogous example, yet was an awful analogous example…
Rolling a 1 for damage on a lascannon would have been a better analogy.

Would it make you feel better if I rolled an average of 1 or 2 on 4 dice for 100 rolls?

If that happened, your dice are probably weighted.

And 2.5 S4 AP0 D1 hits are still close to twice as good as two BS 3+ shots of the same.

yes, two auto hitting shots, are better than two shots with a 50-50 chance to hit. thank you for that indepth analysis...assuming the autohitting shots are actually in range to be used.

next game i have, i'll play my guard since i have a fair number of flamers in that army, and i'll record all the rolls, and see what the average for that game ends up being, doubt it will be particularly good.

Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

except that's a total strawman of my argument. an anti-hoard weapon should not ever have a minimum number of shots, below 2. there's no weapon with a flat number of shots that's considered anti-hoard that's below 3 shots, so it's stupid to have a weapon whose niche is anti-hoard, but has a 38% chance of getting fewer shots than what would otherwise be considered an anti-hoard weapon, with a max of 6 shots, still only about middle of the road for anti-hoard work when compared to things like the punisher, or onslaught. max of 6 shots is the same as an assault cannon, but the AS is much more likely to actually kill the hoard it hits than the flamer is.

the plasma gun is largely considered anti-elite infantry, and anit-light armor, yet the blast rule makes it better at anti-chaff than the flamer, that's before we take the range, S and AP stats into consideration, and yes plasma guns are more expensive but they flat out fill the niche better, same for grenade launchers.

i am just asking for the flamers to be somewhat competitive in their niche, which they aren't at the moment.

edit
fresh idea that might be even more controversial. give flamers a stepped approach. increase range to 16" 13-16" 2 shots. 8-12" 4 shots, 7 or fewer inches 6 shots. flat number of auto hitting low S medium to short range shots.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i am just asking for the flamers to be somewhat competitive in their niche, which they aren't at the moment.

I think most of us are in agreement on that. It's just that the specific arguments you're making seem odd and don't track.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

except that's a total strawman of my argument. an anti-hoard weapon should not ever have a minimum number of shots, below 2. there's no weapon with a flat number of shots that's considered anti-hoard that's below 3 shots, so it's stupid to have a weapon whose niche is anti-hoard, but has a 38% chance of getting fewer shots than what would otherwise be considered an anti-hoard weapon, with a max of 6 shots, still only about middle of the road for anti-hoard work when compared to things like the punisher, or onslaught. max of 6 shots is the same as an assault cannon, but the AS is much more likely to actually kill the hoard it hits than the flamer is.

This, for instance, is a little weird. It's a bit of a bummer when your flamer rolls low for its number of hits, but it's pretty similar to when you flub a to-hit roll. All weapons have failure points including the flamer. The flamer just happens to have a minimum number of hits of 1 instead of 0. I think we're all just thrown off by how insistent you are about the exact number of shots a flamer should have. It feels like you're prioritizing the number of shots over the end result that more shots would grant (higher damage output).

Similarly, you seemed to either not understand how averages worked earlier or else seemed to think that the average of your personal dice rolls in a single game should perfectly reflect the mathematical average? I think we're just confused and distracted by your arguments even though we generally agree with your overall goals.

the plasma gun is largely considered anti-elite infantry, and anit-light armor, yet the blast rule makes it better at anti-chaff than the flamer, that's before we take the range, S and AP stats into consideration, and yes plasma guns are more expensive but they flat out fill the niche better, same for grenade launchers.

Dang. Did I miss an errata that gave plasmaguns blast?

edit
fresh idea that might be even more controversial. give flamers a stepped approach. increase range to 16" 13-16" 2 shots. 8-12" 4 shots, 7 or fewer inches 6 shots. flat number of auto hitting low S medium to short range shots.

That could be interesting. Similar to tau breachers, it makes it a weapon that gets more powerful as you put yourself into riskier ranges. It would make the flamer better against all targets rather than just hordes, but being S4, AP0, D1 would probably keep them solidly in anti-light-infantry territory.

I know that traditionally we have used flamers as an anti-hoard weapon, but should it be? IRL flame throwers weren't used against massed infantry (medieval equivalents maybe excepted). Flame throwers were anti-personnel but not anti-hoard. They were used against dug-in and fortified infantry.

Maybe we should concentrate on the anti-cover aspect of flamers? +1Str and +1AP against targets in cover?

For the love of the Emperor, people - anti-horde, not anti-hoard.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

rolling a 1 for an anti horde weapon is kin to rolling a 1 on dmg for a lascanon. It is not just "bad". It makes the weapon not be taken. Look at weapons that are being used right now by different armies, what do they have? multiple shots, multiple wounds caused, flat damage so your anti tank weapon doesn't zizzle a marine for 1 wound, MW etc. A flamer to balance the chance of rolling a single hit on a unit, on a short range weapons when most hordes are melee focused, would have to have some sort of insane strenght and damage stat to be considered worth taking. Same way a lascanon to be considered a valid option would have to be both spamable and cheap or even free.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

It might not be that dumb in this specific case. Flamers used templates, not to hit rolls. That's why they need a Blast equivalent rule. Rolling 1 or 2 when targeting a large enemy squad is much worse than missing a lot shots with ranged weapons.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
flamers are supposed to be anti-hoard weapons, but with D6 shots, a roll of 1 or 2, even 3 on a S4 weapon tends to have underwhelming results even against guard.
so how about a buff?
i'm thinking D6+1 or 2D3

That sounds like a negligible upgrade.
It should be "ignores cover, hits all units in the target squad".
Which may seem like much, but flamers have short range anyway and it would make a good anti-light infantry blob weapon. You know, like how flamers are supposed to be.
If balance is a concern, I suppose it could be "ignores cover, hits up to x models in the target squad, where x is the number of models hit"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tygre wrote:
I know that traditionally we have used flamers as an anti-hoard weapon, but should it be? IRL flame throwers weren't used against massed infantry (medieval equivalents maybe excepted). Flame throwers were anti-personnel but not anti-hoard. They were used against dug-in and fortified infantry.

Maybe we should concentrate on the anti-cover aspect of flamers? +1Str and +1AP against targets in cover?

Well yeah, because massed infantry wasn't a thing by the time flame throwers were introduced. The invention of the machine gun saw to that.
Can't use flamethrowers against massed infantry when massed infantry no longer exists.

 Dysartes wrote:
For the love of the Emperor, people - anti-horde, not anti-hoard.

Oops, of course it is, my mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

CthulusSpy wrote:

Tygre wrote:
I know that traditionally we have used flamers as an anti-hoard weapon, but should it be? IRL flame throwers weren't used against massed infantry (medieval equivalents maybe excepted). Flame throwers were anti-personnel but not anti-hoard. They were used against dug-in and fortified infantry.

Maybe we should concentrate on the anti-cover aspect of flamers? +1Str and +1AP against targets in cover?

Well yeah, because massed infantry wasn't a thing by the time flame throwers were introduced. The invention of the machine gun saw to that.
Can't use flamethrowers against massed infantry when massed infantry no longer exists.

Massed infantry was used in humans waves by Russians in WW2 and the Chinese in Korea. Also the Japanese banzai charges in WW2. Reliable machine guns were invented just before WW1 and portable flame throwers in WW1. My point was, in history, if large numbers of infantry attack your position you want machine guns instead of flame-throwers. Only in 40k it seems to be the opposite.

they were used in vietnam too. And the US soldiers, when their bases were encircled, used every weapon they had at hand to combat the north vietnam army and viecong. Including flamers, defoilants, claymors with strapped artilery ammo etc

I'm still waiting for the +3" range to my Flamers when most other factions went from 9" to 12". Maybe when the codex comes out...

Here's what I'd do:

Auto-hits (as they do now)

Give them a rule equivalent to Blast (i.e. more hits on bigger units) – but let them still be used as defensive weapons on vehicles

HOWEVER (and this is perhaps tangential) update Blast weapons (and the equivalent new Flamer rule as per above) so that rather than doing multiple hit rolls, they make one To Hit roll and then do D6 (or whatever) Wound rolls, up to a maximum of the number of models in the unit. This differentiates them a bit more from high RoF weapons, and avoids the (imo silly) issue of one explosion somehow hitting the same thing multiple times.

Ignore any and all benefits of cover

Wyldhunt wrote:
Think we're splitting hairs over the word "marginal" here. A plasma gun has more of an impact than a flamer does, but a lone plasma gun doesn't make me nervous the same way a multi-melta does.

The flamer feels like it has less impact than a plasma gun does despite both taking up special weapon slots. There is probably room to make the flamer more powerful (without making it overpowered) if we're willing to up its price a smidge.

I tend to think a single plasma gun is marginal yes.
I think the issue is that it offers (like melta) a radically different attack profile. So a guy with a boltgun is fairly dreadful into marines and up in the food chain. A Plasma gun (even if it kills you) has reasonable odds against anything.

For example, a marine flamer into Termagants expects to do 3.5*2/3*2/3*7=10.88 points of damage, while a marine plasma into say tactical marines expects (when in 12") to do 2*2/3*5/6*2/3*18=13.33 points of damage. Throw in that the plasma gun is 10 points to the flamers 5, and its really kind of a wash. (Especially when the marine kills himself 30%~ of the time).

But then a tactical marine with a basic boltgun already expects to kill 0.6~ termagants a go. So expecting to kill an extra termagant just doesn't seem like something that's going to determine a game. Whereas throwing out some S8 AP-3 2 damage shots into some expensive stuff your S4 AP- won't scratch might. (Although the reign of Plasma was really 8th edition I think.)

Ultimately marines - and even guardsmen - don't need a flamer to handle hordes. They can just shoot and then charge to clear them off. By contrast they are not going to do much against high T high Sv targets which plasma/melta contribute towards.

Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i am just asking for the flamers to be somewhat competitive in their niche, which they aren't at the moment.

I think most of us are in agreement on that. It's just that the specific arguments you're making seem odd and don't track.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

except that's a total strawman of my argument. an anti-hoard weapon should not ever have a minimum number of shots, below 2. there's no weapon with a flat number of shots that's considered anti-hoard that's below 3 shots, so it's stupid to have a weapon whose niche is anti-hoard, but has a 38% chance of getting fewer shots than what would otherwise be considered an anti-hoard weapon, with a max of 6 shots, still only about middle of the road for anti-hoard work when compared to things like the punisher, or onslaught. max of 6 shots is the same as an assault cannon, but the AS is much more likely to actually kill the hoard it hits than the flamer is.

This, for instance, is a little weird. It's a bit of a bummer when your flamer rolls low for its number of hits, but it's pretty similar to when you flub a to-hit roll. All weapons have failure points including the flamer. The flamer just happens to have a minimum number of hits of 1 instead of 0. I think we're all just thrown off by how insistent you are about the exact number of shots a flamer should have. It feels like you're prioritizing the number of shots over the end result that more shots would grant (higher damage output).

Similarly, you seemed to either not understand how averages worked earlier or else seemed to think that the average of your personal dice rolls in a single game should perfectly reflect the mathematical average? I think we're just confused and distracted by your arguments even though we generally agree with your overall goals.

the plasma gun is largely considered anti-elite infantry, and anit-light armor, yet the blast rule makes it better at anti-chaff than the flamer, that's before we take the range, S and AP stats into consideration, and yes plasma guns are more expensive but they flat out fill the niche better, same for grenade launchers.

Dang. Did I miss an errata that gave plasmaguns blast?

edit
fresh idea that might be even more controversial. give flamers a stepped approach. increase range to 16" 13-16" 2 shots. 8-12" 4 shots, 7 or fewer inches 6 shots. flat number of auto hitting low S medium to short range shots.

That could be interesting. Similar to tau breachers, it makes it a weapon that gets more powerful as you put yourself into riskier ranges. It would make the flamer better against all targets rather than just hordes, but being S4, AP0, D1 would probably keep them solidly in anti-light-infantry territory.

i understand quite well how averages work, but decimal averages are useless in this game, and a mathematical average doesn’t mean gak in a game based on luck where if you’re unlucky.
To make flamers competitive in their niche they need a minimum number of shots. That’s all I’m saying.

Change flamers to this :

Assault X 4 0 1 // roll one hit for every model in the target unit, up to a maximum of X

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Change flamers to this :

Assault X 4 0 1 // roll one hit for every model in the target unit, up to a maximum of X

what would that maximum be?

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Change flamers to this :

Assault X 4 0 1 // roll one hit for every model in the target unit, up to a maximum of X

what would that maximum be?

It would depend on the flamer, I would assume.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Change flamers to this :

Assault X 4 0 1 // roll one hit for every model in the target unit, up to a maximum of X

what would that maximum be?

weapon dependent, and you could even use that stat as a neat way to buff flamer-friendly factions.

Lets say

Hand flamer x = 4
Flamer x = 6
Heavy flamer x= 10
Malcador flamer x = 12
titan flamers x = 24 (feth it at that point lol)

then you can have Salamanders or sisters get +2 to their flamer shots for example

Tyel wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Think we're splitting hairs over the word "marginal" here. A plasma gun has more of an impact than a flamer does, but a lone plasma gun doesn't make me nervous the same way a multi-melta does.

The flamer feels like it has less impact than a plasma gun does despite both taking up special weapon slots. There is probably room to make the flamer more powerful (without making it overpowered) if we're willing to up its price a smidge.

I tend to think a single plasma gun is marginal yes.
I think the issue is that it offers (like melta) a radically different attack profile. So a guy with a boltgun is fairly dreadful into marines and up in the food chain. A Plasma gun (even if it kills you) has reasonable odds against anything.

For example, a marine flamer into Termagants expects to do 3.5*2/3*2/3*7=10.88 points of damage, while a marine plasma into say tactical marines expects (when in 12") to do 2*2/3*5/6*2/3*18=13.33 points of damage. Throw in that the plasma gun is 10 points to the flamers 5, and its really kind of a wash. (Especially when the marine kills himself 30%~ of the time).

But then a tactical marine with a basic boltgun already expects to kill 0.6~ termagants a go. So expecting to kill an extra termagant just doesn't seem like something that's going to determine a game. Whereas throwing out some S8 AP-3 2 damage shots into some expensive stuff your S4 AP- won't scratch might. (Although the reign of Plasma was really 8th edition I think.)

Ultimately marines - and even guardsmen - don't need a flamer to handle hordes. They can just shoot and then charge to clear them off. By contrast they are not going to do much against high T high Sv targets which plasma/melta contribute towards.

Sure. I agree with all that. And to clarify, I was agreeing with you in the quoted post as well.

I know that traditionally we have used flamers as an anti-hoard weapon, but should it be? IRL flame throwers weren't used against massed infantry (medieval equivalents maybe excepted). Flame throwers were anti-personnel but not anti-hoard. They were used against dug-in and fortified infantry.

Maybe we should concentrate on the anti-cover aspect of flamers? +1Str and +1AP against targets in cover?

I think this is probably the right general direction. As I mentioned a page or two ago, flamers felt "right" back when cover saves were a thing. Your flamer was getting rid of a 4+ save on models in cover, and being AP5 meant it might also be ignoring the target's armor save as well. So the flamer that could ignore my rangers' saves once they got close created an interesting dynamic where rangers were durable against bolters but squishy against flamers.

The tricky thing is translating the "anti-dug-in" thing into an edition where cover saves have been replaced by +1 to armor saves. +1Str and AP isn't a bad idea, but it is slightly weird that it makes flamers wound orks and marines more often, but it wounds guardsmen on a 3+ regardless. But maybe that works out given that wounding T3 on a 2+ might be a bit much. I guess you could make it +1 to Wound instead of +1 Str if that quirk does prove undesirable.

My (admittedly clunky) suggestion of putting down tokens when you shoot flamers that burn units who stay near the token in the following turn was an attempt to model something similar. Either the target stays in the midst of the flames and takes extra damage or they move away, effectively getting "flushed out" of cover.

Tygre wrote:
I know that traditionally we have used flamers as an anti-hoard weapon, but should it be? IRL flame throwers weren't used against massed infantry (medieval equivalents maybe excepted). Flame throwers were anti-personnel but not anti-hoard. They were used against dug-in and fortified infantry.

Maybe we should concentrate on the anti-cover aspect of flamers? +1Str and +1AP against targets in cover?

Flamers use to ignore cover. Just ignoring light cover would be a nice buff.

Yeah, I dunno why they lost the ignores cover rule in 8th ed. Never liked that.

How often do you actually have units that are hit by flamers benefit from cover? I don't think this would change a whole lot.

If you play in tournaments, a lot. Most of the board is light cover.

 Jidmah wrote:
How often do you actually have units that are hit by flamers benefit from cover? I don't think this would change a whole lot.

Units benefit from light cover all the time in my games, so pointing a flamer at a unit in light cover would come up pretty often. It's just that ignoring light cover with flamers isn't all that helpful. It's basically the equivalent of situationally giving the flamer AP-1. And an extra point of AP only makes a difference when your target happens to roll the exact number they otherwise would have saved on. Which is pretty underwhelming to the point that I question whether it would even warrant the extra special rules text.

Which is why something like +1S or +1 to-wound against targets in cover seems like it might be a better way to go. Although that feels less like you're ignoring the cover and more like being in cover is actively making you more burn prone.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
How often do you actually have units that are hit by flamers benefit from cover? I don't think this would change a whole lot.

Units benefit from light cover all the time in my games, so pointing a flamer at a unit in light cover would come up pretty often. It's just that ignoring light cover with flamers isn't all that helpful. It's basically the equivalent of situationally giving the flamer AP-1. And an extra point of AP only makes a difference when your target happens to roll the exact number they otherwise would have saved on. Which is pretty underwhelming to the point that I question whether it would even warrant the extra special rules text.

Which is why something like +1S or +1 to-wound against targets in cover seems like it might be a better way to go. Although that feels less like you're ignoring the cover and more like being in cover is actively making you more burn prone.

If you're hiding in something flammable, like a forest, or a section of broken pipes with who-knows-what leaking out, and it gets hit with a flamethrower...odds are you'll be burned worse than if you weren't standing in it.

 Dysartes wrote:
For the love of the Emperor, people - anti-horde, not anti-hoard.

In fairness to them....hitting someone's entire collection of stuff would in fact be anti "Hoard"

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

That sounds like a negligible upgrade.
It should be "ignores cover, hits all units in the target squad".
Which may seem like much, but flamers have short range anyway and it would make a good anti-light infantry blob weapon. You know, like how flamers are supposed to be.
If balance is a concern, I suppose it could be "ignores cover, hits up to x models in the target squad, where x is the number of models hit"

Yes of course...why shouldn't a 5pt weapon hit every single model in a target squad....I mean, on average against a blob of 30 boyz that results in 8.3 dead boyz or 66.6pts of dmg. Totally normal, and even against a 10 boy unit its 22.2pts of dmg Totally balanced. *Sarcasm*

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i understand quite well how averages work, but decimal averages are useless in this game, and a mathematical average doesn’t mean gak in a game based on luck where if you’re unlucky.
To make flamers competitive in their niche they need a minimum number of shots. That’s all I’m saying.

Let me just summarize all of Johnpjones's posts. He wants to not have to think or face chance and wants the flamer to be a no-brainer auto-take in his lists. Its atm a "if i have 5pts left over" weapon, and he wants it to be a "spam flamers for 5pts because its easy mode!"

I mean, look at some of these absolutely ridiculous suggestions we have seen so far. Auto-hit the entire unit, deal mortal wounds to every unit nearby, increase range from 12 to 16, give it +1S -1AP etc etc etc.

SemperMortis wrote:
Its atm a "if i have 5pts left over" weapon, and he wants it to be a "spam flamers for 5pts because its easy mode!"

To be fair, there's probably room for it to be more impactful (and more expensive) without also becoming an auto-take. Per above posts, plasmaguns and meltaguns feel like they have an impact on the game. Flamers usually don't. Basically, reasonable people feel that flamers aren't currently on the same level as plasma/melta and would like to see flamers brought up to that level in exchange for paying a few more points. Nothing wrong with that.

Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Its atm a "if i have 5pts left over" weapon, and he wants it to be a "spam flamers for 5pts because its easy mode!"

To be fair, there's probably room for it to be more impactful (and more expensive) without also becoming an auto-take. Per above posts, plasmaguns and meltaguns feel like they have an impact on the game. Flamers usually don't. Basically, reasonable people feel that flamers aren't currently on the same level as plasma/melta and would like to see flamers brought up to that level in exchange for paying a few more points. Nothing wrong with that.

If you are going to pay points for it to be brought up to that level sure, that is a decent trade off, but couple things with that. First off, some of these suggestions are turning a flamer into a better horde clearing weapon then a hurricane bolter, some are turning the flamer into a better anti-tank weapon then the Plasma gun. Some of these are so stupidly over powered that it would literally become auto-takes that you build your list around taking as many as possible.

Yeah there is a spot for flamers atm, you want them to do more? cool, double their cost and make them AS impactful as a plasma gun. Plasma is built to feth up medium to heavy infantry and plink wounds off vehicles. it averages 1 shot at 24 and 2 at 12, on a BS3+ model its 0.66 hits and 1.33 hits if you over charge it (and run the risk of killing yourself) you can wound T4 on 2s, otherwise its on 3s, and against multi-wound targets you are going to overcharge. A plasma gunner averages 1.33 hits, 1.11 wounds and against a Marine that is 0.74 unsaved wounds for 1.48dmg on average. Lets say its an intercessor, so 20ppm. So the Plasma gun averages, at close range, and while over charging, just under 15pts of dmg. All the while facing some risk of killing himself.

So make the Flamer equivalent to that. 10pt weapon that deals 15pts of dmg against its normal target while also facing some sort of cataclysmic chance of failure. Lets see, against orkz a flamer atm averages 3.5 shots, 1.16 wounds and basically 1 dead ork for 8pts dead, but has no chance of killing the bearer and costs 5pts less then a plasma gun, which means that for the equivalent price, 10pts, it can DOUBLE its average rate of fire but needs to have the chance of killing the bearer or friendly units if it fails. Whats that? Nobody wants to do that? Its almost like a 5pt flamer is already as good as a plasma gun point for point, and its just a few people wanting more Bolter porn fantasies? Who would have thought.

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Its atm a "if i have 5pts left over" weapon, and he wants it to be a "spam flamers for 5pts because its easy mode!"

To be fair, there's probably room for it to be more impactful (and more expensive) without also becoming an auto-take. Per above posts, plasmaguns and meltaguns feel like they have an impact on the game. Flamers usually don't. Basically, reasonable people feel that flamers aren't currently on the same level as plasma/melta and would like to see flamers brought up to that level in exchange for paying a few more points. Nothing wrong with that.

If you are going to pay points for it to be brought up to that level sure, that is a decent trade off, but couple things with that. First off, some of these suggestions are turning a flamer into a better horde clearing weapon then a hurricane bolter, some are turning the flamer into a better anti-tank weapon then the Plasma gun. Some of these are so stupidly over powered that it would literally become auto-takes that you build your list around taking as many as possible.

Yeah there is a spot for flamers atm, you want them to do more? cool, double their cost and make them AS impactful as a plasma gun. Plasma is built to feth up medium to heavy infantry and plink wounds off vehicles. it averages 1 shot at 24 and 2 at 12, on a BS3+ model its 0.66 hits and 1.33 hits if you over charge it (and run the risk of killing yourself) you can wound T4 on 2s, otherwise its on 3s, and against multi-wound targets you are going to overcharge. A plasma gunner averages 1.33 hits, 1.11 wounds and against a Marine that is 0.74 unsaved wounds for 1.48dmg on average. Lets say its an intercessor, so 20ppm. So the Plasma gun averages, at close range, and while over charging, just under 15pts of dmg. All the while facing some risk of killing himself.

So make the Flamer equivalent to that. 10pt weapon that deals 15pts of dmg against its normal target while also facing some sort of cataclysmic chance of failure. Lets see, against orkz a flamer atm averages 3.5 shots, 1.16 wounds and basically 1 dead ork for 8pts dead, but has no chance of killing the bearer and costs 5pts less then a plasma gun, which means that for the equivalent price, 10pts, it can DOUBLE its average rate of fire but needs to have the chance of killing the bearer or friendly units if it fails. Whats that? Nobody wants to do that? Its almost like a 5pt flamer is already as good as a plasma gun point for point, and its just a few people wanting more Bolter porn fantasies? Who would have thought.

While I do have imperial and chaos marine armies, I mostly play various flavors of aeldari. So I feel I can say with confidence that I don't fit the frothing bolter porn lover picture that you're painting.

Good breakdown of the damage-per-point of the flamer vs the plasma gun. I'm tempted to point out that orks, though traditionally a good target for flamers, are a slightly weird choice now that they're T5. However, the math works out very similarly against termagaunts (flamers do about 14 points of damage against them), so no worries. I do feel that your argument is leaving out a few key considerations:
* It feels like you're slightly overstating the risk of blowing yourself up with a plasma gun. Maybe I'm weird, but I'm usually pretty happy using the S7 profile unless I'm firing at something that absolutely positively has to die this turn. (Or unless I'm shooting an expensive squad with multiple plasma guns that have just arrived from reserves to deliver a sucker punch.) If you're facing marines, it's hard not to overcharge, but against anything with W1 or T3, I frequently just play it safe.

* While it's fair to crunch the numbers for 12" range, I think it's also important to remember that the plasma gun can contribute from up to 24" away. Which makes it more likely to be firing multiple times throughout the game whereas flamers are prone to only firing once or twice due to having to get within charge range before they can contribute.

* While it's fair to crunch numbers against ideal targets, it's also important to consider that a flamer's ideal target is the same as that of the common bolter or lasgun. So if you don't take any flamers, you probably still have dozens of bolters/lasguns floating around to kill termagaunts. The plasmagun gives you a weapon that can efficiently take chunks out of more durable units that bolters aren't as good against.

So basically, I feel like being 5 points less efficient against an ideal target combined with the other factors I've pointed out could reasonably make people want flamers to be better without requiring the addition of a significant drawback like the plasma gun's Gets Hot rule. It's also worth mentioning that a weapon can be balanced but still not "feel right," and that's a fair criticism. My howling banshees would be balanced if you basically gave them the same stats, rules, and wargear as swooping hawks, but machinegunning the enemy while swooping away to safety wouldn't deliver the melee shock assault "feeling" that the powersword toting models would make me expect.

Wyldhunt wrote:

While I do have imperial and chaos marine armies, I mostly play various flavors of aeldari. So I feel I can say with confidence that I don't fit the frothing bolter porn lover picture that you're painting.

Good breakdown of the damage-per-point of the flamer vs the plasma gun. I'm tempted to point out that orks, though traditionally a good target for flamers, are a slightly weird choice now that they're T5. However, the math works out very similarly against termagaunts (flamers do about 14 points of damage against them), so no worries. I do feel that your argument is leaving out a few key considerations:
* It feels like you're slightly overstating the risk of blowing yourself up with a plasma gun. Maybe I'm weird, but I'm usually pretty happy using the S7 profile unless I'm firing at something that absolutely positively has to die this turn. (Or unless I'm shooting an expensive squad with multiple plasma guns that have just arrived from reserves to deliver a sucker punch.) If you're facing marines, it's hard not to overcharge, but against anything with W1 or T3, I frequently just play it safe.

* While it's fair to crunch the numbers for 12" range, I think it's also important to remember that the plasma gun can contribute from up to 24" away. Which makes it more likely to be firing multiple times throughout the game whereas flamers are prone to only firing once or twice due to having to get within charge range before they can contribute.

* While it's fair to crunch numbers against ideal targets, it's also important to consider that a flamer's ideal target is the same as that of the common bolter or lasgun. So if you don't take any flamers, you probably still have dozens of bolters/lasguns floating around to kill termagaunts. The plasmagun gives you a weapon that can efficiently take chunks out of more durable units that bolters aren't as good against.

So basically, I feel like being 5 points less efficient against an ideal target combined with the other factors I've pointed out could reasonably make people want flamers to be better without requiring the addition of a significant drawback like the plasma gun's Gets Hot rule. It's also worth mentioning that a weapon can be balanced but still not "feel right," and that's a fair criticism. My howling banshees would be balanced if you basically gave them the same stats, rules, and wargear as swooping hawks, but machinegunning the enemy while swooping away to safety wouldn't deliver the melee shock assault "feeling" that the powersword toting models would make me expect.

Fair points. And that boils down to again, players not wanting to have to choose what to do and want a 1 size fits all solution to all targets. The suggestions in this thread about giving out mortal wounds, increasing range/strength/AP etc all boil down to players wanting the flamer to be better then the plasma gun while having none of the downsides. The trade off right now for the flamer is that at 12' its AS GOOD as the plasma gun on a point for point basis but it doesn't get the range advantage of the plasma gun, on the flipside it also doesn't have a chance to kill its bearer. So here is a fair trade off to make up for the loss of 12' of range. make the regular flamer 3pts. Now its more efficient than ever

SemperMortis wrote:

Fair points. And that boils down to again, players not wanting to have to choose what to do and want a 1 size fits all solution to all targets. The suggestions in this thread about giving out mortal wounds, increasing range/strength/AP etc all boil down to players wanting the flamer to be better then the plasma gun while having none of the downsides. The trade off right now for the flamer is that at 12' its AS GOOD as the plasma gun on a point for point basis but it doesn't get the range advantage of the plasma gun, on the flipside it also doesn't have a chance to kill its bearer. So here is a fair trade off to make up for the loss of 12' of range. make the regular flamer 3pts. Now its more efficient than ever

I get the impression that most of the people making suggestions in this thread are less worried about the points efficiency of the flamer and more concerned with trying to capture that "weapon feel." If we assume (for discussion's sake) that the problem people are trying to solve is the flamer not "feeling good," then lowering the points cost doesn't solve that problem.

Also, has anyone actually suggested making the flamer do mortal wounds? The only references to MW I can find in this thread are:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I use flamers with my Tau, but only because they are D6+2 hits each, are cheap and so can easily double up on flamers on crisis suits, and combo nicely with a strat to get mortal wounds on 6s to wound.

If it wasn't for that strat, I probably wouldn't bother with them.

... and myself here...

When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

The former isn't so much a call for all flamers to do mortals so much as a note that tau flamers are in a good place for several reasons, one of which is the ability to do mortals via a stratagem. The latter (my own suggestion) would only do mortal wounds if the target opted to sit still during their next Movement phase rather than casually stepping out of the flames. Which is quite a bit different than just having flamers doing mortal wounds when you shoot them. I was just spitballing a quick and dirty way to say, "Hey, this area is on fire. You can either move or take extra damage."

Yes, please make all Custodes Telemon Plasma Projectors heavy 3d3 S7 AP2 D2 Blast.

Flamers in general should:

A. Auto-hit
B. Ignore cover
C. somehow make morale worse.

Thats it for overarching flamer effects.

The specific weapons themselves are where you balance expected damage vs points.

If your charging 5 points to trade out a marine bolter for a flamer, it should have the same base strength and ap, but at least twice the number of hits at half the range.

Make base flamers assault 4.
Make bigger flamers have higher strength and more hits (obviously double the hits for double the points).

There are special flamers in the game that have longer range (used to represent the old Torrent rule). Those should obviously cost more than a basic flamer, but should also take into consideration what your trading out for them.

If your gonna charge 10pts for an Aquilon Solarpike for example, it needs to once again score double hits that the Lastrum storm bolter would get that your trading out.

Every model desroyed by attacks due to a "flame Weapon" +1 to Morale Tests?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Every model desroyed by attacks due to a "flame Weapon" +1 to Morale Tests?

I think just a general +1 to morale tests is fine. No need to keep adding to the value

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Flamers in general should:

A. Auto-hit
B. Ignore cover
C. somehow make morale worse.

Thats it for overarching flamer effects.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Every model desroyed by attacks due to a "flame Weapon" +1 to Morale Tests?

Congrats, you just impacted 2 factions in the entire game with your morale modifiers. And 1 of them hasn't gotten a codex yet. Every other faction functionally ignores Morale or has special rules which limit their losses to 1 model.

Lets break down the real reason people are complaining about flamers. Is it because they aren't clearing hordes well anymore? Nope. Is it because they don't do enough dmg to cheap throw away infantry? Nope. So what is the reason? Because Marines and units with Marine like statlines are THE MOST common defensive profile in the game and T4 3+ armor is really good at minimizing the impact of a Flamer dishing out 3.5 hits on average.

So why do I say the real reason isn't to kill hordes? Because when was the last time you saw a competitive horde list? They don't exist anymore because the factions which use them the most IG, Nidz and Orkz are incentivized NOT to bring hordes in a host of different ways. Blast weapon rules, coherency rules, loss of CC range rules, and most importantly MORALE at least for orkz. A single Flamer squad of 5 Marines shoots at a mob of 30 boyz. the flamer kills 1 by itself the 4 remaining bolters do 8 shots, 5.3 hits 1.7 wounds and after their 6+ saves 1.5ish dead orkz, so on average 3 dead boyz. Add in the +1 to morale thanks to your flamer rule and they are -4 which means they have a 50% chance to fail morale. if they do they lose 1 to morale and then on average 4 more to attrition. So 5 Marines with a single flamer effectively kill 8 Boyz, or 64pts. A unit of 95pts just killed more then 2/3rds its value in a single shooting phase without any other buffs. In other words, there is not a single point in favor of bringing more then MSU Boyz mobz.

So going back to the real point, why are we discussing making Flamers more deadly? Handing out Mortal wounds? etc? Because it takes on average 3.5 Flamers to kill a single Space Marine where as in previous editions it was usually 1 flamer kills 1 Marine (pre 2w Marines). So how about we just skip the BS and just come to the real point which is Marines are now too durable to fight against themselves unless they are using specialized weaponry with with either an insane number of shots or with higher S/AP then before.

I think flamers could use more of a utility buff than a damage one. Why can´t we use flamers to effectively set cover on fire to force a unit out of it? Or flame an area around an objective? Place a flamer template on the ground. Everythings moving through has to take some damage or has their ranges reduced. Isn´t that more interesting than just another iteration of "causes x mortal wounds"?

SemperMortis wrote:
So going back to the real point, why are we discussing making Flamers more deadly? Handing out Mortal wounds? etc? Because it takes on average 3.5 Flamers to kill a single Space Marine where as in previous editions it was usually 1 flamer kills 1 Marine (pre 2w Marines). So how about we just skip the BS and just come to the real point which is Marines are now too durable to fight against themselves unless they are using specialized weaponry with with either an insane number of shots or with higher S/AP then before.

SicSemperTyrannis wrote:I think flamers could use more of a utility buff than a damage one. Why can´t we use flamers to effectively set cover on fire to force a unit out of it? Or flame an area around an objective? Place a flamer template on the ground. Everythings moving through has to take some damage or has their ranges reduced. Isn´t that more interesting than just another iteration of "causes x mortal wounds"?

Agree with Tyrannis. If we were to change flamers, I'd be more inclined to do so in a way that prioritizes making them interesting over simply making them powerful. I'm not sure people are necessarily trying to turn flamers into marine killer weapons so much as they just want flamers to feel like they're bringing something interesting to the table; a slightly higher number of S4 AP- hits at short range isn't all that interesting. Especially in the context of something like a tactical squad where you're splashing a flamer in.

Highlighted the bits about mortal wounds because no one responded when I pointed out no one (except me, sorta) was pitching giving flamers mortal wound output. And my suggestion was basically what Tyrannis is pitching here but with d3MW replacing the "has to take some damage or has their ranges reduced" line. My only nitpick about Tyrannis's pitch is that placing a flamer template on the ground might run into some physical logistical problems as you might have to lift up and set down a bunch of enemy models (likely causing them to be unintentionally moved slightly), and laying the template beneath or across terrain can result in the template either being hidden or tilted at an angle. Which is why I suggested using a "hazard marker" that would theoretically be easier to place.