Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm at a loss and could really use someone else's opinion...

I'm revamping my Imperial Fists, and I'm wondering if it is better to have a bolter or a flamer, here's the run down

5 tacs:
1)Lascannon/metla, 2) Lascannon/Plasma Gun, 3)Plasma Cannon/ Plasma Gun, 4) Heavy bolters/(flamer)? 5)Missile Launcher/(flamer)?

All squads have Razorbacks w/ Lascannons or Assault Cannons and I almost always combat squad (even in KP missions but it really fits my play style).

My question is, do I really need to have the flamers in the last two squads, or would it be better to have bolters or 1 and 1?

I play a wide variety of opponents, so it's kind of an all comers list.

Any stories of experience or tactical examples would be very appreciated. Thanks in advance.

honestly... there is no reason to NOT have a flamer.

frgsinwntr wrote:honestly... there is no reason to NOT have a flamer.

Nidzilla.

I went to 'Arb Boyz semis with Nidzilla, so I know how that goes.

I have play tested with all of the combos, and haven't lost with the list yet... but each game presents new strengths and weaknesses so I'm still on the fence, just wonder if anyone else has had similar experiences or strong tactical suggestions.

I'm still a fan of the plasma gun. Marines are fairly resistant to Gets Hot! and it pairs well with their role of mid-range shooting.

well, the flamer is definately the better choice. here's why.

if the enemy is over 12" away, the flamer can hit nothing, and the bolter can fire once if you don't move. easy. so, assuming you play the entire game with the enemy more than 12" away (unlikely) you can get off an average of 6 bolter shots, and get 4 hits.

from a flamer, if you even get ONE shot (likely all you WILL get, really) you will almost always get those 4 hits, and you have the posibility of getting many more than that, if your enemy is a horde army. If your REALLY good, you could probably block your enemies assault path to you with rhinos, so you may get 2 shots of your flamer in. sexy.

the bolter just doesn't do anywhere near as much damage as the flamer at close range, and the advantage at close range is so overwhelming that there is no reason to take a bolter over a flamer for any reason.

Horst wrote:well, the flamer is definately the better choice. here's why.

if the enemy is over 12" away, the flamer can hit nothing, and the bolter can fire once if you don't move. easy. so, assuming you play the entire game with the enemy more than 12" away (unlikely) you can get off an average of 6 bolter shots, and get 4 hits.

from a flamer, if you even get ONE shot (likely all you WILL get, really) you will almost always get those 4 hits, and you have the posibility of getting many more than that, if your enemy is a horde army. If your REALLY good, you could probably block your enemies assault path to you with rhinos, so you may get 2 shots of your flamer in. sexy.

the bolter just doesn't do anywhere near as much damage as the flamer at close range, and the advantage at close range is so overwhelming that there is no reason to take a bolter over a flamer for any reason.

If you are only going to get ine shot off, Why not get your sargeant a combi-flamer, and just get a plasma or something else?

the point was free weapons, bolter v flamer.

Thanks for the feed back and analysis, keep some more coming!

Its all about play style. Personally I pay the 10 points for a plasma gun because hug cover alot and try to avoid getting within 12" and its more useful agaisnt the armys I play against most of the time. I do however some times use them in my assault squads as a good burning is great before an assault.

I do know marine players who use flamers with awesome efectiveness, becasue it suits their play style.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:honestly... there is no reason to NOT have a flamer.

Nidzilla.

the flamer still massacres their troops choices.

Definately the free flamethrower. If you are careful with your manuever, you will be able to shoot it more than once per game and the turn you do use it, the ST4 AP5 template can be a huge game changer. Most of the Xenos races are extremely vulnerable to flame templates and the turn they are exposed to shooting it will make a huge difference. Even AV 4 Xenos units tend to be only T3 (i.e. Banshees, Fire Dragons, Fire Warriors, etc.), meaning that you can generate a decent number of wounds and force your opponent to make armor saves. Watch him cry the first time you roll well and cause 7 wounds with the flamer before you unleash the rapid fire bolter storm.

Flamer. If you hit into a bunker, you auto score D6 hits, and unlike a bolter, you can fire it and assault in the same turn (damn rapid fire rules). So unless you plan on doing the hit and run and dont plan on CC, take the flamer, it could save your life. Plus fire is pretty

Plus fire is pretty

The best reason!

Thanks for all the replies, and I think I do agree that the flamer is more useful in more situation. That convinces me.

Has everyone overlooked the cover negating ability of the flamer? That would be my reason to take it. It gives your humble tac-squad the ability to negate something that is very common in 5e. Awesome against light infantry, it doubles casualties.

I tend to leave my flamers on things that will be close to the enemy anyway, like my 3 dual HF ironclad dreads, or MM/HF speeders, but I prefer my tac squads to a semi stationary ranged unit, I go for HB/PG squads and rarely combat squad. But as Ive stated before its personal preferance.

Man i play CSM and i'm insanely jealous of free ML/MM/HB, and flamer, on tac squads.

I would always take it if i'm not going to grab a different special weap. It ignores cover, it burns troop choices good, works well with rapid firing boltguns, its FREE. The only situation i can think where i would rather have something else is an army of MEQS, but for the 0 points cost, you can still make them take a fair few armour saves. But considering your trying for a take-all-comers-list, I really cannot see the downside of 2 free flamers.

take the flamer, If you are playing against a list where it would do nothing, just allocate as many wounds as you can to it and hope it dies in place of a Bolter model... Naturally you would hope that they would both live but you get the idea.

PotionsN'Balms wrote:If you are only going to get ine shot off, Why not get your sargeant a combi-flamer, and just get a plasma or something else?

I use this in my Plague Marines. Various squad sizes, but always with a Champ, Combi-Flamer and 2 Meltaguns. It gives the squad very solid all-rounder equipment, but you need to have synergy. All the equipment in the squad (including bolters) works best at less than 12", and the squad is built to capture objectives. If you are going to be holding the squad back, don't bother, as you'll never get that one shot off against targets that matter (Orks, Gaunts, Guardsmen) as you aren't striving to get into range.

EDIT: I'll be honest, I'm not certain how that translates to loyalist Marines, but I guess my message is only to take it if you are going to make it worth it (too many "it"s). If the squad is never expected to get close enough to use the Flamer, don't bother with it. It isn't an upgrade, it is just another weapon. It has different draw-backs and strengths.