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.

Phryxis wrote:

Lets say he placed his scarabs 14" away. Then I move my russ 6" away from him

Sure. But if moving 6" away will solve all your ills, then why do you have a Flamer? You're not using it.

You're making my argument for me here. Even when you can get away, your best option is to NOT use a Flamer.

I don't agree. I think he's making a valid point. By having the HF the scarabs need to keep their distance. If they keep their distance then the Russ can scoot out of the way, if they try to close in they get flamed. Its a win-win situation as the choice of a HF has protected his Russ from the Scarabs.

Playing IG historically has been a game of attrition. You know going in that you will lose some units, but it is a matter of mission and opponent's skill that determines which units and how much. The new codex changed this some, but not a lot, and this is why I think the Heavy Flamer holds a lot of merit. There will be times that the bad guys get into your line if you play good opponents. I think it is foolish to assume that your plan will always work and you'll always be able to prevent close combat.

The heavy flamer is for protection, and is effective, but it is not a shield. It is a counterattacking weapon. It makes those troops that contact your forces pay a steep price for any gains. They can kill one tank or unit, but then eat 2 or 3 heavy flamers. It's not prevention (and neither is the heavy bolter in most cases), but it's a double fistful of cure.

Flinty wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

Lets say he placed his scarabs 14" away. Then I move my russ 6" away from him

Sure. But if moving 6" away will solve all your ills, then why do you have a Flamer? You're not using it.

You're making my argument for me here. Even when you can get away, your best option is to NOT use a Flamer.

I don't agree. I think he's making a valid point. By having the HF the scarabs need to keep their distance. If they keep their distance then the Russ can scoot out of the way, if they try to close in they get flamed. Its a win-win situation as the choice of a HF has protected his Russ from the Scarabs.

Exactly, if I had a HB, those scarabs would be staring into it with a 2+ cover save, instead of being 14" away, and there would be nothing I could do about it, and my tank would be dead next turn

The heavy flamer is for protection, and is effective, but it is not a shield. It is a counterattacking weapon. It makes those troops that contact your forces pay a steep price for any gains. They can kill one tank or unit, but then eat 2 or 3 heavy flamers. It's not prevention (and neither is the heavy bolter in most cases), but it's a double fistful of cure.

Perfectly put

Exactly, if I had a HB, those scarabs would be staring into it with a 2+ cover save, instead of being 14" away, and there would be nothing I could do about it, and my tank would be dead next turn



Uh I agree with all youv said but why would the scarabs get a 2+ cover save? Probably a noob question or something I'm not getting so I figured Id ask.

Phryxis wrote:

The point of putting HF on your LRBT is primarly to use them defensively.

Ok, you can say this, but I don't know why you're saying it.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the measurements tend to stack up against using the HFlamer in defense.

I have a problem with building a list around things that will work against bad players. I also have a problem with building lists around the idea that your plan will fail, and you'll need something to bail you out. And those are the only cases where a HFlamer will be of use on a gunline tank.

If you're a gunline tank, sitting in the backfield chucking Battle Cannon shots, the enemy has a long way to go to reach you. As Illumini points out, it's going to be a fast unit that gets into your backfield to hunt these tanks. However, contrary to his suggestion, a HFlamer won't help you. As I've already pointed out, a fast unit will simply NEVER be in a position to be flamed. They will be too far away, then they will be assaulting the tank.

Can you please give some examples of games you've played here the HFlamer helped you out?

I think you have a misconception about how HHF saturation effects the game.

One lone HHF on one lone tank may (but probably not) do a lot of damage. It could get taken out early, it could get assaulted before being able to fire, or simply never have anything close to shoot.

However, having a HHF on all you tanks changes that situation. Now it is not a matter of "will they get close to my HHF" but instead becomes "when are they going to get close to my HFFs".

If by some stroke of tactical acumen I avoid ever having to fire a HHF, awesome, that just means I most likely destroyed my opponent. Unfortunately, most of my opponents are savvy enough to bridge the gap to some extent and threaten my armor w/ short range melta/melee. In these (all too common) situations, having the ability to react with multiple HHF can drastically change the outcome of an engagement. Where once a unit might of been able to run through my formation for a couple turns, they are dead after killing one tank (if they're lucky).

Examples?

Killing outflankers that started to threaten my long range armor.
Taking out an entire 30 strong mob in one shooting phase with 3 templates and a PBS.
Rushing a Tau gunline and forcing him to react to a lone chimera flaming fire warriors.
saturating any MEQ brave enough to get close

My LRBT w/ Plasma sponsons have all the long range firepower they need, a few extra HB shots are not nearly as important to me as having the ability to help counter close range threats.

archite666 wrote:
Uh I agree with all youv said but why would the scarabs get a 2+ cover save? Probably a noob question or something I'm not getting so I figured Id ask.

turbo boost gives a 3+ coversave, scarabs are swarm, swarm get +1 to coversaves = 2+ coversave

thank you, I would have never though of that

HHF

By having the HF the scarabs need to keep their distance.

I think you've got it backwards here for most cases. Yes, I see your point... But in general, when a unit is approaching your backfield they can't do it in a single move. They have to lay up on the way in. They're not doing this because they're hiding from the Flamers, they just have to do it, and the numbers tend to add up poorly for defense in most deployments.

Deploy 12", move 12", move 12" assault 6" = 42" Chances are they're on top of you at that point, and the natural layout of the moves tend to make it hard for a Flamer to get a shot off in a defensive stance. The Russ itself is nearly 6" deep, there's just nowhere to run from 42".

Even if what you say is valid, it seems like the arguments are changing... First the HFlamer is going to kill units in defense. I say they're usually not going to shoot anything. Then, ok, they're not gonna shoot, but they're scary enough that they don't have to shoot, and then you can move. Which is it?

I also have to ask, who gives a crap about a HFlamer when there's also a Battle Cannon firing? If S8AP3 doesn't do it, why is S5AP4 of any particular help? The HFlamer isn't the devestating weapon people are suggesting, it's certainly effective, but nothing close to a Battle Cannon.

Furthermore, there are other units that can provide that threat window you speak of, give the tanks a pad to move out of assault range, only instead of having a placebo HFlamer that never shoots, they have a HBolter, and they keep doing what they do best: chuck long range hate.

In these (all too common) situations, having the ability to react with multiple HHF can drastically change the outcome of an engagement.

Sure, getting 3 HFlamers shooting at a unit certainly will result in a good number of casualties. But think about what you're describing...

You're spending an entire turn for 3 of your Russes shooting HFlamers at stuff in your backfield. Not Battle Cannons, which are brutal, but HFlamers, which are mediocre. I'm assuming you're not shooting Battle Cannons, since if you're close enough to flame with 3 tanks, you're close enough to scatter into tanks and kill them.

So, put it this way... If you spend 3 turns shooting HFlamers in your backfield, and not shooting your Battle Cannons, you're going to lose a lot of games. If you spend just 1 turn doing this, are you not 1/3rd closer to losing a lot of games?

Or, put it this way: You're telling me HFlamers work great when you've got over 550 points worth of models bringing them to bear. No kidding...

My LRBT w/ Plasma sponsons have all the long range firepower they need, a few extra HB shots are not nearly as important to me as having the ability to help counter close range threats.

This is the crux of the issue...

If we're talking about 3 Russes, that's 3 HBolters, 3 shots, 6 turns. A total of 54 HBolter shots. At BS3, that's worth about 6 MEqs per game. I wouldn't consider that "a few extra shots." Now, I realize that they're not all going to live all game, and shoot every turn... But that's just the numbers there. They're worth as many as 6 extra MEqs per game, and I think that's worth it.

If the enemy never comes to you, you never shoot your Flamers. You can virtually always shoot your HBolters.

Another thought experiment... A Flamer gets maybe 5 hits per shot, on average (very rough estimate, I know). A HBolter will get 1.5 hits per round. In 6 turns that's 9 hits. So the Flamer will have to fire twice per game to be worth more. Won't happen if the enemy doesn't come to you. Won't happen if the enemy doesn't come to you in numbers.

I know, you'll point out that there's more than simply calculating kills, it's also when and how fast it kills. As I said above, I think spending a turn pretending your Russes are overpriced Chimeras is a losing approach.

Phryxis wrote:

By having the HF the scarabs need to keep their distance.

<snipped stuff>
I also have to ask, who gives a crap about a HFlamer when there's also a Battle Cannon firing? If S8AP3 doesn't do it, why is S5AP4 of any particular help? The HFlamer isn't the devestating weapon people are suggesting, it's certainly effective, but nothing close to a Battle Cannon.

In the example given the HF was specifically chosen to deal with turbo-boosting Scarabs. In this case the HF benefits by ignoring the 2+ cover save that the BC cannot do... Thinking about the problem again, then, it would seem to indicate that you would be better off using an Eradicator with HBs all over rather than mucking about with HHFs on Russes

Phryxis wrote:

By having the HF the scarabs need to keep their distance.

Deploy 12", move 12", move 12" assault 6" = 42" Chances are they're on top of you at that point, and the natural layout of the moves tend to make it hard for a Flamer to get a shot off in a defensive stance. The Russ itself is nearly 6" deep, there's just nowhere to run from 42".

To manage to actually move like this, that JP unit is going to stay in the open, and it is going to die by the battlecannon. And when you look at it, they can only reach you if they deployed directly in front of you and jumped straight for you. And yes, you can move away and give them another turn in the open. It is stuff that turboboosts or outflanks that are the greatest threat to backfield tanks. As we have seen, the HF makes sure that turboboosters (without a 3+ save) have to be very careful of placement, and that outflankers pay dearly IF they can get to one tank.

Even if what you say is valid, it seems like the arguments are changing... First the HFlamer is going to kill units in defense. I say they're usually not going to shoot anything. Then, ok, they're not gonna shoot, but they're scary enough that they don't have to shoot, and then you can move. Which is it?

The HF can do it all Suddenly, you have a weapon destroyed result, and you have a contesting-ram&flame-machine running wild. It keeps a lot of enemies at bay just by being there, and it acts as a counter-attack weapon

I also have to ask, who gives a crap about a HFlamer when there's also a Battle Cannon firing? If S8AP3 doesn't do it, why is S5AP4 of any particular help? The HFlamer isn't the devestating weapon people are suggesting, it's certainly effective, but nothing close to a Battle Cannon.

Already answered

Furthermore, there are other units that can provide that threat window you speak of, give the tanks a pad to move out of assault range, only instead of having a placebo HFlamer that never shoots, they have a HBolter, and they keep doing what they do best: chuck long range hate.

And suddenly you're spending pts to do what the HF could do for a few less HB shots?

Sure, getting 3 HFlamers shooting at a unit certainly will result in a good number of casualties. But think about what you're describing...

You're spending an entire turn for 3 of your Russes shooting HFlamers at stuff in your backfield. Not Battle Cannons, which are brutal, but HFlamers, which are mediocre. I'm assuming you're not shooting Battle Cannons, since if you're close enough to flame with 3 tanks, you're close enough to scatter into tanks and kill them.

So, put it this way... If you spend 3 turns shooting HFlamers in your backfield, and not shooting your Battle Cannons, you're going to lose a lot of games. If you spend just 1 turn doing this, are you not 1/3rd closer to losing a lot of games?

Or, put it this way: You're telling me HFlamers work great when you've got over 550 points worth of models bringing them to bear. No kidding...

Who the hell doesn't shoot the BC because you have a minimal chance of killing yourself? Of course you fire everything you have, if you're not ready to take such small risks with your troops, you shouldn't play guard.

Who the hell doesn't shoot the BC because you have a minimal chance of killing yourself? Of course you fire everything you have, if you're not ready to take such small risks with your troops, you shouldn't play guard.

QFT

Oiy, beating a dead horse now guys.

The heavy bolter would be irrelevent for what i'm putting them on. My prefered target is 2+ save with my plascutioner.

Either way, I'm made my decision now yall are just arguing for the sake of it.

To manage to actually move like this, that JP unit is going to stay in the open, and it is going to die by the battlecannon.

No? A Russ hull is about 4.5" long. So, the farthest you can be from the opposing table edge is 43.5". The other guy deploys 12", moves 12", runs 3.5", moves 12", assaults 6" for a total of 45.5". He has a certain amount of leeway there to use cover, lay up short, etc. If I do my pythagorean theorem right, he's got about 12" on either side of his line of advance he can diagonal into thanks to that 2", so you really can't run if he lines up opposite you.

And all this is assuming that you've got the back of your tank on your table edge. If you move up at all, which is often necessary to get a proper shooting lane, he will have zero problem using cover, moving diagonally, and still getting to you.

I hate having to use the numbers in this speculative way, but to me it's more convincing than assuring you that when I played Blood Angels a lot, my Assault Marines and Death Company ALWAYS got there, and NEVER got flamed by anything ever. Ever.

Yes, the stuff that can move 24" is a threat to the backfield, but the stuff that moves 12" is too. Hell, even the stuff that moves 6" and Fleets can be a problem.

In the example given the HF was specifically chosen to deal with turbo-boosting Scarabs.

Ok... So if you're building a list specifically to deal with Scarab Swarms, YOU WIN!

Nothing says "veteran player" like building a list specifically to face a specific person, the one person you play all the time. And that person plays one of the weakest armies in the game today. And he's not very good with them.

Can you guys not see how tenuous your argument is here?

The HFlamer matters because it's better against Turbo Boosting Scarab Swarms than a Battle Cannon. Even though it's not, because it's really there to create a threat to Scarab Swarms, then run away... And if it's going to do damage, it's when three Russes are firing it AND their Battle Cannons all at the same target!

How about this... Go play five games with HFlamers on your backfield Russes. Then go play five games with HBolters on your backfield Russes. Against more than one person. Record how many models you kill with HFlamers, and then with HBolters. Just an experiment that should provide some useful information on your army. If I'm right, you've got a better army. If you're right, you've got bragging rights. Can't lose.

I also gave you a couple of other examples where the heavy flamer did better than a heavy bolter ever could, against Snikrot commandos, and against a seer council and storm guardians hugging cover on an objective in the last turn, your fault if you don't want to take those into account as well as all the other situations we have mentioned. I also play BA's, and I have never played a game where there is good enough cover to make the move you suggest, I would rather go for a third turn charge where I have all my JP's than a risky second turn charge, especially against battlecannons. The scarab-example can also be extended to koptas and all other turbo-boosters that rely on their coversave to survive. You are extremely narrow-minded if you cannot see how this extends to other units than scarabs

We have given you countless examples of the use of the heavy flamer, you're not convinced, and that is fine with me, but if you are going to accuse people of being noobs, you should at least base it on EVERYTHING they say, that entire part of your post is just rubbish.

As I said in my first post, the choice is fairly minimal, and depends quite a lot on your play style, but IMO, the HF gives you more tactical options, and it has the potential to be devastating and the potential to do nothing, while the heavy bolter may be the more reliable underachiever, that does a bit each battle, but never a lot.

I wouldn't even want to play my mech IG army without hull mounted heavy flamers =(.

Another topic I want to contribute to this discussion is the fast tanks. The Fast Tanks help improve the whole heavy flamer metagame.

First and foremost is the Banewolf. The chemcannon is a defensive weapon and the platform is a fast vehicle, so you go from, say a LRBT which can fire one Str5 AP4 template 8" away after moving 6" to a Banewolf which can fire a wound 2+ AP3 template AND a Str 5 AP4 template. I think I might experiment using a Banewolf to cover a LRBT but try to use both agressively enough that one of the vehicles isn't sitting there doing nothing the whole game.

A hellhound would work too, but the advantage of the Banewolf in this situation is that it can fire 2 templates, which is going to dump an enormous amount of wounds after being able to move 12" away.

People made a good point that assaulters can easily bumrush a tank before getting pre-emptively flamed. The Banewolf is a nice counter to that, because you have the option of darting it forward and trying to torch guys threatening your tanks. The other thing I think IG players need to practice is positioning- Putting your vehicles far enough apart not to get multiple assaulted but close enough that if one tank is in trouble the second one can come to the rescue.

The Banewolf is a nice counter to that, because you have the option of darting it forward and trying to torch guys threatening your tanks.

Yes.

You build a list around specialization. The gun Russes are about gunning. Stuff like a Banewolf is perfect to intercept incoming assaulters, clean up flankers, etc.

Consider the Russ with the Battle Cannon and HBolter. It's tough to know how many hits a Battle Cannon will get, given scatter, target unit spacing, etc. Generally speaking, 2/3 shots scatter, and at BS3 about half will scatter past a useful spot. On average, about 3-4 are hit per shot.

So, if we assume 3.5 are hit per shot, then that's about 3 kills, or 1.5 kills on a unit in cover (against pretty much anything, MEqs included)

The HBolter produces about .33 kills per turn of shooting against Marines in or out of cover.

If we accept those numbers, the HBolter makes the Russ over 10% more effective against MEqs out of cover, and over 20% more effective against MEqs in cover. That's no small difference.

Perhaps 3.5 seems too low. Ok, assume 5. That's about 4.3 kills in the open, 2.2 in cover. The HBolter is still worth 8%-16% of the killing per round there.

Is it worth having a HFlamer to make your Russes 10-20% less effective in long ranged shooting?

I think those numbers speak for themselves.

Sometimes a heavy flamer can win a game when only fired once.

Sometimes a heavy flamer can win a game without ever being fired

Phryxis, you are not understanding the second case. If you can force your opponent to play around heavy flamers and doing so wins you the game, the heavy flamer has been worthwhile.

I say go for the Heavy Flamer. I was originally going to say the Heavy Bolter because I love Heavy Bolters plus they have longer reach. But in the event you do get crowded with infantry that template is going to give you more hits. For your long range you're gonna be using your sponsons and main turret anyway right?

Phryxis, you are not understanding the second case. If you can force your opponent to play around heavy flamers and doing so wins you the game, the heavy flamer has been worthwhile.

I fully understand the argument behind the second case, I just don't accept it, for reasons I think I've pretty clearly outlined already.

If somebody is so scared of a HFlamer or two that it causes their whole gameplan to go off track and fail, that person is bad at 40K, and doesn't understand what a HFlamer is actually capable of.

Let's say a HFlamer hits a squad of MEqs hard, and hits 6 of them. 6 hits, 4 wounds, 1.33 kills. That's just not a threat worth considering if the potential reward is killing a 200 point Russ.

Please read my last post. The HBolter is 8-20% of the total firepower of the Russ, when shooting at MEqs. You're telling me that giving that up is worth it, just to get a psychological advantage over people that are bad at the game?

I'm just gonna toss this out there, cause I think it's the real story: Flamers are fun. It's fun to lay out that template and see all the hits. It's also intimidating to see it laid out over your own models. It looks like it's really slamming down on the squad.

This whole "it's deadly in the backfield" thing is more psychology than reality. It sonds like you guys think your HFlamers will wipe out whole squads, and it also sounds like the people you play are terrified of them.

That's hype, not reality.

The fact is, it's not a Battle Cannon. It's a bottom tier heavy weapon just like the HBolter. It's actually fairly ineffectual against anything in power armor, and while it kills Orks at a nice clip, they're 6 points each.

I use HFlamers ALL THE TIME with my Sisters. Even with Divine Guidance, which vastly improves their effectiveness, they're still not wiping out squads left and right, they're just adding a good chunk of punch to the shooting of the squad.

I can remember the first time I drove a Rhino up, dropped the Sisters, and laid down that HFlamer template. I was expecting it to vaporize the squad. It got 3-4 wounds, maybe one Rend... Then the girls let go with their Bolters, and got another 4 wounds, 2 Rends, etc. After doing that enough times, even against packed enemy formations, I started to see that the HFlamer is nothing special. It kills stuff, but so does an HBolter.

If you're scared of HFlamers, or think they're going to turn whole games around for you, you need to look at the numbers again, and rejoin reality.