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.

Tekksama wrote:The flamer scout is probably going to live a much shorter life (with a much more festive end).

If flamers are that dangerous to the user then orks and guardsmen are screwed!

Probably Look up the Marine invasion of Iwo jima during WWII. Being the guy walking around with a tank of highly flammable liquid on your back and a pilot light on the end of your gun isn't a job for the faint of heart.

Tekksama wrote:Probably Look up the Marine invasion of Iwo jima during WWII. Being the guy walking around with a tank of highly flammable liquid on your back and a pilot light on the end of your gun isn't a job for the faint of heart.

Only problem with that is someone who watches too many movies might actually believe that a tank of napalm can be ignited by something like a bullet.

It's not quite that easy.

And combat engineers were some of the most feared soldiers by the enemy - the only reliable way to clear a bunk was with a gout of burning napalm. Anything else was either largely ineffective (like grenades) or outright suicide.

Scott-S6 wrote:Silenced exploding rockets.

Even by 40K standards that's pretty stupid.

Not when you read what Stalker rounds actually are.

They replace the explosive tip with a solid mercury(read: doesn't go boom...just cores a big freakin' hole in you) and the propellant core is replaced with gas, making it a few hundred decibels quieter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:

Tekksama wrote:Probably Look up the Marine invasion of Iwo jima during WWII. Being the guy walking around with a tank of highly flammable liquid on your back and a pilot light on the end of your gun isn't a job for the faint of heart.

Only problem with that is someone who watches too many movies might actually believe that a tank of napalm can be ignited by something like a bullet.

It's not quite that easy.

And it's not quite that hard either.

Plus, considering it wasn't "a tank of napalm" on their backs but two gallons of gasoline, highly pressurized, with a Nitrogen tank settled square in the middle of the two gas tanks(the Nitrogen was the propellant)...

It just becomes that much easier to make them suddenly explode.
It's why towards the end of the war, flame tanks took over the duties and most man-portable flamethrowers were scrapped.

Hold up.

"Solid mercury?"

At what temperature are these Stalker bolts kept?

It doesn't say

SaintHazard wrote:

Tekksama wrote:Probably Look up the Marine invasion of Iwo jima during WWII. Being the guy walking around with a tank of highly flammable liquid on your back and a pilot light on the end of your gun isn't a job for the faint of heart.

Only problem with that is someone who watches too many movies might actually believe that a tank of napalm can be ignited by something like a bullet.

It's not quite that easy.

And combat engineers were some of the most feared soldiers by the enemy - the only reliable way to clear a bunk was with a gout of burning napalm. Anything else was either largely ineffective (like grenades) or outright suicide.

I was thinking more of the dangers as listed here on the flamethrower wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower):

"Flamethrowers pose many risks to the operator. The first disadvantage was the weapon's weight, which impairs the soldier's mobility. The weapon was very visible on the battlefield, operators become prominent targets for snipers. Flamethrower operators were rarely taken prisoner, especially when their target survived an attack by the weapon; captured flamethrower users were often summarily executed. Finally, the flamethrower's effective range was short in comparison with that of other battlefield weapons of similar size. To be effective, flamethrower soldiers must approach their target, risking exposure to enemy fire. Vehicular flamethrowers also have this problem; they may have considerably greater range than a man-portable flamethrower, but their range is still short compared with that of other infantry weapons"

Though to your credit right below it says :

"It should be noted that flame thrower operators did not usually face a fiery death from the slightest spark or even from having their tank hit by a normal bullet as often depicted in modern war films. The Gas Container [i.e. the pressurizer] is filled with a non-flammable gas that is under high pressure. If this tank were ruptured, it might knock the operator forward as it was expended in the same way a pressurized aerosol can bursts outward when punctured. The fuel mixture in the Fuel Containers is difficult to light which is why magnesium filled igniters are required when the weapon is fired. Fire a bullet into a metal can filled with diesel or napalm and it will merely leak out the hole unless the round was an iincendiary type that could possibly ignite the mixture inside. This also applies to the flame thrower Fuel Container"

Anyways, sorry to get off topic. Back to the imaginary Scouts of the 41st millenium!

I think we're saying the same thing. Yes, you become a priority target if you've got a tank of napalm on your back, but you also get to be an incredible badass just before you die.

Kanluwen wrote:They replace the explosive tip with a solid mercury(read: doesn't go boom...just cores a big freakin' hole in you) and the propellant core is replaced with gas, making it a few hundred decibels quieter.

Plus, considering it wasn't "a tank of napalm" on their backs but two gallons of gasoline, highly pressurized, with a Nitrogen tank settled square in the middle of the two gas tanks(the Nitrogen was the propellant)...

Shooting a tank of gasoline does not make it explode.

Solid mercury? Which does what that, e.g. tungsten wouldn't do?

Gas propellant? How is that quieter than a rocket?

Kanluwen wrote:Plus, considering it wasn't "a tank of napalm" on their backs but two gallons of gasoline, highly pressurized, with a Nitrogen tank settled square in the middle of the two gas tanks(the Nitrogen was the propellant)...

Go out behind your house, take a tank of gasoline. Shoot some holes in it and tell me if it explodes.

(it won't)

And FYI, it IS a tank of napalm. Napalm is nothing more than jellied gasoline. So you're correcting me by saying "It's not gasoline, it's gasoline!"

Wolf Scouts take flamers, and they're more badass than regular scouts.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:Wolf Scouts take flamers, and they're more badass than regular scouts.

Exactly.

SaintHazard wrote:

porkuslime wrote:Well.. Ork Kommandos can have Burnas.. 2 in a squad..

But arguably Kommandos are far from stealth recon units.

They're just sneaky pyromaniacs.

Exactly!

People are neglecting to mention that a scout could decide not to have the flamer on while they are infiltrating, making them not grab attention. And then just turn it on when they need to break stealth for a skirmish or the battle commences.

Being a dark angels player, I myself want to see our scout squads with plasma guns or plasma pistols. I mean heck, they take an elite slot. *grumble grumble stupid space wolf scouts grumble grumle*

More variety in scout options would be fun to see over all. And space wolf scouts can take flamer, plasma, melta, and other goodies.

REMEMBER PEOPLE

Boltgun rounds are tipped with 'hard water' so lets not really complain about the mechanics of these things

Wolf scouts can have one. But as for the others? Tactically it works. Otherwise, It's just too bulky to use stealthily.

Bulky? A flamer looks about the same size as a bolter, and scouts can have those. A heavy bolter, and missle launcher are bulkier than a flamer and scouts can use those.

Tekksama wrote:
So thinking of Marine tactics while someone in Mk Battle armor can sing "bullets be damned" and set some people on fire.

What are the Lyrics to "Bullets be damned"? I may feel like breaking out in song at work tomorrow.

What's with all the references to wolf scouts? they are veteran Space wolves who are
very skilled at everything they do. They cannot be compared to normal scouts, as these guy
are complete newbies, who probably wouldn't even know how to use a flamer.

*reads thread*

*contemplates wolfscouts with flamers*

*contemplates loganwing army builds*

*digs out dark angel army and space wolves codex, converts flamer-scouts*

*delights in the heresy of playing DA with C:SW*

*leaves thread*

I have to agree with the consensus of Scouts having at least the option of taking Flamers.

Fluff wise, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't have them. If you're going to argue that they're not very discreet weapons, then what the heck is up with ML's and HB's? Rockets shooting through vehicles and Heavy Bolter rounds piercing through infantry is discreet enough, but a flamer isn't?

I would say that it's probably an oversight...

And from a practical/game play point of view, Flamers would make Scouts FAR more versatile and powerful, since you're not relying on BS to hit with them. Giving them a Template weapon that will auto-hit anything it touches makes them far more deadly. So, with that being said, I think that's the real reason why Scouts can't take any Special Assault Weapons. Heck, even a Meltagun at BS 3 is still pretty powerful, when considering how Scouts can Infiltrate/Outflank/Scout.

I have no opinion one way or another, but this thread is really funny lol

Perhaps the mercury is there in order to stop the gun overheating? I don't even know.

Prediction for next boltgun ammunition: Guillotine pattern rounds, contain a small power field generator similar to that on an Iron Halo or Rosarius, which activates on impact causing paint of the body to become seperated by the field.

Developed for use by super backflip marine squads (a new option in the upcoming -->CHAPTER<-- codex)

Xyon wrote:People are neglecting to mention that a scout could decide not to have the flamer on while they are infiltrating

Why? Do you not think that flamers have shut-off valves? Or are you saying that the moment you put the fuel canister on they light and stay lit?

Scott-S6 wrote:

Xyon wrote:People are neglecting to mention that a scout could decide not to have the flamer on while they are infiltrating

Why? Do you not think that flamers have shut-off valves? Or are you saying that the moment you put the fuel canister on they light and stay lit?

What? Light and stay lit? Well for one thing there's a pilot light for a flamer, atleast for the way the models in 40k are designed. I'd imagine they can turn the pilot light on or off. Pulling the trigger of the flamer sprays the promethium out of the muzzle, through the pilot light which ignites it. And of course flamers have shut off valves. I think your quarrel is not with me sir, for you seem to misunderstand my position.

People were saying that using a flamer would not be stealthy because a big flash of the flame would give away their position, but I was just saying they can refrain from using it until necessary. Or heck, they could even use it as a diversionary tactic, if the promethium is a liquid, they could spray it on something with the pilot light off, and make a trail of the stuff, like how in movies a trail of gasoline is used as a fuse to blow stuff up.

Xyon wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Xyon wrote:People are neglecting to mention that a scout could decide not to have the flamer on while they are infiltrating

Why? Do you not think that flamers have shut-off valves? Or are you saying that the moment you put the fuel canister on they light and stay lit?

What? Light and stay lit? Well for one thing there's a pilot light for a flamer, atleast for the way the models in 40k are designed. I'd imagine they can turn the pilot light on or off. Pulling the trigger of the flamer sprays the promethium out of the muzzle, through the pilot light which ignites it. And of course flamers have shut off valves. I think your quarrel is not with me sir, for you seem to misunderstand my position.

People were saying that using a flamer would not be stealthy because a big flash of the flame would give away their position, but I was just saying they can refrain from using it until necessary. Or heck, they could even use it as a diversionary tactic, if the promethium is a liquid, they could spray it on something with the pilot light off, and make a trail of the stuff, like how in movies a trail of gasoline is used as a fuse to blow stuff up.

So true Xyon, that is how a flamethrower works.
What are you thinking of, Scott? I mean, it doesn't make any sense that it would happen that way.