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.

You are paying points for a weapon that reduces your range to 8''. It better be incredible at that range, but it isn't. Overwatch auto-hits are nice but often pointless, if you have enough flamers to do real damage the opponent can just eat it with a rhino-equivalent.

Want to fix flamers?
Use templates.

I wouldn’t mind seeing them get ignore cover back. Fits the weapon.

To give them a bit of an edge vs. hordes, without too much power, I’d suggest something like “If targeting a unit with 5+ models, you may roll 2d6 and choose the highest when determining how many hits” Or slightly less powerful, allow a re-roll for number of hits vs. 5+ units.

If you really want to make them good vs. big blobs, you could allow max hits if targeting a unit with 11+ models in range.

 ncshooter426 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
No flamers are already the strongest template weapon as is they don't need a buff.

There is no such thing as a template weapon.

Dont be obtuse.

Don't post stupid statements without adding any value.

Flamers are in a bad spot

1) Randomization of hits in a world where hordes are now a thing is bad.
2) Wall of death no longer being a thing is bad
3) Lack of cover pen is bad.

It's not stupid it's factually correct have you looked at vindicators? how about the lemon russ's poor excuse for a cannon.

By comparison flamers are not in a terrible place.

1) even with a template you may of only been in range to catch a couple of models, in past editions there was no clumping and forcing peoplr to deploy at max coherency was one of the things that slowed games massively.

2) Only from some peoples point of veiw to others it's a good thing, highly subjective statement.

3) the system changed deal.

Also nice try to hide your breaking rule 1 but too late.

Some things to consider about flamers before you go messing with them:

1.) Flamers auto-hit on overwatch. Compared to other weapons, this is massively good. The only thing that keeps it from being awesome is the 8" range, but if people are trying to charge you from beyond 8" range because of your flamers, you're winning on principle.
2.) Flamers can get 6 hits on single models. Very few other infantry weapons have the potential to do more than 2 wounds to a single target. Bump that to 3+D6 and you'll average 6-7 hits on single models, which is nuts for a weapon this cheap.
3.) Some units have so many flamers. Dominions with 4 heavy flamers. Crisis Suit team with 9 flamers. Such units get astronomically buffed compared to your standard Space Marine unit lugging around a single flamer.

I think making it 2D6 pick the highest vs units with 5 or more is a good compromise.

I'd rather see 3+d3 than 6+ myself. 9" range would be sweet as well.

 AduroT wrote:
I'd rather see 3+d3 than 6+ myself. 9" range would be sweet as well.

The problem with that is when it's firing against single models. Previously it would cause a single hit, with this it would cause 4 automatic hits at least.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I'd rather see 3+d3 than 6+ myself. 9" range would be sweet as well.

The problem with that is when it's firing against single models. Previously it would cause a single hit, with this it would cause 4 automatic hits at least.

Right. I mentioned in a previous post I'd like to see it caped at the number of models in the target unit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I'd rather see 3+d3 than 6+ myself. 9" range would be sweet as well.

The problem with that is when it's firing against single models. Previously it would cause a single hit, with this it would cause 4 automatic hits at least.

Then you get 3 attacks base and add d3 against units with more than 1 model.

Let's get complicated. D3 base, d6 if the target has more than one model, d6+3 if the target has more than ten models. Increase the range to 9".

It'd have to be 10". At 9", it still can't hit deepstrikers on overwatch, since they must be placed outside of 9".

I'd say make them 10", ignore cover, and then give them an extra D6 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

 Fafnir wrote:
It'd have to be 10". At 9", it still can't hit deepstrikers on overwatch, since they must be placed outside of 9".

I'd say make them 10", ignore cover, and then give them an extra D6 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

gak like this is why more than half you guys shouldn't be game designers.

Definitely Not 10" to stop Deepstrikers from using it. 8's a little too easy to get to charge from outside their range. 9 is pretty acceptable.

I think that all of the d6 hit weapons should be something more reliable: 2d3; d3+2; d3x2 (2/4/6)... whatever. I don't think flamers suffer particularly, just the d6 shots mechanic swings way more than I'd like.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
It'd have to be 10". At 9", it still can't hit deepstrikers on overwatch, since they must be placed outside of 9".

I'd say make them 10", ignore cover, and then give them an extra D6 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

gak like this is why more than half you guys shouldn't be game designers.

Even with 'gak like this,' they'd still be worse than Stormbolters.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Would be great since ork flamers are D3. More than triples them.

You should look more closely at the burna rules to find out why they are like that.

Getting some AP in combat is nice, no doubt, but Orks generally don't need much help in combat anyway. Where we need help is shooting. I'd gladly trade the -2 AP for D6 hits.

If you are referring to the rule that we roll once for the whole unit, why would that be good? Yes, we can use a command point to increase the chance of a 2 or 3. I'd rather it be 3.5 (i.e. D6).

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I think that all of the d6 hit weapons should be something more reliable: 2d3; d3+2; d3x2 (2/4/6)... whatever. I don't think flamers suffer particularly, just the d6 shots mechanic swings way more than I'd like.

I do know I tend to hate most of the random number of shots weapons in Warmachine as well.

 Fafnir wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
It'd have to be 10". At 9", it still can't hit deepstrikers on overwatch, since they must be placed outside of 9".

I'd say make them 10", ignore cover, and then give them an extra D6 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

gak like this is why more than half you guys shouldn't be game designers.

Even with 'gak like this,' they'd still be worse than Stormbolters.

So you make them mildly cheaper and ignore cover. None of the garbage that's been posted in this thread.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
It'd have to be 10". At 9", it still can't hit deepstrikers on overwatch, since they must be placed outside of 9".

I'd say make them 10", ignore cover, and then give them an extra D6 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

gak like this is why more than half you guys shouldn't be game designers.

Even with 'gak like this,' they'd still be worse than Stormbolters.

So you make them mildly cheaper and ignore cover. None of the garbage that's been posted in this thread.

They could costed on par with storm bolters, that is at less than a quarter of their current cost, and ignore cover. They'd still be bad.

sossen wrote:
You are paying points for a weapon that reduces your range to 8''. It better be incredible at that range, but it isn't. Overwatch auto-hits are nice but often pointless, if you have enough flamers to do real damage the opponent can just eat it with a rhino-equivalent.

This^

 Fafnir wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
It'd have to be 10". At 9", it still can't hit deepstrikers on overwatch, since they must be placed outside of 9".

I'd say make them 10", ignore cover, and then give them an extra D6 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

gak like this is why more than half you guys shouldn't be game designers.

Even with 'gak like this,' they'd still be worse than Stormbolters.

So you're saying, Nerf Stormbolters

9" and Ignore Cover is perfect

9" for the increased safety charge range, makes the opponent need a 9 to charge you safely
While also avoiding all interactions between Flamers and Deep Strike

Ignore Cover is a small, but meaningful buff.

Altho, someone said "You can't hide from fire"...
If there is a thick concrete wall, your flamethrower isn't going to bother me even slightly...

Well, you'd have to nerf a lot more than stormbolters. At least meltas can perform well in a role, even if they're not optimal. Flamers just aren't particularly good at anything. Even for overwatch, each flamer is basically a representation of turns you could have spent doing the damage earlier and at range.

It's easy enough to just ignore most units packing flamers. The abysmal range means that your opponent usually has to put more work into getting you to charge them for that overwatch than you have to to avoid them. Should you choose to use them more offensively (why?, their damage output is nothing special), you either just waste turns not shooting as you slog up the table (only to get shot to bits), or you pay for expensive transports that end up negating the value of points you might have saved from going with more expensive, better special weapons instead (or... back to those stormbolters).

As things are, I'd rather just spend the 9 points and take a plain bolter girl over a flamer. A stormbolter's a no-brainer, but that has more to do with a flamer being a penalty than anything else.

 Talamare wrote:

Altho, someone said "You can't hide from fire"...
If there is a thick concrete wall, your flamethrower isn't going to bother me even slightly...

If there is a thick concrete wall, you cannot fire anything, because you need LOS for shooting.

Ive got no problems with the way flamers work right now. Most guns would love to have an average of 3 auto hits per gun. midling str and shorter range is a fair compromise for that. The only army with any valid complaint is orks who for some reason hit d3 times instead of d6. Thats bs. That should be increased to the normal d6.

Flamers seems pretty good to me, excluding their range, which has always been they're drawback.
They auto hit everything. Including things like fliers that would typically incur a -1 to hit.
They can now get multiple hits against a unit for just being in range. No more standing an inch away from a unit because you needed the extra hits.
Most, IIRC, are assault weapons, so again you can advance and fire with no penalty.
Flamers may not be amazing, but they are a lot better than they used to be.

 statu wrote:
Flamers seems pretty good to me, excluding their range, which has always been they're drawback.
They auto hit everything. Including things like fliers that would typically incur a -1 to hit.
They can now get multiple hits against a unit for just being in range. No more standing an inch away from a unit because you needed the extra hits.
Most, IIRC, are assault weapons, so again you can advance and fire with no penalty.
Flamers may not be amazing, but they are a lot better than they used to be.

Which is why they just need a point decrease and Storm Bolters a very small amount. We don't need drastic retooling of the profiles for the weapons.

 statu wrote:
Flamers seems pretty good to me, excluding their range, which has always been they're drawback.
They auto hit everything. Including things like fliers that would typically incur a -1 to hit.
They can now get multiple hits against a unit for just being in range. No more standing an inch away from a unit because you needed the extra hits.
Most, IIRC, are assault weapons, so again you can advance and fire with no penalty.
Flamers may not be amazing, but they are a lot better than they used to be.

Autohit is nice, d6 not so much. Who cares if they autohit fliers? That is not what you should be buying them for, and you should only shoot them at that if you have nothing else to target.

Having a range rather than a template is a nice advantage at maximum range, sure, but then and only then. I rarely needed to be an inch away with a template to get a decent number of hits, especially since the thickest part of the teardrop is about 7" from the firing model. BTW I just measured a template and it is about 8.25" long, so it lost range to boot!

Advancing and firing with no penalty is nice for sure, but only if it is a squad with nothing but assault weapons.

Flamers are not better than they used to be. They are worse in almost every way and cost more. Things they don't do anymore:
Ignore cover
Ignore the armor of light infantry
Force the enemy to think twice about packin' 'em in.
Have the potential to hit more than 6 models

Things they can do:
Hit single models multiple times (which is not their purpose)
Autohit a randumb number of models (autohit is not as reliable as it sounds when you factor in the d6)
Autohit fliers (again, not their purpose)
Cost you an arm and a leg to lose the range of your standard weapon (and thus lose opportunities to shoot at your opponent)

The changes to Rapid fire made bolters and even the humble lasgun a more cost-effective option. Rapid fire is now a hybrid of the old assault and the old rapid fire rules, taking the best elements of both. Rapid fire weapons are cheap (0-1pts) and, due to their longer range, will shoot at the enemy more times during a game than a flamer ever will. Rather than arming each of my 6 Guard Squads with a flamer, I could save 42 points and arm them with lasguns. Bolters and Lasguns do everything flamers do, but from longer(i.e. SAFER) range. 42 points is enough for a 7th squad of lasgunners. Alternatively, I could take plasma (but we'll see how long that stays at 7pts for Guardsmen), which could actually do something to a big target.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
After reading all suggestions, here are my suggested profiles (prices are not included and are up for discussion):

Standard Flamer
Assault 9" d6 S4 AP0 D1 Special Rules: When rolling the number of shots, roll 2d6 and pick the highest. Shots from this weapon automatically hit. Models targeted by this weapon do not benefit from cover.

Heavy Flamer
Assault 12" 3+d6 S5 AP-1 D1 Special Rules: When rolling the number of shots, roll 2d6 and pick the highest. Shots from this weapon automatically hit. Models targeted by this weapon do not benefit from cover.

I like the idea of d3 hits, +d3 if target unit has at least 2 models,
+d3 if the unit has at least 5 models. But that would be a pain to roll. I was rolling 9d6 hits for crisis suits and the sheer volume of wound dice was absurd. Having that be many by d3 is cool but extra book keeping.

Just reduce the cost. They're fine.