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.

 LunarSol wrote:
One option for flamers is to give them +2-4" range if the unit didn't move in the previous move phase akin to how Aggressors work.

This could work as well. Requiring no movement for the extra range would prevent deep strike shenanigans, while still providing a nice and needed buff to flamers. I actually like this better than the always can Overwatch option, as it requires a tactical sacrifice to achieve the improved Overwatch.

Don't PBC and Chimeras have a template weapon that is not a Flamer?

The first ruleschange I propose for Flamers is actually for all d6-hit templates: 2d6 hits, but no more than the models in the unit. The second fix - always in range for overwatch - I aimed only at Flamers, as I thought a blanket rule would require much more consideration. I'll update the verbage for clarity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One concern with the +range if it didn't move is that Flamers really feel like a mobile weapon. So giving it a rule that helps only when they don't move feels counterproductive.

It could work, I'll give it more thought. Not a fan right now.

One thing that I've never really understood is people complaining about the 8 inch range on Flamers. And not being able to overwatch people charging from 8 inches away. For units that want to charge, usually they try to get as close as possible to their target so that they can minimize the chances of a failed charge. Needing an 8 to successfully charge is far from a sure thing, even with command points. If your opponents are placing their units outside of reliable charge ranges because they are afraid of overwatch from flamers, that can have a huge impact on a game where a failed charge means a unit just hangs out with its balls in the wind. This can be more dangerous than the actual over watch itself...

 akaean wrote:
One thing that I've never really understood is people complaining about the 8 inch range on Flamers. And not being able to overwatch people charging from 8 inches away.

It's because of the 9" deepstrike distance.

We don't need drastic changes.
1. Melta Guns force a -1 Penalty to Invul Saves at half distance and become 14 points. Multi-Meltas gain the same rule and get a 2 point cut
2. Flamers and Heavy Flamers ignore cover and go down 2 points

Coupled with melta’s AP, just doing wounds should be sufficient - no need to add another source of mortal wounds to Imperial soup.

What if Meltas did max damage at half-range?

Yeah - melta doesn't really need a buff - it just needs to cost less.
Plasma should probably be reworked though - you should only overheat when you rapid fire and it should just use this flat profile all the time.

Str 7 ap-3 d2

Flamers should just get re-roll wounds against infantry.

Plasma also comes in Heavy, Assault, and Pistol variants.

 LunarSol wrote:
Plasma also comes in Heavy, Assault, and Pistol variants.

Yeah, I think the best solution would be to just give both profiles -1S.

 LunarSol wrote:
Plasma also comes in Heavy, Assault, and Pistol variants.

The assault plasma has a special profile. Maybe let them keep it. Plasma cannons probably shouldn't overheat at all.

Martel732 wrote:
Melta should double strength inside melta range. It needs reliability in causing damage to heavy targets.

Agreed. Melta at half range should be rolling +2 to wound unless T16 titan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Plasma also comes in Heavy, Assault, and Pistol variants.

The assault plasma has a special profile. Maybe let them keep it. Plasma cannons probably shouldn't overheat at all.

And plasmastorm should not get 'weapon destroyed' as well. Remove that bit from the weapon and that unit is solid.

Bharring wrote:
I actually miss the vehicle damage table, and it might show above. I'd love it if even 1 melta gun were actually scary again, but might be overdoing it. The idea is a Tac squad with 1 or 2 is going to be very scary if not dealt with, but a Fire Dragon or Sternie squad with 10 should be overkill on anything short of a Titan. I'd be intereseted in hearing your thoughts (should be buffed? if so, how much?).

I feel like Flamers need a buff. I'm blanking on Templates that don't. Maybe Scytheguard don't. But the Flamer change is a sidegrade - sure, you're hitting Guardsmen more, but you're hitting vehicles and individuals less. So better at why you should take one. Worse at things you shouldn't take it for.

Couldn't you just straight up make flamers 1 mortal wound on overwatch, and bypass the range and number of hits issue all together?

Why a mortal wound, though?

Shouldn't it be much scarier to a bunch of Storm Guardians than a Custodes?

 akaean wrote:
One thing that I've never really understood is people complaining about the 8 inch range on Flamers. And not being able to overwatch people charging from 8 inches away. For units that want to charge, usually they try to get as close as possible to their target so that they can minimize the chances of a failed charge. Needing an 8 to successfully charge is far from a sure thing, even with command points. If your opponents are placing their units outside of reliable charge ranges because they are afraid of overwatch from flamers, that can have a huge impact on a game where a failed charge means a unit just hangs out with its balls in the wind. This can be more dangerous than the actual over watch itself...

As the guy immediately below you noted, its because of the 9" Deep Strike. It means that the weapon that is partially designed as an assault deterrent actually completely fails at its purpose if a melee unit uses Deep Strike via their own rule or a stratagem or whatnot. Even more, it means flamers are usually taken in place of a different weapon - a Guardsman gives up his or her lasgun for a flamer, meaning they paid however many points to not do the job they paid up for, and in fact perform less than the standard weapon.

Long story short, your point is fine, if not for the fact that Deep Strike is everywhere this edition, even if it is relegated to turn 2 or later with the beta rules.


My two cents on the different weapon suggestions:

Melta - fine as is, just reduce its price a bit (I've said before, just swapping it's price with plasma would help a lot)

Flamer - in range for all charges (or maybe 12" range in overwatch), +1d3 hits on units with over 10 men, +1d6 hits on units over 20. So vs a unit of 1-10 troopers, it would be 1d6, 11-20 - 1d6 + 1d3, and for 21+ - 2d6 hits.

Plasma - Keep all rules same, but reduce damage on overcharge to 1 - still strong vs elite units, but now only does chip damage to vehicles. The problem with plasma this edition is the combination of it going up in strength, having an option to do 2 damage, AND being fairly cheap - making overloading just deal 1 damage but still at strength 8 makes it still very useful due to doubling t4 and being equal to t8, but without the punch of the amount of damage it deals.

The best idea I've had to fix melta is: "against vehicles or monstrous creatures, to wound rolls of 1, 2, or 3 count as 3 damage" all the time, with the current bonus for half range staying the same.

I like plasma being deadly, but OC needs to be costly, though it shouldn't be blowing up razorbacks or characters: "Any time a to hit roll of 1 is rolled, including dice that can be rerolled, the firing model takes a mortal wound once all of that models firing is resolved." And leave the S and D bonuses for OC the same.

Flamers would be good if they ignored LoS and range when being charged, and did 2d6 hits, but had a 1 to 1 max hits to models in the target unit limit. Larger flame weapons could have higher limits (2 or 3 to 1, probably).

Grav should be assault 2 24", or maybe assault 3 18".

Plasma should just do damage to the user on a 1 (but character gets the S v T roll, save, invuln, etc...)..note supercharged does not matter

The issue with plasma is that it seems reasonably costed if re-rolls were not universally available. When you can overcharge all the time with basically 0 risk they are too good. Make checking for overheat happen before re-rolls and you would see them a lot less. In general special weapons are poorly balanced right now. It feels like you basically always take a plasma gun because it is an all around solid choice. I think they need to make each of the weapons fill a specific role best.

 vaklor4 wrote:
I think the flamers are fine at d6, but the range should be increased. Maybe to 12"? That way it's an actual anti-charge gun, instead of just being...Well, useless..

Melta just needs a price reduction, BADLY. Like, down to 13 or something.

Plasma would be pretty good at strength 6, 7 on overcharge, but keeping its -3 and 1/2 damage. It should be anti-elite, but NOT anti-tank, like it so often is.

These are the best suggestions on all accounts imo. Nailed it.

The thing about melta is that it's not necessarily always better, it's that it's always better on marines.

You do that rule for SoB and you better keep your head down when the codex drops.

To me, the weapons are fine as they are now, but they need to be recosted. Plasma is the only one that is appropriately costed. I think Flamers should cost 5, Meltaguns should cost 12, and Grav should cost 10, if they all keep the same stats/mechanics.

Give the flamer the ability to remove cover and stop there. The whole "flamers are anti-charge" ignores that flame throwers are *aggressive* weapons, meant for flushing out people hiding in bunkers and terrain. They're, if anything, meant to discourage gunlines and camping, not assault.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Give the flamer the ability to remove cover and stop there. The whole "flamers are anti-charge" ignores that flame throwers are *aggressive* weapons, meant for flushing out people hiding in bunkers and terrain. They're, if anything, meant to discourage gunlines and camping, not assault.

So maybe ignores cover and scores 6 hits on a unit in cover? Haha

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Give the flamer the ability to remove cover and stop there. The whole "flamers are anti-charge" ignores that flame throwers are *aggressive* weapons, meant for flushing out people hiding in bunkers and terrain. They're, if anything, meant to discourage gunlines and camping, not assault.

So maybe ignores cover and scores 6 hits on a unit in cover? Haha

That's actually a nice idea, and it works similarly to grenades in the City of Death expansion.

While I agree with the intent behind this thread, I think the proposed fixes are more complex than they need to be.

Flamer and Melta weapons just need to become cheaper; they're both too expensive for what they can do. There's nothing otherwise wrong with their basic stat lines right now, and the big advantage of having the separate points list is that you can more easily rebalance things, it's basically what it's for.

Meanwhile Overwatch should gain the addition that weapons fired during Overwatch are fired at either the charge distance, or the weapon's maximum range, whichever is shorter. This means you can always fire all your weapons, but you will only get half-range bonuses if the enemy charged within that range; i.e- the assumption is that you fire at the first available opportunity before readying melee weapons. Stratagems or abilities can then be used to maximise fire for more disciplined forces.

Were you thinking of 'remove cover' as "Flamer ignores cover", or "When hitting a unit with a Flamer, the unit is not considered to be in cover for the rest of the firing unit's shooting this turn"?

The first is a lot simpler to implement. The second is a real "Flush them out!" concept. Really doing what Flamethrowers are used for. And works wonders for combined-arms squads. May not be a huge buff to Tacs, but would do a lot more for a flamer in a Tac squad than a unit where everyone carries Flamers.

I like the concept, but might be too much, and too complex.

That's all the Flamer and Heavy Flamer need. Ignore cover and 2-3 points cheaper. Easy to implement.

My Melta fix is a bit more complex, but it makes sense. At half range, rounding up as necessary, you get the wound ability AND Invul Saves take a -1 penalty. At the next half range (3" for Melta Guns and 6" for Multi-Melta), you roll 3 dice for the wound ability picking the highest and Invul Saves take a -2 penalty.

Why should the Melta get better at killing things that are flat-out immune to the physical world for various reasons (runes, demons, etc)? The counter to invulns should be volume, IMO.

I'm hearing a lot of "Just make Flamer/Melta cheaper", which surprised me, but works.

Bharring wrote:
Why should the Melta get better at killing things that are flat-out immune to the physical world for various reasons (runes, demons, etc)? The counter to invulns should be volume, IMO.

I'm hearing a lot of "Just make Flamer/Melta cheaper", which surprised me, but works.

Because, as much as people don't want to admit it, Plasma is merely a little better functioning than it used to be, with the issues being the reroll auras and easily obtained rerolls. Melta has no niche, and that niche should be "high risk high reward" with shooting big objects up close. On top of that, there NEEDS to be punishment for the ridiculous amount of Invul saves available.

My two cents:
- Plasma: Defo reduce strength. Tau plasma is only S6 with no overcharge so...

- Flamer: ignore cover, and auto 6 hits against units in cover

- Melta: Add 1 to wound rolls within half range, 2d6 pick highest damage at full range