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.

It should auto-hit against units that are in cover. This shouldn't extend to units that are "counted as being cover" such as Tau sept rule or camo cloak.

Under normal circumstances, it should add +1 to hit to reflect how a flamethrower-type weapons function - that it affects an area in its general direction of fire.

Then, for overwatches, we need to bring back some sort of 'wall of death' rule back - this weapon cannot be used to fire during overwatch. Instead, if enemy unit has successfully charged the model/unit equipped with this weapon, it automatically suffers X hits from this weapon. Enemies aren't thwarted by a wall of fire - they'd bravely charge through the fire thinking they can withstand the flame, only to come out the other side of the flame severely burnt.

Tbh, I think they're mostly ok as is; a lot of proposed solutions seem rather convoluted. I'd just like to see them go back to ignoring cover, and getting a fairly substantial points reduction. (Related: plasma guns, which are often an alternative option to flamers, still need to be more expensive.)

I feel a bit weird about the "multiple hits on a single model" thing, but I can live with it for simplicity's sake.

I'd be reluctant to bump their range above 8" as then you're getting into "deep-strikers absolutely murdering stuff without compunction" territory.

Can't say I agree with you there. A storm bolter reliable puts out more shots at more range. 1 point flamers still wouldn't seem worth it to me.

Zustiur wrote:
Can't say I agree with you there. A storm bolter reliable puts out more shots at more range. 1 point flamers still wouldn't seem worth it to me.

Indeed the storm bolter's kicking out more shots on average than a flamer, but they aren't all hitting, most of the time. If you view the flamer as a situational side-grade sitting somewhere between a bolter or storm bolter, then I think I'd sort of be ok with 1-2 pts for it. (I'm thinking in Marine terms here; obviously its value is somewhat different to a guardsman swapping out his lasgun).

However, I don't think it's totally unreasonable either to expect a bit more from flamers. The issue is *how* to go about improving them without resorting to convoluted or inelegant rules (insert comment about convoluted/inelegant rules already in the game here, I guess).

I really like the Auto(N) idea, not so sure about the 1/2 shots for each further flamer though, as if there are 30 gaunts surrounding you, you won't be all flaming the same 6.

Similarly if any aren't wounded by the first one, it's probably not that they simply shrugged off the flames - they were probably never really hit. I think flamers are a bit abstract - realistically any infantry hit properly by a flamethrower will succumb. "rolling to wound" is really to see if they were just splashed by a little promethium or engulfed in it - burnt, or cooked?

Hey what if instead of just IGNORING cover, flamers did EXTRA hits against units in cover? 2D6, say. And no bonus to save either.

Range 12" Rapid Fire 1(+D3) S 4 AP- This weapon automatically hits its target. If the target has more than 5 models add the number of shots in the bracket. - This makes it almost impossible to avoid in the Charge phase, makes it a useful anti-horde weapon, makes it a useful weapon for Deep Strike units without it being solely useful for that purpose.

Open-topped transports always take the bonus hits, except it hits the passengers. - because DE should be burned.

Change the -1 to hit rule of Flyers so that it also give a negative 12" modifier to the range of all weapons targeting them. - Because Flyers should not be concerned with anti-infantry weapons.

Change cover so it's -1 to hit. - Makes flamers an effective anti-cover weapon.

Change re-rolls to read you can re-roll any x roll instead of all failed x rolls and change Tesla to work on natural 6s instead of 6+. - Because simpler rules and less BS.

Bharring wrote:
"Do you think that people in real life using Flame Throwers were just doing one quick spurt on one person? Have you seen video at all?"

Not at all. I assume they cover the target in flame. And that flame burns hot. It's going to kill it's target dead. Like being hit by a rocket propelled "bolt" that explodes on impact - if you're in the flame, you're probably going to burn.

However, when they use a flamethrower in real life, it's just as likely to hurt two gutys in a room as it is to hurt one guy in a room. Why would it be twice as deadly to a guy in a room if he's alone vs with others? That makes no sense to me.

It's a jet of flame. It's not controlled bursts. So if you're shooting a target area with it, you're shooting everyhting in the area. It should impact everything it hits equally, not impact fewer things more powerfully.

I think what he's alluding to is you spray for 5 seconds, either you try to cover a unit in flames by spraying back and forth horizontally to hit multiple guys in a unit because you only need to hit them for a second to set them on fire and kill them, so you kill 5 people. But if it's just one person you can continue spraying against that person for 5 seconds, so that guy dies five times. Units are spread out, you won't hit an entire unit unless you aim, they're not lining up to be flamed.

 vict0988 wrote:
Change the -1 to hit rule of Flyers so that it also give a negative 12" modifier to the range of all weapons targeting them. - Because Flyers should not be concerned with anti-infantry weapons.

That is a good idea...

Flyers used to have that modifier in a previous edition (could be 6" though, it's been a while).

I like the idea that no model in the targeted unit can be hit more than once. It opens the possibility of making flamers 2D6 (or at least better than 1D6) without making them too good against single models.
In fact, I like the idea of doing something like that to all former blast/flamer template weapons.

If a person gets hit by a jet of flame for one second, is the consensus that they would suffer equal damage if they get hit for 5 seconds?

Equally, if a giant gets hit on a human shaped section, is that going to do equal damage to if they get covered all over?

I think if we are capping the amount of hits it should be based on the weapon (i.e. the amount of liquid it can output in a give time frame [i.e. a turn]).

The auto idea seems pretty good. Ignoring cover is a good idea. Making it more useful against assults is nice.

Introducing a new weapon type opens up lots of potential to fix 'area weapons', but I think the reason they are so poor is simply the space required for the text to make them good.

GW didn't want to add a new weapon type, so we're stuck with a small word count to concisely write the rules.

I'd like to see something that includes the users BS, but can't come up with a low word count way of doing it. Coating an area in flame is easier than aiming a rifle, but that doesn't mean it's a zero skill activity.

Something along the lines of: (for a d6 weapon), roll a single dice to hit, you score a hit for each point you beat your BS by, plus three. 2D6 would have a +6, etc...

So a 2+ BS could get 8 hits, but a 5+ will only get a Max of 4...

Another alternative would be give the weapon the max dice (d6 would be 6), and roll to hit like usual, but say it has a minimum number of hits. So, it could be roll 6 to hit, and if you hit with less than three, you get three hits?

I'm a little tempted to say it's just to complex to care, and the auto(x) idea is the happy balance between simplicity and realism.


If GW did add a new weapon type then it would make life easier. Weapons could then have more specific rules. Flamers could have no cover saves, and still auto hit when on overwatch. 'beam' style weapons could have a stacking AP based on the number of wounds... Would be much more interesting... But it's more likely to be an 9th Ed thing :(