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.

 Elbows wrote:
I'm thinking a squad of 10 Sisters on jump packs with double handflamers. 20D6 auto-hits with no protection against it?

Seraphim already got a stratagem to allow them to update their hand flamer range to 12. And you know what? They can shoot TWICE with them too.
A huge whooping 8 hand flamers shots!!!
(Yeah, only 2 seraphims can get the hand flamers, OR the inferno pistols).
Meanwhile GSC can get a full unit with hand flamers because feth it!!!!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aash wrote:
Better yet, do away with random shots completely and use the above profiles with the following change: n shots up to number of models in the target unit where n is 3 for pistol, 6 for flamer and 9 for heavy flamer.

I agree. The Implementation of a "Flamer" weapon type that is "Flamer X: This weapon hits fires one shot per model in the target unit, to a maximum of X shots." The auto-hit property can be left as an individual weapon ability.

This makes them worthless against single models though, which was always bizarre for templates and blasts.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aash wrote:
Better yet, do away with random shots completely and use the above profiles with the following change: n shots up to number of models in the target unit where n is 3 for pistol, 6 for flamer and 9 for heavy flamer.

I agree. The Implementation of a "Flamer" weapon type that is "Flamer X: This weapon hits fires one shot per model in the target unit, to a maximum of X shots." The auto-hit property can be left as an individual weapon ability.

This makes them worthless against single models though, which was always bizarre for templates and blasts.

And? A flamethrower or artillery shell is going to do the same damage to each individual whether it's a 1 person group or 5 person group.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aash wrote:
Better yet, do away with random shots completely and use the above profiles with the following change: n shots up to number of models in the target unit where n is 3 for pistol, 6 for flamer and 9 for heavy flamer.

I agree. The Implementation of a "Flamer" weapon type that is "Flamer X: This weapon hits fires one shot per model in the target unit, to a maximum of X shots." The auto-hit property can be left as an individual weapon ability.

This makes them worthless against single models though, which was always bizarre for templates and blasts.

And? A flamethrower or artillery shell is going to do the same damage to each individual whether it's a 1 person group or 5 person group.

More bodies to shield the blow from an artillery shell and focused fire from the flamethrower. Pretty simple as that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aash wrote:
Better yet, do away with random shots completely and use the above profiles with the following change: n shots up to number of models in the target unit where n is 3 for pistol, 6 for flamer and 9 for heavy flamer.

I agree. The Implementation of a "Flamer" weapon type that is "Flamer X: This weapon hits fires one shot per model in the target unit, to a maximum of X shots." The auto-hit property can be left as an individual weapon ability.

This makes them worthless against single models though, which was always bizarre for templates and blasts.

And? A flamethrower or artillery shell is going to do the same damage to each individual whether it's a 1 person group or 5 person group.

More bodies to shield the blow from an artillery shell and focused fire from the flamethrower. Pretty simple as that.

On fire is on fire. People don't snipe with flamethrowers, they spray. you can't be on fire twice, but 2 guys can both be on fire.

Eh, that's a bit simplistic I think. "On fire" varies by intensity, and spending more time roasting one guy is far more likely to kill him than simply passing him for a split second. It also depends on the flamethrower I guess.
Besides, flamers were invented to flush people out of trenches and bunkers, and they're worse than machine guns at clearing large groups of soldiers in the open (because of the limited range and the fact that you can see it coming, allowing you to scatter)

As for the OP, personally I'd give flamers 12" range and ignore cover.

Just my 2 cents.

How about giving hand flamers and normal flamers 12 " and ignore cover BUT you only get D3 shots when firing over half range (so 7-12"). That way you could use these against any Assault but with a downside, and you could use it when deep striking. Heavy flamers could ignore the D3 Part, but would be more expensive (the current price might be okay with this).
The DG "flamers" could have fluffy 14"...

If their rules don't change just make them cheaper. I use flamers regularly, they're not useless, just a little overpriced compared to storm Bolters, for example.

1. Ignores Cover
2. Overwatch isn't limited by range for Flamer weapons
3. Adjust the point costs

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Ignores Cover
2. Overwatch isn't limited by range for Flamer weapons
3. Adjust the point costs

1. Yep
2. No, because it won't be needed with 4 & 5 below
3. Sure

4. Make them Assault X with X equaling the number of enemy models in the target unit that are in range, up to 5ish max per Flamer. The max number would depend on the specific weapon, but I am thinking about 5 max for a regular Flamer. Because it would be easier to get max shots with the right movement
5. Make Flamers 10" range and Heavy Flamers 12"

With those changes, Flamers will now actually benefit from getting as close as possible to get more shots, and only get 1 shot per 1 model units.
With 10" range, even those units that can spam flamers shouldn't be able to get more than 1-2 shots per Flamer if they drop in since they have to be outside 9"

-

 Elbows wrote:
That's nothing compared to any unit which all carry flamers and can do that. I'm not worried about fringe cases like random big bugs or the occasional Hellhound. I'm thinking a squad of 10 Sisters on jump packs with double handflamers. 20D6 auto-hits with no protection against it?

That's not a game I'm interested in playing.

...GSC Hand Flamer units using the "arrive within 3"" stratagem?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Seraphim already got a stratagem to allow them to update their hand flamer range to 12. And you know what? They can shoot TWICE with them too.
A huge whooping 8 hand flamers shots!!!
(Yeah, only 2 seraphims can get the hand flamers, OR the inferno pistols).
Meanwhile GSC can get a full unit with hand flamers because feth it!!!!

They only get to shoot the second time with hand flamers that turn if your opponent has somehow move managed to move models closer to them (within the 6" rang of the hand flamers) during your movement phase.

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Ignores Cover
2. Overwatch isn't limited by range for Flamer weapons
3. Adjust the point costs

1. Yep
2. No, because it won't be needed with 4 & 5 below
3. Sure

4. Make them Assault * with * equaling the number of enemy models in the target unit that are in range, up to 5ish max per Flamer. The max number would depend on the specific weapon, but I am thinking about 5 max for a regular Flamer. Because it would be easier to get max shots with the right movement

-

That's what I'd advocate for. I'm not sure you even need to put a limit on it. Keep the range at 8" but if you can get up to 1" away you can potentially douse the whole unit in one go, but units like Boyz are unlikely to all be in range. As an added bonus, flaming a unit from extreme range is less effective, which matches what the real-world application would be like.

Slipspace wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Ignores Cover
2. Overwatch isn't limited by range for Flamer weapons
3. Adjust the point costs

1. Yep
2. No, because it won't be needed with 4 & 5 below
3. Sure

4. Make them Assault * with * equaling the number of enemy models in the target unit that are in range, up to 5ish max per Flamer. The max number would depend on the specific weapon, but I am thinking about 5 max for a regular Flamer. Because it would be easier to get max shots with the right movement

-

That's what I'd advocate for. I'm not sure you even need to put a limit on it. Keep the range at 8" but if you can get up to 1" away you can potentially douse the whole unit in one go, but units like Boyz are unlikely to all be in range. As an added bonus, flaming a unit from extreme range is less effective, which matches what the real-world application would be like.

The problem with not capping the number of hits is that the shooting rules are written to allow a model to fire at a unit, not at enemy models. To introduce a a rule where you can only hit models that are in range would be a significant change to the shooting rules and would also have an impact on casualty removal. At present the rules are set up so that you don't need to worry about if your special weapon/sgt etc is at the from of a unit because the casualties are removed from anywhere in the unit.

I think the simplest solution is to allow the flamer and similar weapons to measure range and target units as normal, but the number of hits would be equal to the number of models in the targert unit, up to a maximum of a set capas mentioned in my earlier post.

Aquilon Terminators already get I think D6 shots of Heavy Flamer at 12". Then they do the Fisto-Roboto dance.

It's not broken if you price the weapons accordingly. but here's the thing: Keeping in mind the capability of said unit, holding that many points in reserve with the idea of lighting up a backfield is already a lost cause.

In 8th most matches are decided by turn 3, so after the beta strike rules, they effectively made DSing worthless. What you are doing with 8th edition flamers, is forcing your opponent to charge at 8.1 inches, or roll a 9, which he has a 25% chance of doing. flamers are Charge deterrent.

If you charge from 8.1” away, you need an 8 to make it.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Aquilon Terminators already get I think D6 shots of Heavy Flamer at 12". Then they do the Fisto-Roboto dance.

It's not broken if you price the weapons accordingly. but here's the thing: Keeping in mind the capability of said unit, holding that many points in reserve with the idea of lighting up a backfield is already a lost cause.

In 8th most matches are decided by turn 3, so after the beta strike rules, they effectively made DSing worthless. What you are doing with 8th edition flamers, is forcing your opponent to charge at 8.1 inches, or roll a 9, which he has a 25% chance of doing. flamers are Charge deterrent.

It's only a charge deterrent if it's a weapon that's scary on Overwatch. Flamers don't even ignore 5+ armor like they used to

Aash wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Ignores Cover
2. Overwatch isn't limited by range for Flamer weapons
3. Adjust the point costs

1. Yep
2. No, because it won't be needed with 4 & 5 below
3. Sure

4. Make them Assault * with * equaling the number of enemy models in the target unit that are in range, up to 5ish max per Flamer. The max number would depend on the specific weapon, but I am thinking about 5 max for a regular Flamer. Because it would be easier to get max shots with the right movement

-

That's what I'd advocate for. I'm not sure you even need to put a limit on it. Keep the range at 8" but if you can get up to 1" away you can potentially douse the whole unit in one go, but units like Boyz are unlikely to all be in range. As an added bonus, flaming a unit from extreme range is less effective, which matches what the real-world application would be like.

The problem with not capping the number of hits is that the shooting rules are written to allow a model to fire at a unit, not at enemy models. To introduce a a rule where you can only hit models that are in range would be a significant change to the shooting rules and would also have an impact on casualty removal. At present the rules are set up so that you don't need to worry about if your special weapon/sgt etc is at the from of a unit because the casualties are removed from anywhere in the unit.

I think the simplest solution is to allow the flamer and similar weapons to measure range and target units as normal, but the number of hits would be equal to the number of models in the targert unit, up to a maximum of a set capas mentioned in my earlier post.

More importantly, all of the previous times that "you can only hit models in range" or "you can only hit models you can see" were used, people figured out how to use those rules to snipe models out of units.

And if you have short ranged weapons (like the flamers that people are trying to improve in this thread) that you probably have up near the front, those get sniped out by units moving up so that only in range of the flamers.

Aash wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Ignores Cover
2. Overwatch isn't limited by range for Flamer weapons
3. Adjust the point costs

1. Yep
2. No, because it won't be needed with 4 & 5 below
3. Sure

4. Make them Assault * with * equaling the number of enemy models in the target unit that are in range, up to 5ish max per Flamer. The max number would depend on the specific weapon, but I am thinking about 5 max for a regular Flamer. Because it would be easier to get max shots with the right movement

-

That's what I'd advocate for. I'm not sure you even need to put a limit on it. Keep the range at 8" but if you can get up to 1" away you can potentially douse the whole unit in one go, but units like Boyz are unlikely to all be in range. As an added bonus, flaming a unit from extreme range is less effective, which matches what the real-world application would be like.

The problem with not capping the number of hits is that the shooting rules are written to allow a model to fire at a unit, not at enemy models. To introduce a a rule where you can only hit models that are in range would be a significant change to the shooting rules and would also have an impact on casualty removal. At present the rules are set up so that you don't need to worry about if your special weapon/sgt etc is at the from of a unit because the casualties are removed from anywhere in the unit.

I think the simplest solution is to allow the flamer and similar weapons to measure range and target units as normal, but the number of hits would be equal to the number of models in the targert unit, up to a maximum of a set capas mentioned in my earlier post.

Casualty removal wouldn't change under this system. You still can't snipe models because the owning player decides where to remove casualties from. All you're doing is calculating the number of models hit by determining the number in range - 10 models inside 8" would be 10 wound rolls. If all those hits wound and go unsaved the owning player then removes 10 models but they can be from anywhere in the unit, exactly as the rules are now.

Slipspace wrote:

Aash wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Ignores Cover
2. Overwatch isn't limited by range for Flamer weapons
3. Adjust the point costs

1. Yep
2. No, because it won't be needed with 4 & 5 below
3. Sure

4. Make them Assault * with * equaling the number of enemy models in the target unit that are in range, up to 5ish max per Flamer. The max number would depend on the specific weapon, but I am thinking about 5 max for a regular Flamer. Because it would be easier to get max shots with the right movement

-

That's what I'd advocate for. I'm not sure you even need to put a limit on it. Keep the range at 8" but if you can get up to 1" away you can potentially douse the whole unit in one go, but units like Boyz are unlikely to all be in range. As an added bonus, flaming a unit from extreme range is less effective, which matches what the real-world application would be like.

The problem with not capping the number of hits is that the shooting rules are written to allow a model to fire at a unit, not at enemy models. To introduce a a rule where you can only hit models that are in range would be a significant change to the shooting rules and would also have an impact on casualty removal. At present the rules are set up so that you don't need to worry about if your special weapon/sgt etc is at the from of a unit because the casualties are removed from anywhere in the unit.

I think the simplest solution is to allow the flamer and similar weapons to measure range and target units as normal, but the number of hits would be equal to the number of models in the targert unit, up to a maximum of a set capas mentioned in my earlier post.

Casualty removal wouldn't change under this system. You still can't snipe models because the owning player decides where to remove casualties from. All you're doing is calculating the number of models hit by determining the number in range - 10 models inside 8" would be 10 wound rolls. If all those hits wound and go unsaved the owning player then removes 10 models but they can be from anywhere in the unit, exactly as the rules are now.

What on Earth is that supposed to "simulate"? "This represents the models in the unit moving up to fill in the gaps, but conscious of the risks that exist in this grim dark future, they wait until all of the shooting has ended."

And the other problem is that it's too damned complicated in practice. Consider the actual scenarios:

Space Marine unit is going to fire. Just two are going to fire. Space Marine A has 3 orks in range. Space Marine B has two of the same Orks in range plus another one. If A & B fire at the same time, they kill less Orks than if they fire one at a time. (Firing one at a time, they each have 3 Orks in range depending on where the casualties get removed. Firing together, they only have four in range.)

So you either end up with "Count all of the models that are in range from all of the firing models, making sure that you don't accidentally double count anyone when you have to do it multiple times because some models have different ranges" or else you end up with the player strategy of maximizing the number of different weapon profiles in a unit so that it goes through the shooting process multiple times (this happened the last time that it mattered).

 solkan wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Aash wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Ignores Cover
2. Overwatch isn't limited by range for Flamer weapons
3. Adjust the point costs

1. Yep
2. No, because it won't be needed with 4 & 5 below
3. Sure

4. Make them Assault * with * equaling the number of enemy models in the target unit that are in range, up to 5ish max per Flamer. The max number would depend on the specific weapon, but I am thinking about 5 max for a regular Flamer. Because it would be easier to get max shots with the right movement

-

That's what I'd advocate for. I'm not sure you even need to put a limit on it. Keep the range at 8" but if you can get up to 1" away you can potentially douse the whole unit in one go, but units like Boyz are unlikely to all be in range. As an added bonus, flaming a unit from extreme range is less effective, which matches what the real-world application would be like.

The problem with not capping the number of hits is that the shooting rules are written to allow a model to fire at a unit, not at enemy models. To introduce a a rule where you can only hit models that are in range would be a significant change to the shooting rules and would also have an impact on casualty removal. At present the rules are set up so that you don't need to worry about if your special weapon/sgt etc is at the from of a unit because the casualties are removed from anywhere in the unit.

I think the simplest solution is to allow the flamer and similar weapons to measure range and target units as normal, but the number of hits would be equal to the number of models in the targert unit, up to a maximum of a set capas mentioned in my earlier post.

Casualty removal wouldn't change under this system. You still can't snipe models because the owning player decides where to remove casualties from. All you're doing is calculating the number of models hit by determining the number in range - 10 models inside 8" would be 10 wound rolls. If all those hits wound and go unsaved the owning player then removes 10 models but they can be from anywhere in the unit, exactly as the rules are now.

What on Earth is that supposed to "simulate"? "This represents the models in the unit moving up to fill in the gaps, but conscious of the risks that exist in this grim dark future, they wait until all of the shooting has ended."

And the other problem is that it's too damned complicated in practice. Consider the actual scenarios:

Space Marine unit is going to fire. Just two are going to fire. Space Marine A has 3 orks in range. Space Marine B has two of the same Orks in range plus another one. If A & B fire at the same time, they kill less Orks than if they fire one at a time. (Firing one at a time, they each have 3 Orks in range depending on where the casualties get removed. Firing together, they only have four in range.)

So you either end up with "Count all of the models that are in range from all of the firing models, making sure that you don't accidentally double count anyone when you have to do it multiple times because some models have different ranges" or else you end up with the player strategy of maximizing the number of different weapon profiles in a unit so that it goes through the shooting process multiple times (this happened the last time that it mattered).

How is it complicated? I outlined how it works above. Measure number of models in range, roll to wound and save as normal. The rules even currently state you only measure range once for a unit, so if you have 2 or more models with flamers you measure for them all at the start and make that many wound rolls as per the current rules. Does this make units with multiple flamers very dangerous at very close range? Yes it does, but I don't have a problem with that, and it's balanced out by those units being useless at longer ranges.

Absolutely not, unless you also want to now increase the points of
Flamers
Rubric marines
Sot
Terminators
Pretty much anything that can take a flamer and be deep struck
Because if you do that, the new chaos meta wombo unit is going to be a 10 man rubric blob either deep striking or being moved via a crystal, vetrens of the long war.

Flamers and Heavy Flamers could easily be balanced with the following:

12" range, Assault d3, This weapon automatically hits. Change this weapon to Assault 2d3 if its target is within half range.

So now you can use them when arriving from Reinforcements/Overwatching, but you effectively get half the auto-hits (thus mitigating the "OP-ness" of units that can spam Flamers).
But are likewise rewarded more for getting very close (as they should be).

Simple and effective.

-

 some bloke wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
I still think the flamers should have increased in 4" distance per size, do hand flamers 4", flamers 8", heavy flamers 12" inch, etc.

A natural progression and as an added bonus flamers should do 3+D3 auto hits, adding on a D3 per 5 models in a unit if it is bigger than 10 models.

Agree with the idea of bigger flamers = longer range, though I'd have 6", 9" and 12" myself.

This right here.


9" for flamers still doesn't help deepstrike, and I don't think there are many units that can spam Heavy Flamers. Does anyone use Heavy Flamers? I want to take an Infernus Heavy Bolter, but the Frag Cannon is so much better for just 5pts more.

I would be up for a dual profile for flamers too (and this could be for specific flamers, not just anything with a current flame profile). Hand flamers are fine as is, but Ignore Cover is a must and increasing hit probability at half range (in which case I'd opt for 4/8/12" intervals)

 Galef wrote:
Flamers and Heavy Flamers could easily be balanced with the following:

12" range, Assault d3, This weapon automatically hits. Change this weapon to Assault 2d3 if its target is within half range.

So now you can use them when arriving from Reinforcements/Overwatching, but you effectively get half the auto-hits (thus mitigating the "OP-ness" of units that can spam Flamers).
But are likewise rewarded more for getting very close (as they should be).

Simple and effective.

-

This just makes flamers worse and makes no sense for them doing more hits at a shorter range. If anything they would do more hits at a greater range. A flame thrower works in a cone at it's max range the propellant has thrown the fuel in a large cloud. It's like spraying a hose, closer toward the nossel the less spread

Flamers need a bit of love but not much. Giving them a 12 inch range is not the answer, making them do 2d3 at half range is also not the answer because again you just made rubrics stupid good.

If you wanna buff flamers make them d6 auto hits, rolls of 1 and 2 count as 3 hits.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Flamers and Heavy Flamers could easily be balanced with the following:

12" range, Assault d3, This weapon automatically hits. Change this weapon to Assault 2d3 if its target is within half range.

So now you can use them when arriving from Reinforcements/Overwatching, but you effectively get half the auto-hits (thus mitigating the "OP-ness" of units that can spam Flamers).
But are likewise rewarded more for getting very close (as they should be).

Simple and effective.

-

This just makes flamers worse and makes no sense for them doing more hits at a shorter range. If anything they would do more hits at a greater range. A flame thrower works in a cone at it's max range the propellant has thrown the fuel in a large cloud. It's like spraying a hose, closer toward the nossel the less spread

Flamers need a bit of love but not much. Giving them a 12 inch range is not the answer, making them do 2d3 at half range is also not the answer because again you just made rubrics stupid good.

If you wanna buff flamers make them d6 auto hits, rolls of 1 and 2 count as 3 hits.

This idea is more for balance than what "makes sense"
They need to be 12" to be worth taking FULL STOP.

But as many have pointed out, just making them 12" as-is creates a balance issue with units that can spam Flamers.
So my solution is to make them only d3 hits at 12" to mitigate this, but bump them to 2d3 (which is better than d6, btw) at half range.
This can absolutely "make sense" as the closer you are, the easier it is to get more "passes" of the flamers that actually hit you. The farther you are, the easier it is to dodge and the less burning chemical you make get on you.

-

They don't need to be 12" flamers 9" is fine, that's been their range for years.

It does not make any sense, watch a video of a flame thrower, the further out you are from the flame thrower the more spread the flame thrower has the more area it covers, the more hits, that's not like an opinion that's how they work. You can't "Dodge" the flames. I want you to get a hose, and put it on a cone setting and spray it waving back and forth and see how the further out you are, the harder it is to "Dodge" it because it spreads

Flamers don't need more range they need more reliable hits, removal of templates effected flamers. Make flamers have it d6 with 1 and 2 being three. There is no other way to buff them with out increasing their points. Making 12" flamers as I said will make units like rubrics and flamers stupid good, summon a unit of flamers next to a Harald, give them flickering flames, enjoy s5 flamers that are wounding t8 on 4s from a unit that costs less than 100 points delivered safely where it needs to be because summoning or deep striking.

Rubrics can now flame on at 12 inches safely from deep strike and or infiltrate with aloha legion, again not needing to move.

On top of that, you also need to consider that with 12 inches you make it so that they will always try to over watch with flamers, no more charging from outside of 9 inches to ignore that flamer.

Allowing their use when arriving from reserves and always getting to Overwatch with them are 2 things that Flamers need to be even remotely considered a viable weapons over Plasma.
9" isn't enough as you have to arrive OUTSIDE 9". If you don't like 12", that's fine, but at least 10" should be on the table. Otherwise flamers can just be outright ignored in too many situations.

Alternatively, we keep Flamers as-is and lower to cost to, like, 1ppm

-

No, they don't need to be ten, the point I'm trying to get across and I don't think you are understanding is that by giving them over 9 inches makes it so you can deliver very powerful auto hitting attacks from deep strike.

People are wanting to make the flame throwing way better, the flame thrower as is, is relatively fine when you use it against the right targets. People are taking plasma because everyone is running 3+ armor save units right now, and plasma has no draw backs.

They don't need to be changed or made cheaper, consider the models their going on, guard who are known for bad Bs now have an auto hitting weapon. Orks same.deal auto hitting weapon.

Again, you would change your tune when. I dropped in 10 rubrics 9inches away and you load with 10d6 auto hitting attacks at AP -2 1 damage that are S 4 with votlw letting me wound t8 on 5s and t4 on twos.

Let's also consider that heavy flamers go on the bane blade chassie which now make it impossible to be charged with out getting hit by minimum 4d6 heavy flamers, with a potential of 8d6 because it can't be charged with out being flamed because you want to make flamers 12 inches.

Look I get it, you want the flamer to be better, so do it, I hate that templates are gone because it makes flamers crap, but giving it range with out a point increase is a bad idea. They need to have more reliable hits at 9, not more range not cheaper.

Flamers should not be a catch all weapon, they are designed to be used against horde unit where you need just more hits that's ap.

Now a change I could consider, is to have flamers work like volkite at a point increase.

8" Flamers do not get used outside of the most casual metas. So if you're adamant that "Flamers are fine" as-is, then why aren't they used more? And why do they cost so much to do nothing most of the game?

Seriously, melee is more reliable than Flamers. When you can say something is less reliable than melee in 40K, that thing is NOT fine

-

 Galef wrote:
8" Flamers do not get used outside of the most casual metas. So if you're adamant that "Flamers are fine" as-is, then why aren't they used more? And why do they cost so much to do nothing most of the game?

Seriously, melee is more reliable than Flamers. When you can say something is less reliable than melee in 40K, that thing is NOT fine

-

The meta shifted, grav is no longer used anymore despite it being fairly decent. Flamers are fine against horde armies the issue is no one plays enough of those armies to make them worth a damn. Everyone takes plasma because it's always objectively the better choice as it's going to have more uses.

Flamers don't need a change just because they arnt part of the meta, and if they did, giving them 12" on a reliable form entry to be able to flame on via deep strike or summons is going to make them go up in cost. No two ways about that.

Any time you suggest a change you need to consider the ramification on the game as a whole, not just the 2 units you use that have flamers that arnt that great. It's the exact same reason deep strike has been nerfed since release. Day one of charging from deep strike announcement I called it was going to get nerfed because people don't realize how powerful, reliable troop deployment and damage delivery is.

You need to consider that giving 12 inch flamers to all units will VASTLY increase the power of other units. That is why this is a horrible decision. It does not factor in other units and combos