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.

Couple of things.

The flamer aggressors will essentially never benefit from the double-shooting unless they're charged. No one will ever be standing within 8" with the Aggressors standing still right there. Even 11" if you add the range, just not going to happen. So they'll only ever be used when advancing/moving and attacking. So that more or less chops down your attacks by half unless they happen to be standing on the most important area on the table (which is a valid way to use them, simple area denial). But they simply won't be getting their double shots in any other circumstance.

If you don't use the bonus 3" trait, they're even more useless. Even with juiced up flamers, 2CP used on one unit is still "okay". Altogether it's powerful but extremely situational and hard to use efficiently. Aggressors still die like normal marines, so if they become that big of a deal they'll be gunned down in most instances.

 Elbows wrote:
Couple of things.

The flamer aggressors will essentially never benefit from the double-shooting unless they're charged. No one will ever be standing within 8" with the Aggressors standing still right there. Even 11" if you add the range, just not going to happen. So they'll only ever be used when advancing/moving and attacking. So that more or less chops down your attacks by half unless they happen to be standing on the most important area on the table (which is a valid way to use them, simple area denial). But they simply won't be getting their double shots in any other circumstance.

If you don't use the bonus 3" trait, they're even more useless. Even with juiced up flamers, 2CP used on one unit is still "okay". Altogether it's powerful but extremely situational and hard to use efficiently. Aggressors still die like normal marines, so if they become that big of a deal they'll be gunned down in most instances.

We get a strat that allows eg aggressors to move (without advancing) and count as stationary. So the base threat range is 5" more.
Aggressors don't die like normal marines, since they have higher toughness and more wounds.
And to help with both issues you could add a repulsor. Pretty expensive and probably not worth it, just pointing out the possibilities.

Isn't that strat an Ultramarines only one?

And Tough 5, 3W and 3+ armour is still "dying like marines" in my mind. As Salamanders do they have any quality feel-no-pain, or random invulnerable saves? If not, that's just not a hard unit to kill...at all. Just don't stand near them.

Do I think the Salamanders book gives someone a vague reason to actually use flamer Aggressors now? Sure, just not seeing it as anywhere near as troublesome as a lot of other stuff lately.

I also assumed you'd have to use a Repulsor to get them anywhere worthwhile anyway. So again it becomes one of those "add all this cost....and all these strats and CPs" etc. just to make one bogey man unit.

Is anyone else perturbed by the idea of flame weapons destroying or heavily damaging heavy tanks? That seems pretty immersion-breaking.

Pointed Stick wrote:
Is anyone else perturbed by the idea of flame weapons destroying or heavily damaging heavy tanks? That seems pretty immersion-breaking.

What is worse, flamers able to damage tanks or a ruleset convoluted enough where flamer weapons can't hurt tanks unless X?

Sometimes you need to forget about realism to keep a game manageable.

I dunno, every game is an abstracted version of some other thing. Obviously space magic doesn't exist in real life, but it needs to at least retain the *logic* of that other thing, or else it becomes difficult to suspend your disbelief.

 Ordana wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:
Is anyone else perturbed by the idea of flame weapons destroying or heavily damaging heavy tanks? That seems pretty immersion-breaking.

What is worse, flamers able to damage tanks or a ruleset convoluted enough where flamer weapons can't hurt tanks unless X?

Sometimes you need to forget about realism to keep a game manageable.

Previous editions had S4 flames weapons unable to damage AV11 rhino and everyone was fine with this.
Bring back the old vehicles rules asap !

I do think it's hilarious that a Flamer may kill an IH vehicle faster and than a Lascannon will. We need to give AT weapons some kind of specific rule.

Maybe specific weapons do specific unalterable damage to anything with vehicle keywords? Lascannons will do minimum of 3 damage to any vehicle, meltas 6. That is very over the top, but my basic point remains.

Don’t forget about 12 mortal wounds from one of the aggressors for 1 cp.

 Elbows wrote:
Isn't that strat an Ultramarines only one?

No, it's a salamanders strat I'm referring to.

And Tough 5, 3W and 3+ armour is still "dying like marines" in my mind. As Salamanders do they have any quality feel-no-pain, or random invulnerable saves? If not, that's just not a hard unit to kill...at all. Just don't stand near them.

sure, if you're moving the goal post specifically to not include ANY of the added resilience of aggressors, theyre just like normal marines despite being T5, 3W models ignoring ap-1.

Edit: all that doesn't even touch the resilience you can add to them through strats, relics and psionics. - 1 to be hit, T6 and FnP6+. Or just put an even sturdier infantry unit in front of them and let them act as their shield,and throw those buffs onto that unit.

Do I think the Salamanders book gives someone a vague reason to actually use flamer Aggressors now? Sure, just not seeing it as anywhere near as troublesome as a lot of other stuff lately.

I also assumed you'd have to use a Repulsor to get them anywhere worthwhile anyway. So again it becomes one of those "add all this cost....and all these strats and CPs" etc. just to make one bogey man unit.

I won't disagree with that part, although I'd say they are a decent choice for a salamanders army, not just a barely viable one which I think you're suggesting they are. Espdcially considering how deadly even one surviving aggressor can be if it gets within range.I was just pointing out where you're apparently missing/overlooking facts.