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.

 Ailaros wrote:
Or, to put it another way, what would you rather have, $40 in cash, or a $50 gift certificate to a restaurant whose nearest location is 500 miles away?

Except that's not the correct analogy. A better question would be whether you'd rather have $1 in cash, or a $50 gift certificate to a restaurant 50 miles away. A snap fire HB is so utterly ineffective that even an extremely situational option like a HF is better.

 Ailaros wrote:

Polonius wrote: When you have more than one on the table, that means one great shot a game.

This sounds like spam creating the illusion of effectiveness, though. Yeah, if you had 8 heavy flamers on the table, you might be able to get a decent hit every game, but 8 heavy bolters would still be a lot better.

Well, except in your scenario, with eight heavy flamers, you'll probably get four or five decent shots. Still better than a heavy bolter.

Polonius wrote:As always, this is an instance were taking a weapon that often, but not always, is devestating is better than taking a weapon that's always mediocre.

And here's the point of contention here. The idea that heavy flamers are going to go around racking up dozens of hits per game seems absurd to me. The range of the weapon is tiny, meaning its effectiveness is seriously questionable (people don't even take banewolves because they never get to fire, and that's on a fast chassis), given that your opponent can much, much more easily avoid a heavy flamer hit than staying out of range and LOS of a heavy bolter. If your opponents are really that afraid of them, they'll be picked off before they can do anything serious with a weapon that has a very limited range (a range of like 2 or 3 inches if you want to get more than a hit or two), or your opponents will just displace.

Game after game of racking up hits just seems like a fantasy.

I feel like it's one of those selective memory things. People remember that one time when a heavy flamer saved their butts, while ignoring that a vast majority of the time, they do nothing.

In this case, taking a weapon that is mediocre consistently is still better than a weapon that will do big damage a couple of times a rules edition. Just because the damage of a heavy bolter is less spectacular doesn't mean that you're doing less damage with it. Throw on the fact that heavy bolters can engage a wider range of targets, and can do anything on the move, and the heavy bolter looks like it consistently does more damage to more stuff over more time.

Well, one of the reasons it's hard to imagine a heavy flamer racking up "dozens of hits a game" is because nobody here said that. Maybe if you read what people wrote, and actually thought about it with your self serving objectivity, you wouldn't put words in people's mouths.

The range of a heavy flamer is, of course, "template." Said template is 8" long, with the widest part at the end, meaning once you add the chimera's movement, you can engage an enemy unit as far as 14" away, with the sweet spot only slightly closer. So, that means even a unit that got out of a transport, or is well out of charge range, can be flamed. Add in outflanks, bikes, deepstrikes, and units that just won an assault, and I've never found a shortage of enemy units near my lines. Do you really never see enemy units close to your army? If so, you're good enough to not need to worry about this point.

Also, the reason people dont' take the banewolf is because it's over 100pts, and will die the turn after it shoots. A chimera will die as well, but probably saving an infantry squad from a charge, and costs less than half the points, with the heavy flamer representing a very small fraction of those.

http://www.ailarian.com/folera/articles/tacticas/list-tailoring.html

I feel like this game of yours is a good example of getting use out of flamers. I realize that this is an extreme example, and I am in no way suggesting that putting heavy flamers on your chimeras will immediately toast hoards of guardsmen. I'm just using it as an example to show that getting some kills with a flamer isn't very far-fetched. You fell for it, and if we say that you are a skilled veteran player, than it seems to me that it shouldn't be hard to get some good shots out of it every now and then.

Can't we just agree that there is no end all solution? Like, this is the same thing as the AC versus LC debate. There is no right answer. Both have their purposes, and trying to get one to do the other's job is gonna have it fail. Back in 5th when I used to use Chimera pill-boxes a lot for important squads in a gun-line, HB's were useful. In a list where I need to get close, like Meltavets, a HF was more useful to me than the HB.

Really, there is such a thing as choices. If there was only one end all solution, this game would get very very boring very very fast because we wouldn't have any choices in what we want to bring on our tanks and things.

Honestly, I might as well throw my opinion into the mix (as if I haven't already). A snap fired HB is basically worthless if you take into account average rolling (at least, my average rolling of crap). So is a non-firing HF. If I could take a hull mounted AC or ML I would take those instead. But we can't, unfortunately.

But the way we are approaching this is INCREDIBLY biased. We are putting both weapons in their ideal situations, and then comparing it to the other weapon that isn't even close to an ideal situation, and claiming the one weapon is better because it can do a job that it's designed to do better than a weapon that isn't. Sadly, knowing how these threads always go down when Ailaros and Peregrine go fist-a-cuffs over tactics, no one is ever going to budge from their opinion and nothing well come of it XD

I think it's fairly clear-cut at this point even if you just go with the mathhammer. Even if the flamer only fires once, it deals more wounds than the snap-firing heavy bolter. I mean, Peregrine nailed it. The snap-fire HB is two lasguns.


That's not taking into account things like Dark Eldar, who want to get close, Orks, who want to get close, Eldar, who have short light anti-armor, demons, who want to get close, and tyranids, who have boatloads of guants stuck in cover on an objective somewhere.

Plus, the heavy flamer usually has more synergy with the meltavets/plasmavets inside when it comes to transport popping. Vets pop the transport, then the flamer roasts the occupants.

Just to point out, as it was mentioned a few times:

Harlequins are a great example of a unit that laughs off a HB as they walk from one end of the table to the other. But I'm sure as heck not going anywhere near a flamer unless I have to. Going from a 2+ cover to a 5+ invun? Bleh!

 washout77 wrote:
Can't we just agree that there is no end all solution?

I agree. There is no definitive answer because a HB and a HF each fit a different niche and do different things for you.

A HF on a chimera hull makes it look more intimidating, a psychological edge. Trundling 5 or 6 of these things down field with HFs means your serious about engaging in CC or at the very least, offering another threatening vector to the enemy. In chess, you want your opponent to react. If your using the chimeras along with LRs and Valks in the backfield as a gun-line, it's pretty one dimensional. Allowing the Chims to go forward with a templating weapon that can cause serious one-shots of template casualties, it inspires the opponent to focus on the more immediate threat they perceive. They will have to choose what threat to go for first; the flamer chimeras that can sweep troops off objectives, or the gunline LRs and Valks shooting in the backfield.

Of course, you cannot math hammer what situations the HF is useful as it requires forcing the opponent to make decisions and force them to make mistakes or choices that costs them advantages and opportunities. The HB and HF Chimeras are situated to do different things and control the battlefield for you in different ways.

I see both load outs are good.the HB works well if you have two on a chimera and remain static, treating them as AV12 bunkers.

How ever, if you run chimeras as anti MEQ and tank hunting, better have a multi laser and hull heavy flames.

See what purpose you wish the chimera to hold and load it out for such purposes. Next see what weapons the passengers hold and take into account the bubble threat range.

For example. Grey Knights henchmen consisting of 5 jakeroes bunkering in a chimera.since the passage weapons are classed as heavy, logically, your chimera will not move, hence load out witha turret HB and hull HB to get 6 HB shots.

If passengers are kitted with melta guns or plasma guns, than go for the multi laser for its S6 and the hull flamer to roast anything that is vulnerable to the S5 AP4 template. Due to the close range of passenger weapons, better kit the chimera for heavy close range fire that will do the most damage, hence, the heavy flamer.

 Polonius wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Polonius wrote: When you have more than one on the table, that means one great shot a game.

This sounds like spam creating the illusion of effectiveness, though. Yeah, if you had 8 heavy flamers on the table, you might be able to get a decent hit every game, but 8 heavy bolters would still be a lot better.

Well, except in your scenario, with eight heavy flamers, you'll probably get four or five decent shots. Still better than a heavy bolter.

Polonius wrote:As always, this is an instance were taking a weapon that often, but not always, is devestating is better than taking a weapon that's always mediocre.

And here's the point of contention here. The idea that heavy flamers are going to go around racking up dozens of hits per game seems absurd to me. The range of the weapon is tiny, meaning its effectiveness is seriously questionable (people don't even take banewolves because they never get to fire, and that's on a fast chassis), given that your opponent can much, much more easily avoid a heavy flamer hit than staying out of range and LOS of a heavy bolter. If your opponents are really that afraid of them, they'll be picked off before they can do anything serious with a weapon that has a very limited range (a range of like 2 or 3 inches if you want to get more than a hit or two), or your opponents will just displace.

Game after game of racking up hits just seems like a fantasy.

I feel like it's one of those selective memory things. People remember that one time when a heavy flamer saved their butts, while ignoring that a vast majority of the time, they do nothing.

In this case, taking a weapon that is mediocre consistently is still better than a weapon that will do big damage a couple of times a rules edition. Just because the damage of a heavy bolter is less spectacular doesn't mean that you're doing less damage with it. Throw on the fact that heavy bolters can engage a wider range of targets, and can do anything on the move, and the heavy bolter looks like it consistently does more damage to more stuff over more time.

Well, one of the reasons it's hard to imagine a heavy flamer racking up "dozens of hits a game" is because nobody here said that. Maybe if you read what people wrote, and actually thought about it with your self serving objectivity, you wouldn't put words in people's mouths.

The range of a heavy flamer is, of course, "template." Said template is 8" long, with the widest part at the end, meaning once you add the chimera's movement, you can engage an enemy unit as far as 14" away, with the sweet spot only slightly closer. So, that means even a unit that got out of a transport, or is well out of charge range, can be flamed. Add in outflanks, bikes, deepstrikes, and units that just won an assault, and I've never found a shortage of enemy units near my lines. Do you really never see enemy units close to your army? If so, you're good enough to not need to worry about this point.

Also, the reason people dont' take the banewolf is because it's over 100pts, and will die the turn after it shoots. A chimera will die as well, but probably saving an infantry squad from a charge, and costs less than half the points, with the heavy flamer representing a very small fraction of those.

Polonius wrote:The Hull Heavy Flamer is more like a $50 chain restaurant gift card. You can't spend it anywhere, but when you get an opportunity, it's a nice big free meal.

Or, to put it another way, what would you rather have, $40 in cash, or a $50 gift certificate to a restaurant whose nearest location is 500 miles away?

In theory, the gift card is better, because you get more loot, but in practice, you're never actually going to spend that gift card, while you'd actually get some use out of the cash. In fact, this is the problem with gift cards at all, even to ones with more convenient locations. They're always inferior to cash because of the restrictions on their use.

Well, at this point you're arguing degrees. I think that heavy flamers get to fire for effect relatively often. I know this because I play them in my list, and I've used them for years in multiple editions. I can think of two "big" hits from two three round tournaments. Maybe I got unusually lucky (I know I did with one), but heavy bolters just couldn't have done what the flamers did. And that's with only have three or four chimeras in my list.

Polonius wrote:I've found that a canny opponent will often ignore a chimera with a HB in assault, because there's a hard limit on the damage it can cause.

So, let's break this down.

Firstly, we're talking about an opponent who is getting into assault with your chimeras. What kind of units are these? Well, if they're Sv4+, then they would have been chewed up pretty badly by heavy bolters and the vets inside (much less the entire rest of your army) before they even made it to close combat. If they're Sv3+ or better, then those heavy flamers are going to be roughly as useless as the heavy bolter. So you hit five marines with a heavy flamer. So what, you only killed one. That sarge with the meltabombs or all those krak grenades are still going to eat the chimera for lunch. What was really gained here by the heavy flamer?

Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument you hit five marines with the heavy flamer. Not a bad assumption for a "decent" shot. that's 10/3 wounds, or just over one dead marine. Getting five hits with a heavy bolter (which results in the same amount of wounds) takes just over three turns of shooting at full BS, or 10 turns of snap fires.

This is my point: the heavy flamer does not need to rack of "dozens of hits" to equal the HB. Every 1.5 hits you get with a HF is the same as a full turn of shooting with the HB (not involving cover, with the HB at full BS).

Secondly, getting your tanks into close combat? What horde armies are rushing across the field anymore to get into close combat? None that can't be easily beaten off. What non-horde armies aren't going to be shooting your tanks to death long before they make it into close combat? Who is even doing cross-field charges, even with Sv3+?

What you're talking about makes sense internally, but I don't see how it actually applies to reality.

the fact that nobody does cross field charges is why you take flamers, and not heavy bolters, assuming you want a defensive weapon. the biggest threats to an IG gunline are units that are either very fast, outflank, deep strike, or can somehow prevent getting shot. I'm not worried about threats I have to merely outshoot. That's why I have heavy weapons and tanks and vendettas. I'm always worried about the stuff that just shows up.

I suppose it's less a matter of "why still the heavy flamer?" and more one of "why not the heavy bolter?"

Simply put? The heavy bolter never does anything.

I think this has all come about by people being far too cautious overall with chimeras. Those things are tougher than you'd think. I actually get to fire chimera heavy flamers at least once a game, because Im very aggressive with them (as an ex green tide player). Its all about changing up mindsets and ideas, like bailing my vets out of their chimeras and sending 2 of said chimeras balls out into the teeth of an approaching ork mob. Yes, both vehicles were ripped to pieces the next turn, but I burned away about a dozen orks, and created difficult and dangerous terrain for them to get around in the process. I wouldnt have been able to do that with a hb.

Those heavy flamers are my lists anti-horde, so I treat them as such and I often get success from them. Orks, cultists, guardsmen, Marines; Ive burnt through several squads worth of each.

This thread is about changing your mindset, but not about what weapon you use; it should be on how to use the weapons we do have. Granted, the heavy bolter does have its uses, but with three shots on a bs3 frame (amongst other things), the heavy flamer is both situationally and universally better.

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote:will get to shoot consistently, but it will consistently fail to do any meaningful damage and will never do anything game-changing.

But you could make the exact same argument about the multilaser. What you're arguing for here is a 2x HF chimera, if the chance to do big damage is more important than doing a small amount consistently.

Peregrine wrote:A HF, on the other hand, will only rarely get to fire, but when it does it will do a lot of damage.

I don't see how this makes it better.

If a hull heavy bolter only kills one marine per game, while the heavy flamer goes three games without firing a shot, and then, every fourth game lands its template on an astonishing 6 marines, the heavy bolter still did three times as much damage over the course of four games.

I mean, what you're talking about is the same thing behind the deathstrike - game after game of not getting a shot off in the hopes that every once in awhile, it will do something cool. There's a reason you don't see many deathstrikes, compared to other HS options that do less damage, but do it consistently.

Peregrine has the way of it, but I have this to add.

I run mech vets, and every vehicle has a hull heavy flamer because it suits the style of play. My army isn't a gunline, it's very mobile, and the chances are if there are veteran units alive, they're pushing up the field to either get their special weapons in range, or to claim objectives.

If I was castling up at the back of the board, the heavy bolter might be more effective, but I consistently find myself in situations where some veterans have arrived next to a claimed objective, in cover, that they need to flush troops off of. The heavy flamer is ideal for this. It auto hits and negates cover saves, leaving my veterans free to take the objective. In such an instance I'd be firing the flamer at full BS and snapping the multilaser.

Your argument about only using the HF once every 4 games doesnt stand in my experience either, out of my last 8 games I've not used hull heavy flamers in maybe 1 or 2 of them.

At the beginning of the game I'll be using multilasers to strip hull points as I advance, but once I'm in the midfield I need that heavy flamer as my ace in the hole to deal with troops sitting on objectives.

The heavy flamer is just a much nastier weapon in 6th edition than the heavy bolter. Chimera hulls are cheap, so you can have both in a list which is even scarier.

Okay, so I'm starting to see where the fulcrum of the debate is.

How often will your heavy flamers get to fire?

Because the only serious argument for the heavy flamer here is the idea that it does more damage than a heavy bolter. If the heavy flamer doesn't actually do better damage, then there really isn't any reason to take the heavy flamer, as the heavy bolter beats out the flamer on practically every other metric (range, number of targets it can engage, flexibility, etc. etc.)

So, how much damage does a heavy flamer do?

Let's start with marines. Let's create a scenario in which a chimera gets to fire twice at full BS and twice as a snap fire before it is wrecked, and that, armed with a heavy flamer, it does no damage for two turns and then gets a 5-hit shot before it goes down.

In this scenario, the heavy bolter kills .88 marines to the heavy flamer's 1.1. The heavy flamer is technically better, but the most likely result of this scenario is one dead marine from both weapons. Roughly equal. In any case, not substantially better.

So, now let's look at the parameters of that example. Can I reasonably expect to get a few turns of stationary shooting with a chimera if I want it? Yes. Can I reasonably expect that 5 space marines will charge straight into my chimeras? Every game? Hardly.

And that's what's important here. The heavy bolter is pretty much guaranteed one space marine dead per game. The heavy flamer is only guaranteed one dead space marine PER GAME IT GETS TO FIRE AT ALL. Are you really getting a heavy flamer hit in EVERY game? Against THAT packed in of a target? No.

In fact, looking at the games I've played, and the battle reports I've read, heavy flamers don't seem to get to fire all that often unless it's on a super-mobile frame (shunting dreadknight, deepstriking terminators/obliterators, etc.), and when they do, they're usually hitting more like one or two models, because their opponents know how to displace.

This is a serious problem for the heavy flamer, because it puts a denominator underneath it. The heavy bolter kills one marine per game, so we'll call it a 1/1. How often are you getting a 5-hit blast with a particular chimera? Every other game? That's 1/2... half as good. Once every three games? Now it's a third as good. What if you get it once every three games, but you don't get a good, solid hit. Now you're looking at killing a space marine once every six games.

And that's why the heavy flamer is so much worse. You start by it not necessarily doing that much more damage than the heavy bolter to begin with, and then you have to divide it by every game in which it does literally nothing at all.

And that last part, I think, is what people are missing. You don't just look at how much damage it does when you hit, you have to also take into account its hit rate, which, for a heavy flamer is terrible. Not because you have to roll dice, but because the weapon isn't going to be able to shoot at all most of the time.

And then you look at other things. Can your opponents displace to reduce damage against a heavy flamer? Yes. Can they against a heavy bolter? No. Can your opponents easily stay out of range of a heavy flamer? Yes. Can they against a heavy bolter? No. Can your opponents easily wreck the vehicle before the heavy flamer is in range? Yes. Can they easily wreck it before the heavy bolter can at least fire once? No.

The denominator, here, is deceptively high for the heavy flamer. As such, it's pretty easy to say that the heavy bolter is twice as good, much less six or eight times as good.

So, if the heavy flamer isn't really doing more damage, then there isn't much doing for it. It does less damage, has a shorter range, has less flexibility, and can engage fewer target types than the heavy bolter. The heavy bolter is just plain better, and by no small margin.

The tactics for the arguement on what your weapon load-out is actually still the same in 6th ed as it is for 5th. If your not moving/camping, ML+HB. If your attacking, ML+HF.

I would echo this, albeit, it dosent cover every eventuality - nothing ever does but in a nutshell its sound imo.

 Ailaros wrote:
Can I reasonably expect that 5 space marines will charge straight into my chimeras? Every game? Hardly.

Why do you keep saying that the Marines have to charge straight at you? That's not even close to true. You're coming in here with an expectation and proving it no matter what. You do realize that you can move and fire the Flamer, right?
Clearly you came in with an open mind and objectivity at heart.

I can guarantee you that as a Nid player I'm far more scared of the HF than I am the HB. You will not always play Marines.

 Ailaros wrote:

So, now let's look at the parameters of that example. Can I reasonably expect to get a few turns of stationary shooting with a chimera if I want it? Yes. Can I reasonably expect that 5 space marines will charge straight into my chimeras? Every game? Hardly.

The Marines won't charge straight into your Chimeras, but fortunately your Chimeras can charge straight into them. Additionally, there are other units such as deepstriking or outflanking reserves and fast bikes who may base their entire deployment decision on the presence or lack of a nearby heavy flamer.

 Ailaros wrote:

And that's what's important here. The heavy bolter is pretty much guaranteed one space marine dead per game. The heavy flamer is only guaranteed one dead space marine PER GAME IT GETS TO FIRE AT ALL. Are you really getting a heavy flamer hit in EVERY game? Against THAT packed in of a target? No.

Actually, yes, unless you only play games against other gunlines OR your opponent deliberately avoids the Heavy Flamer Chimeras, the latter of which is actually a great thing.

 Ailaros wrote:

In fact, looking at the games I've played, and the battle reports I've read, heavy flamers don't seem to get to fire all that often unless it's on a super-mobile frame (shunting dreadknight, deepstriking terminators/obliterators, etc.), and when they do, they're usually hitting more like one or two models, because their opponents know how to displace.

Displacement is not really that common at least around here. Displacing forces some of your models to leave cover, which allows them to be focus fired by, say, an executioner or something.

 Ailaros wrote:

This is a serious problem for the heavy flamer, because it puts a denominator underneath it. The heavy bolter kills one marine per game, so we'll call it a 1/1. How often are you getting a 5-hit blast with a particular chimera? Every other game? That's 1/2... half as good. Once every three games? Now it's a third as good. What if you get it once every three games, but you don't get a good, solid hit. Now you're looking at killing a space marine once every six games.

Eight chimeras are basically guaranteed to get >1 good flamer hit per game, if the enemy isn't a silly static gunline.

 Ailaros wrote:

And that's why the heavy flamer is so much worse. You start by it not necessarily doing that much more damage than the heavy bolter to begin with, and then you have to divide it by every game in which it does literally nothing at all.

Which is a circumstance entirely up to the players, and therefore is at least partly under your control.

 Ailaros wrote:

And that last part, I think, is what people are missing. You don't just look at how much damage it does when you hit, you have to also take into account its hit rate, which, for a heavy flamer is terrible. Not because you have to roll dice, but because the weapon isn't going to be able to shoot at all most of the time.

People aren't missing anything. They understand the hit rate, and the other disadvantages, and find that the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages.

 Ailaros wrote:

And then you look at other things. Can your opponents displace to reduce damage against a heavy flamer? Yes.

Which usually brings them out of cover to be focus fired by something else - there's usually not enough room on the table for displacement. Also, deepstriking units cannot displace without some pretty major sacrifices.

 Ailaros wrote:

Can they against a heavy bolter? No.

Because they don't need to, which means that the enemy can happily stand in BTB behind an Aegis line or in a woods and get saves for every single model.

 Ailaros wrote:

Can your opponents easily stay out of range of a heavy flamer? Yes. Can they against a heavy bolter? No.

If they are deliberately altering their tactics (deep strike position, assault moves, etc) to avoid getting flamer'd, or if they are staying out of range with a unit that wants to close, then that's a tactical victory already.

 Ailaros wrote:

Can your opponents easily wreck the vehicle before the heavy flamer is in range? Yes. Can they easily wreck it before the heavy bolter can at least fire once? No.

If they fire at your Chimeras and not your Leman Russes or whatnot then that's ok - and the Heavy Bolter firing once does feth all, so woop.

 Ailaros wrote:

The denominator, here, is deceptively high for the heavy flamer. As such, it's pretty easy to say that the heavy bolter is twice as good, much less six or eight times as good.

So, if the heavy flamer isn't really doing more damage, then there isn't much doing for it. It does less damage, has a shorter range, has less flexibility, and can engage fewer target types than the heavy bolter. The heavy bolter is just plain better, and by no small margin.

While the heavy bolter may be able to engage more target types, it doesn't do anything hardly against most of them. Whereas the Heavy Flamer, while limited to medium and light infantry, will absolutely murder them. Consider the following:

1) Heavy bolter + multilaser, stationary, vs SM scouts at 10"
2) Heavy Flamer + multilaser, moving, vs SM scouts at 10"

EVEN reducing the Multilaser to Snap Firing, the second option remains better than the first option.

 Ailaros wrote:
Okay, so I'm starting to see where the fulcrum of the debate is.

How often will your heavy flamers get to fire?

Because the only serious argument for the heavy flamer here is the idea that it does more damage than a heavy bolter. If the heavy flamer doesn't actually do better damage, then there really isn't any reason to take the heavy flamer, as the heavy bolter beats out the flamer on practically every other metric (range, number of targets it can engage, flexibility, etc. etc.)

So, how much damage does a heavy flamer do?

Let's start with marines. Let's create a scenario in which a chimera gets to fire twice at full BS and twice as a snap fire before it is wrecked, and that, armed with a heavy flamer, it does no damage for two turns and then gets a 5-hit shot before it goes down.

In this scenario, the heavy bolter kills .88 marines to the heavy flamer's 1.1. The heavy flamer is technically better, but the most likely result of this scenario is one dead marine from both weapons. Roughly equal. In any case, not substantially better.

So, now let's look at the parameters of that example. Can I reasonably expect to get a few turns of stationary shooting with a chimera if I want it? Yes. Can I reasonably expect that 5 space marines will charge straight into my chimeras? Every game? Hardly.

And that's what's important here. The heavy bolter is pretty much guaranteed one space marine dead per game. The heavy flamer is only guaranteed one dead space marine PER GAME IT GETS TO FIRE AT ALL. Are you really getting a heavy flamer hit in EVERY game? Against THAT packed in of a target? No.

In fact, looking at the games I've played, and the battle reports I've read, heavy flamers don't seem to get to fire all that often unless it's on a super-mobile frame (shunting dreadknight, deepstriking terminators/obliterators, etc.), and when they do, they're usually hitting more like one or two models, because their opponents know how to displace.

This is a serious problem for the heavy flamer, because it puts a denominator underneath it. The heavy bolter kills one marine per game, so we'll call it a 1/1. How often are you getting a 5-hit blast with a particular chimera? Every other game? That's 1/2... half as good. Once every three games? Now it's a third as good. What if you get it once every three games, but you don't get a good, solid hit. Now you're looking at killing a space marine once every six games.

And that's why the heavy flamer is so much worse. You start by it not necessarily doing that much more damage than the heavy bolter to begin with, and then you have to divide it by every game in which it does literally nothing at all.

And that last part, I think, is what people are missing. You don't just look at how much damage it does when you hit, you have to also take into account its hit rate, which, for a heavy flamer is terrible. Not because you have to roll dice, but because the weapon isn't going to be able to shoot at all most of the time.

And then you look at other things. Can your opponents displace to reduce damage against a heavy flamer? Yes. Can they against a heavy bolter? No. Can your opponents easily stay out of range of a heavy flamer? Yes. Can they against a heavy bolter? No. Can your opponents easily wreck the vehicle before the heavy flamer is in range? Yes. Can they easily wreck it before the heavy bolter can at least fire once? No.

The denominator, here, is deceptively high for the heavy flamer. As such, it's pretty easy to say that the heavy bolter is twice as good, much less six or eight times as good.

So, if the heavy flamer isn't really doing more damage, then there isn't much doing for it. It does less damage, has a shorter range, has less flexibility, and can engage fewer target types than the heavy bolter. The heavy bolter is just plain better, and by no small margin.

If you play guard aggressively you *will* get opportunities to use the flamer, because you'll create them. I'm always shadowing objectives with chimeras, because I know the troops who sit on them are going to be in cover most of the time. I want to cause the maximum number of hits on that squad, and negate their cover if at all possible.

If the only conceivable scenario you can think of where you might want the flamer over the bolter is 5 marines charging the chimeras then you're playing very reactively. But that might be your style of play, you play a foot/hybrid guard list if I remember from your past posts (I might have just totally made that up). In such a list, where you're using the chimera as a gunboat, in a static list, you probably do want the HB.

It's far from useless though, your assertion that it does less damage on average because it fire less doesn't hold up. The times it does fire are, more often than not, game changing (at least in my experience). The one dead marine thats statistically guaranteed from the HB is less important to me than clearing out and claiming objectives (and I run enough HFs that I use them for this in games more often than not). I'm not convinced about your spreading out argument, either. Even at max coherency, you'll probably still hit at least 3 members of the squad with the flamer, probably more. The bolter will only ever hit 3, and thats on a good roll. We're not talking about flamers vs a BS5 weapon here, chimera mounted HBs really aren't as accurate as you're giving them credit for.

I started running heavy flamer and autocannon turret, and have not looked back.
I transport vets with a pair of meltaguns and a heavy flamer.

Autocannon gives me a good long range option, the meltaguns pop heavy armor. The pair of heavy flamers give me a lot of flex.

-Matt

Indeed, the Autocannon turrets are on my Chimeras, but I am changing them to multi-lasers.

They were autocannons in the old ABG list when you could make them Str 8 verses vehicles. Now they're going back to multilasers and the Chimera is no longer being fielded as a light tank by me.

I agree with Unit1126.

I don't think its useful to directly compare the HB with the HF. The HB is a relatively simple beast that just increases your firepower. What the HF gives you is as much a deterrent or insurance weapon than anything else. By holding the threat of massive damage on anything that gets close to your lines it canstart to affect your opponent's battle plan, which is much more useful than a measly 1 kill per game if you're planning on moving the tank much.

Many of the scenarios in the rule book involve taking objectives of one sort or another. This makes it much more likely that you can position a HF chimera as a threat to enemy troops.

Of course there will be games when you don't do very much with the HFs but the same can be said for the HBs as well.

From what I've read in this thread, there seems to be common themes on both sides which are incorrect.

1) The idea that HF won't be fired. That's just not true, I field roughly 50:50 HB:HF and I'd say I get more than one flamer off per game. Consistently hitting more than 3 models. Another thing to note on the same theme, is that I've chosen to use the HHF and snap fire the ML in certain cases.
2) Relating the HHF to the Death Strike. A little silly, but I see where you're coming from. The similarities are sort of there, but when you extrapolate and argument that far it starts to fall apart.
3) Stating that the opposing player must come to you. This is false. The HF can easily be in position away from your lines, chimeras can move forward fairly well, even when I do start out cowering behind an ADL.

The other side of the argument has issues too:
1) This "huge reward" or "massive damage" is an exaggeration. Sorry guys, it's just a heavy flamer. Against MEQ it pretty much sucks, and they are a rather large portion of the game. It's also more crappy against vehicles than the HB - while that's not a massive argument in favour of the HB, which is similarly crappy (albeit with 3 crappy hits instead of 1) I fail to see the "huge reward" here.

As I stated, I mix and match. I don't believe there's a definitive answer for this. The HB on a stationary platform essentially doubles the output of a chimera, but there are occasions when the HF really shines. Clearing xenos off of objectives is about the only use I've gotten out of it, but it's been good at that small role.

Chimeras, like any other vehicle, can move 18" in a single turn. It can then move 6" then next turn and use the flamer. I don't see how this is that difficult.

If I were an IG player, I'd so be playing the "Here's my AV 12 wall now that you suckers traded out your meltas for plasmas! HAHAHA!"

Martel732 wrote:
Chimeras, like any other vehicle, can move 18" in a single turn. It can then move 6" then next turn and use the flamer. I don't see how this is that difficult.

If I were an IG player, I'd so be playing the "Here's my AV 12 wall now that you suckers traded out your meltas for plasmas! HAHAHA!"

This game rules. The Chimera Cavalry charge actually works fairly well, if you are willng to try it. If you don't want to put eight of them on the board, and insist on playing like they are the pillboxes of 5th edition, you are missing out.

Even with hull points, the amount of AV 12 the IG can field is hard to deal with. Unlike my BA, the IG stil have many 5th edition lists that work just fine. (Just add a couple more vendettas)

Indeed, I often wish I could take empty Chimeras as support tanks for my Leman Russes. With a Heavy Flamer they make great cavalry vehicles and you're not losing much if you utilize their mobility.

They're also significantly more mobile than the modern Russ, which is what would make them a great heavy flamer platform.

 Ailaros wrote:
Let's start with marines. Let's create a scenario in which a chimera gets to fire twice at full BS and twice as a snap fire before it is wrecked, and that, armed with a heavy flamer, it does no damage for two turns and then gets a 5-hit shot before it goes down.

And here's the problem, you're creating a unrealistic scenario to make the HB look better. Not only do you have a Chimera surviving four turns (pretty optimistic in my experience) you have it stationary for two turns. That's a completely ridiculous assumption, the Chimera's job is to deliver the things inside it and that means moving every turn. There's no way you're going to spend a third of the game sitting in one place to fire your HB at full BS instead of getting the squad inside into position.

In reality you will have 3-4 turns of snap fire with the HB, which means 0.3333-0.4444 dead marines. So that's significantly worse than the HF.

In this scenario, the heavy bolter kills .88 marines to the heavy flamer's 1.1. The heavy flamer is technically better, but the most likely result of this scenario is one dead marine from both weapons. Roughly equal. In any case, not substantially better.

It's more than just technically better because you're ignoring the predictability factor.

The HB is completely unpredictable. It might kill a marine every few games, but you never know when and you can never base your plan on having its firepower available.

The HF is very predictable. You might not want to use it every game, but when you do decide to use it you can expect it to work.

Even if the average kills were exactly identical (and they aren't) that would still be a strong argument in favor of the HF.

Can I reasonably expect to get a few turns of stationary shooting with a chimera if I want it? Yes.

But why would you want it? You bought the Chimera as a transport, not a gun tank. Why would you want to sit around doing nothing to deliver the unit inside just to get some extra HB hits? You're completely losing sight of the whole point of the unit in an effort to "prove" that the HB is better.

The heavy bolter is pretty much guaranteed one space marine dead per game.

Err, no. Let's do the math.

Under your (bad) assumption of two turns stationary and two turns moving you have a 60% chance of killing at least one marine.

Under the more realistic assumption of three turns moving you have a 29% chance of killing at least one marine.

Even under your generous assumptions that is not even close to "pretty much guaranteed one space marine dead per game". If you're going to do math, you need to do it correctly instead of just making stuff up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Griddlelol wrote:
The other side of the argument has issues too:
1) This "huge reward" or "massive damage" is an exaggeration. Sorry guys, it's just a heavy flamer. Against MEQ it pretty much sucks, and they are a rather large portion of the game.

But that's not the point. It's not that the HF is some kind of magic marine-destroying superweapon, it's that the HB is so utterly worthless that even a situational weapon like the HF is better.

You guys do realize that Ailaros's argument is essentially "I can't imagine a situation where an enemy unit will be within 14" of my chimera." Or I suppose, where it will be there more than once every couple of games.

That's it.

Well, and I guess he also assumes that Chimeras don't move. Because we all know how bad the IG need 55pts worth of mediocre shooting.

When a base premise is flawed and clung to, it's not an argument.

Maybe I'm playing wrong, but I seem to regularly have enemy units within 12" or so of my chimeras.

 Peregrine wrote:
it's that the HB is so utterly worthless that even a situational weapon like the HF is better.

Except that the HB isn't worthless. It's not unlikely for a chimera to be sitting still, especially if I'm playing against someone who needs to come to me, or on the Emperor's Will. If there's cover mid-field, it's quite reasonable to sit that chimera still. Doubling the fire-power, even if it is only mediocre fire-power, is not something to be ignored.

It's very rare for something like this to be so absolute, and with the multitude of roles vets in chimeras can perform, I don't believe you can ever say "they're always moving" or "they're always still" as the minute changes in the game will heavily affect it.

I think the point most people are missing is that the HHF is a defensive weapon. When placed with other chimeras it creates a 14" exclusion zone to enemy light infantry.

Not only that it allows you to punish deep strikers going after your more threatening units and push infantry out of cover. The HHB does none of those things. If you decide to pillbox behind a Aegis, then the HHB is better in those situations but still not stellar.

I'd argue that Emperor's Will is one of the scenarios where Chimeras need to move the most. You want to get them field so that you are fighting your opponent as far from you objective as possible, while threatening to break through and bathe his in heavy flamer and plasma fire.

It's an alien play style to someone who refuses to play anything other than a foot horde., but it works if you spend the time getting comfortable with it.