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.

All flame weapons ignore cover bonus. How is this not already in the rules?

I'd say we take it a step further, and give them a bonus +1 to Pen vs units in cover. Now they are tolerably good.

Technically, there is precedent that they should get an extra d6 of shots if the targeted unit is over 10 models. I don't think that would be unfair to give to flamer weapons.

That, and make them only hit flyers on 6s.

 iGuy91 wrote:


That, and make them only hit flyers on 6s.

Why? Flamers should be the easiest things in the world to hit flyers with.

Either the flyer is out of range and no amount of 6s is going to fix that, or the flyer is within range and even an Ork could hit it.

Uhhh....Because shooting supersonic aircraft with weapons meant for extreme close quarters makes no sense unfortunately.

 iGuy91 wrote:
Uhhh....Because shooting supersonic aircraft with weapons meant for extreme close quarters makes no sense unfortunately.

It does if the supersonic vehicle is flying 5 feet off the ground. Either designate a vertical distance for your flyers or don't. I say every flyer ought to be at least 12" in the air or more. Would make even less sense for flamers to be unable to shoot at the flyers while you got guys with pistols shooting it.

Pistols have longer range than flamers but regardless. I suppose for drawing LOS and distance, if you used measurement from the hull you can already determine how far the flamers can fire.

Regardless. Flyers aside. Any ideas for flamer improvements?

Can always fire OW, regardless of distance. Gives them an effective niche role.

Vilehydra wrote:
Can always fire OW, regardless of distance. Gives them an effective niche role.

They shouldn't really need to gain this is an ability IMO, it's a flaw with overwatch that weapons can be out of range. All weapons should just fire at current range or maximum range, whichever is shorter.

In the old days flamers actually set models on fire (and they could run about being on fire in hilarious ways!), while that is overly complex and would be too time consuming, perhaps flamers should have some effect on battle-shock. Having gouts of flaming liquid sprayed all over you isn't going to be much fun, even if it doesn't kill you.

Maybe add +1 to the roll in the morale phase for each model hit (but not killed) by a flamer in the preceding shooting phase (not just for those killed). So hitting a unit enough times with flamers may make them all run away, even if you don't kill them.

Make it so that charging units that suffer 1 or more unsaved wound by a flamer weapon during overwatch must subtract 1 from their subsequent charge roll.

This way, pot-shot 9" charges are unaffected as 9" charge is already a huge gamble. Those that charge from 8" and closer suffer from being thwarted back by "wall of flame".

We need to bring templates back.
Ask variable firing modes for Melta weapons. Short range they are a flamer template. Long range remains the same weapon profile

Gitdakka wrote:
All flame weapons ignore cover bonus. How is this not already in the rules?

I'd be fine with that. Basically just gives flamers a situational bonus to their AP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 iGuy91 wrote:
I'd say we take it a step further, and give them a bonus +1 to Pen vs units in cover. Now they are tolerably good.

Technically, there is precedent that they should get an extra d6 of shots if the targeted unit is over 10 models. I don't think that would be unfair to give to flamer weapons.

As in ignore cover and then also make them even better at ignoring armor against things in terrain? I'm not sure I get what you're going for there. Is the idea that they're so confined by the terrain that they get splashed by more prometheum or something?

I'm a fan of offering bonus hits against especially large units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kcalehc wrote:
In the old days flamers actually set models on fire (and they could run about being on fire in hilarious ways!), while that is overly complex and would be too time consuming, perhaps flamers should have some effect on battle-shock. Having gouts of flaming liquid sprayed all over you isn't going to be much fun, even if it doesn't kill you.

Maybe add +1 to the roll in the morale phase for each model hit (but not killed) by a flamer in the preceding shooting phase (not just for those killed). So hitting a unit enough times with flamers may make them all run away, even if you don't kill them.

Ouch. I see what you're going for, but that would get crazy really fast. A squad with 4 flamers in it averages 14 hits. You could kill a single marine (Ld7 iirc), and suddenly 14-7 = 7 extra marines flee from a single casualty. Things like burna boyz, flamer sternguard, or even squads with a single flamer guy would suddenly be clearing entire enemy units with ease. Maybe make it a flat -1 leadership if you're hit by one or more flamers in a given turn. Maybe make it a stratagem.

Also, I'm not sure fire is actually all that scary by 41st millenium standards. Like, yeah, having liquid fire sprayed at you is scary, but so is being throttled by 8 foot tall giants, shot at with "bullets" that are actually tiny bugs/worms that crawl into your skin, seeing your buddy fall to cleanly-sliced pieces as semi-visible shuriken slice through him, being torn apart by claw-fingered daemons, having your mind anhilated by magic, or being eaten by a squig. If the equivalent of napalm deserves morale penalty, then what in the 41st millenium doesn't? (Maybe Tau stuff.)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Make it so that charging units that suffer 1 or more unsaved wound by a flamer weapon during overwatch must subtract 1 from their subsequent charge roll.

This way, pot-shot 9" charges are unaffected as 9" charge is already a huge gamble. Those that charge from 8" and closer suffer from being thwarted back by "wall of flame".

Doesn't that basically only matter if you specifically need an 8" charge then? If you place yourself 9+" away, the flamer won't reach you. If you're 7" or less away, then at worst you're making the charge as though you were 8" away due to the -1". If you're 6" or less away, your odds of making the charge are better than they would have been from farther away. I think what you're looking for might be closer to that anti-ork stratagem the Death Watch have where casualties (from any overwatch) translate to a charge distance penalty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpedpig wrote:
We need to bring templates back.
Ask variable firing modes for Melta weapons. Short range they are a flamer template. Long range remains the same weapon profile

Naaaaaah. It felt good to catch a bunch of models under the tear drop, but it also punished your opponent for not slowing down the game by spacing all of his models out as much as possible. Plus, we're in an edition where falling back and shooting is a thing. If you want to get more hits against larger units, then offering bonus his based on the target's unit size achieves this without also slowing the game down with meticulous and gamy positioning.

Your melta suggestion would mean that there's only a 4" range where the single-shot profile mattered, which seems odd. Also, an autohitting weapon with a meltagun's strength and AP sounds like an awesome wargear option for anyone that wants to pay 50 points per gun. XD

I think:

Flamers ignoring cover saves, getting to shoot in overwatch regardless of charge distance, and getting an extra 1d6 hits for shooting a unit with a model count >10 would be sufficient to make them worth their cost. Don't try to get fancier with it.

How about: flamers always do max hits against units in cover and ignore cover saves.

Dandelion wrote:
How about: flamers always do max hits against units in cover and ignore cover saves.

Why are you trying to punish people of using cover?
Even in the real world a solid brick wall does a pretty good job of stopping flamers see WW2. Flamers only work against bunkers if you can project significant volumes of unburnt fuel into the structure.

Removing the cover bonus is enough, the main issue is scalability of template weapons for unit size. Fix that before you go punishing people for actually using 8th editions awful coversystem.

w1zard wrote:
I think:

Flamers ignoring cover saves, getting to shoot in overwatch regardless of charge distance, and getting an extra 1d6 hits for shooting a unit with a model count >10 would be sufficient to make them worth their cost. Don't try to get fancier with it.

That sounds about right to me. It's a lot of special loaded onto a given weapon, but it feels about right. If all weapons counted as being in range during overwatch was a default rule, I think it would be appropriately simple/useful.

Wyldhunt wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I think:

Flamers ignoring cover saves, getting to shoot in overwatch regardless of charge distance, and getting an extra 1d6 hits for shooting a unit with a model count >10 would be sufficient to make them worth their cost. Don't try to get fancier with it.

That sounds about right to me. It's a lot of special loaded onto a given weapon, but it feels about right. If all weapons counted as being in range during overwatch was a default rule, I think it would be appropriately simple/useful.

Agreed. Why that isn't already a rule is simply beyond me. The idea that a unit being charged in melee can't shoot at their attackers because they were out of range at the start of the charge is ridiculous.