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.

Being D3 with a normal flamer stat really sucks. I see how GW thinks they could be too OP in large numbers if they gave them a better stat line, but I wish they just curbed the number of models in the unit to 10 and increased their stat line. The more you have the least likely they are to be close enough to use their burna's and you wouldn't charge 5 let alone 15. I think their burnas should be either D6 or D6 against infantry, or D3 st5 -2 D1 or just D6 attacks with burnas would suit me. I love burna's and hate what GW has given them this edition. What do you think their stat should be?

S5 AP-2 D1 is insane.

But upping to d6 shots wouldn't be a huge deal, if it came with a small points increase.

 JNAProductions wrote:
S5 AP-2 D1 is insane.

But upping to d6 shots wouldn't be a huge deal, if it came with a small points increase.

Not really, maybe st5 -1 d1 and limit their numbers but they are an elite unit and just now what they are good at is better fulfilled with Nobz with skorchas. I don't mind a points increase to get there but they don't really have a place in this codex. If they are D3 they need a buff to the stats of burnaz or they need to just be D6 attacks with the current statline. Even with the buffed statline I gave them, its still only 8inch range, its not that insane.

Frankly, given that they're worse than shootas for the cost and can't proc extra hits from DDD!, it wouldn't be crazy to warrant D6 flat shots (as it should be), and making them about 9 points per burna boy. This would put them in range of most units that basically boyz +1 like stormboyz and kommandos.

 Grimskul wrote:
Frankly, given that they're worse than shootas for the cost and can't proc extra hits from DDD!, it wouldn't be crazy to warrant D6 flat shots (as it should be), and making them about 9 points per burna boy. This would put them in range of most units that basically boyz +1 like stormboyz and kommandos.

Exactly, they need something this edition.

Question, DC, what do you think is a fair cost for a Boy with a S5 AP-2 D1 d6 shot flamer?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Frankly, given that they're worse than shootas for the cost and can't proc extra hits from DDD!, it wouldn't be crazy to warrant D6 flat shots (as it should be), and making them about 9 points per burna boy. This would put them in range of most units that basically boyz +1 like stormboyz and kommandos.

Exactly, they need something this edition.

Hopefully they either touch them up somehow in the Big FAQ, or in the next CA, where they can adjust their points cost. Until now, they're sadly relegated to the dust shelf of shame. :(

 JNAProductions wrote:
Question, DC, what do you think is a fair cost for a Boy with a S5 AP-2 D1 d6 shot flamer?

No its either D6 with its current statline or D3 with S5 AP-2 D1. D3 as it is just now with a basic flamer stat is pretty poor and you can already kit your nobz out with skorchas, so to suggest that they are fine the way they are is insane.

Well burnaboyz are boyz (7ppm) with flamers that only have half shots (6/2=3), they're not troops but got an AP in combat.

So they should be 8-9 ppm. Or gain proper flamers with D6 autohits.

Giving them heavy flamers would be too much unless they become more expensive. I'd really like them to be 8-9ppm with the current stats to be honest, in fact since they're not better than kommandos or stormboyz I think at 8-9ppm they would be fairly priced and they could have a a role, even with their crappy D3 autohits.

Their flamers should be D6 but if people tare too scares this would 'break the game' then perhaps 2D6 to a maximum of 4 would be fairer? So they'd always have between 2 and 4 hits.

D3 is trash. They might as well not exist.

What about a flat 3 hits, rather than D3, that way you can average out what a D6 roll would be and then give it ap-1.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
What about a flat 3 hits, rather than D3, that way you can average out what a D6 roll would be and then give it ap-1.

3 at AP-1 is probably fine.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
What about a flat 3 hits, rather than D3, that way you can average out what a D6 roll would be and then give it ap-1.

3 at AP-1 is probably fine.

That wouldn't be unbalanced, but it feels really weird having a "flamer" weapon that autohits a set number of times. Is there a precedent for that with any other formerly template weapons?

Either way, kind of seems like just making them d6 shots would be the easiest solution. Handlfamers just got a similar treatment and a 3(?) point price increase for sisters. Sticking a minimum sized squad in a transport along with a second unit of some sort doesn't seem like a bad way to go. Have a busta/burna trukk scoot forward. Bustas blow up an enemy vehicles, and burnas are on-hand to put 5d6 hits on whatever you get close to.

How much more is a Burna Boy to a regular one?

Regular boyz are 7ppm, burna boyz are 12ppm.

stats as they are now, but a stratagem that makes one unit d6 shots for a turn would work, they can be good, but not all the time, but when it matters they can be.

you can't up the cost much because you have a 1 wound model, T4 with essentially no save to speak of, higher cost and they just become the same as marines, potentially very good but too fragile for the points

leopard wrote:
stats as they are now, but a stratagem that makes one unit d6 shots for a turn would work, they can be good, but not all the time, but when it matters they can be.

you can't up the cost much because you have a 1 wound model, T4 with essentially no save to speak of, higher cost and they just become the same as marines, potentially very good but too fragile for the points

A stratagem, no that would be a useless buff. It doesn't make the unit any better, it means you have to waste a CP to make them useful and also you'd have to waste multiple CP's, having them shoot once in the game isn't that great. I hate it when people don't look at rules or stats for what they are 'ah you can use a stratagem for that.' stratagems are supposed to be benefits for having battle forged armies, they aren't there to make units useful.

Idea behind the strat is to avoid a situation where Orks can spam three, large, units of 1d6 flamers, and avoids the need to push the cost of the model up to the point it becomes too expensive - yes can do a lot of damage in theory, but is so fragile it won't.

in effect you have the current "unit of 1d3 flamers", that have the ability in a critical situation to be better, but cannot simply spam that ability.

also they likely will only fire once per game when it "matters" so thats fine, the rest of the time they will either be out of position, or will be the turn after they have done damage and they will all be dead.

the problem is if such a unit remains cheap they get huge, which makes them something you will see spammed, if you make them expensive they are too fragile.

the stratagem idea is a way to move some of the "cost" from point values to the CP system and thus be limited in another, different way, which works fine for a support unit, but not for line troops.

and if you think spending one or two CP to go from 1d3 auto hits on a large unit of models to 1d6 on that same unit is "a useless buff", then presumably making the burna 1d6 would be equally pointless as thats basically whats proposed.

if you want to adjust the unit stats the cost is going up, and if the cost goes up you have a model thats as fragile as it is now, just more expensive when it dies before firing.

the alternative is to change how Burna get used, to reduce the fragility, think Skaven Weapon teams in WHFB being able to palm hits off to nearby units maybe (the way the grot shield works, which shouldn't be a stratagem, as its a basic army mechanic) - then they can be more expensive as they will last a bit longer

leopard wrote:
Idea behind the strat is to avoid a situation where Orks can spam three, large, units of 1d6 flamers, and avoids the need to push the cost of the model up to the point it becomes too expensive - yes can do a lot of damage in theory, but is so fragile it won't.

in effect you have the current "unit of 1d3 flamers", that have the ability in a critical situation to be better, but cannot simply spam that ability.

also they likely will only fire once per game when it "matters" so thats fine, the rest of the time they will either be out of position, or will be the turn after they have done damage and they will all be dead.

the problem is if such a unit remains cheap they get huge, which makes them something you will see spammed, if you make them expensive they are too fragile.

the stratagem idea is a way to move some of the "cost" from point values to the CP system and thus be limited in another, different way, which works fine for a support unit, but not for line troops.

and if you think spending one or two CP to go from 1d3 auto hits on a large unit of models to 1d6 on that same unit is "a useless buff", then presumably making the burna 1d6 would be equally pointless as thats basically whats proposed.

if you want to adjust the unit stats the cost is going up, and if the cost goes up you have a model thats as fragile as it is now, just more expensive when it dies before firing.

the alternative is to change how Burna get used, to reduce the fragility, think Skaven Weapon teams in WHFB being able to palm hits off to nearby units maybe (the way the grot shield works, which shouldn't be a stratagem, as its a basic army mechanic) - then they can be more expensive as they will last a bit longer

And the idea for the strat making them useful is a terrible idea whatever your thinking for it is.

Actually, the way he explained it, it makes a lot of sense.

I wouldn't make it cost CP, but 0 CP strats are not a bad idea.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Actually, the way he explained it, it makes a lot of sense.

I wouldn't make it cost CP, but 0 CP strats are not a bad idea.

They are, the unit should be useful in and of itself, he only said it should cost 0 CP in defence of his terrible idea. As for their points, boyz are statistically better and way cheaper, so no increasing the stat isn't or shouldn't increase their points.

If stratagems are not for making units more useful then what exactly are they for?

leopard wrote:
If stratagems are not for making units more useful then what exactly are they for?

Again they are benefits for having a battle forged army, yes they are designed to make units MORE useful but they aren't designed to make a unit work or be useful as a unit in and of themselves. So saying this unit is gak but here is a stratagem that makes them more useful doesn't cut it.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

leopard wrote:
If stratagems are not for making units more useful then what exactly are they for?

Again they are benefits for having a battle forged army, yes they are designed to make units MORE useful but they aren't designed to make a unit work or be useful as a unit in and of themselves. So saying this unit is gak but here is a stratagem that makes them more useful doesn't cut it.

except thats exactly what they are used for, units having what used to be special rules removed and moved to stratagems is hardly uncommon, and its an excellent counter to certain abilities being spammed by limiting them to "once per turn"

its also a way to provide a boost to a unit without uplifting the point cost, which was the point I was making.

Burna boyz are meant to be a support unit in an ork force, not the main body of it, at best you can have three units of them, make them 1d6 for the current cost and you will see three units of them, make them 1d6 at a higher cost and you will hardly ever see them, make one unit a turn 1d6 for a low CP cost and they become something you can work with - requires a plan to make it work and requires pre-planning, but you now have 0-3 units with an encouragement to use them as support for boyz, able to make the one in the right place at the right time dangerous, upping the value of such units without upping the cost and making them more of a threat for an enemy to consider.

consider how many other units in the game are only viable with the support of stratagems, and how many of them would be seriously overpowered without it and the ability to go full force wide, off the top of my head from armies I have I know my Tyranids would be a lot nastier without the stratagem limits on double moving, fighting twice and so on

Every other flamer in the game is d6 Autohits and they are considered to be poor weapon choices. We've seen a ton of threads on here about how they aren't fit for purpose as they are.

There is no reason the Burna shouldn't be d6 autohits too. 3 squads of 8 inch range, T4, 6+ save Burnas for 12ppm isn't going to break the game or really impact on the meta in any meaningful way. It would let the pyromaniacs take their beloved unit though. Note that they are already similar to marine costs and that a unit can be buffed without increasing its cost if it is deemed to be overpriced. Burna boys are, without question, overpriced.

Hand flamers are now up to d6 hits so they may do the same here.

leopard wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

leopard wrote:
If stratagems are not for making units more useful then what exactly are they for?

Again they are benefits for having a battle forged army, yes they are designed to make units MORE useful but they aren't designed to make a unit work or be useful as a unit in and of themselves. So saying this unit is gak but here is a stratagem that makes them more useful doesn't cut it.

except thats exactly what they are used for, units having what used to be special rules removed and moved to stratagems is hardly uncommon, and its an excellent counter to certain abilities being spammed by limiting them to "once per turn"

its also a way to provide a boost to a unit without uplifting the point cost, which was the point I was making.

Burna boyz are meant to be a support unit in an ork force, not the main body of it, at best you can have three units of them, make them 1d6 for the current cost and you will see three units of them, make them 1d6 at a higher cost and you will hardly ever see them, make one unit a turn 1d6 for a low CP cost and they become something you can work with - requires a plan to make it work and requires pre-planning, but you now have 0-3 units with an encouragement to use them as support for boyz, able to make the one in the right place at the right time dangerous, upping the value of such units without upping the cost and making them more of a threat for an enemy to consider.

consider how many other units in the game are only viable with the support of stratagems, and how many of them would be seriously overpowered without it and the ability to go full force wide, off the top of my head from armies I have I know my Tyranids would be a lot nastier without the stratagem limits on double moving, fighting twice and so on

No they aren't.

if Burna boyz were meant to be the main force they would be a Troop choice, they are not, you are limited to three units of them, they are not as large as the boyz, they are just as fragile.

Should they be better? probably yes, are they likely to change anytime soon given the codex just landed without improving them? probably not, a stratagem is a way to fix that, even thats unlikely.

I'd like them to be 1d6, but put the cost up and they won't be worth it

leopard wrote:
if Burna boyz were meant to be the main force they would be a Troop choice, they are not, you are limited to three units of them, they are not as large as the boyz, they are just as fragile.

Should they be better? probably yes, are they likely to change anytime soon given the codex just landed without improving them? probably not, a stratagem is a way to fix that, even thats unlikely.

I'd like them to be 1d6, but put the cost up and they won't be worth it

Having d6 burnas is a simple and easy fix. It would take the unit from trash tier to middling. If the price went up they'd be trash still and I don't understand why you believe it needs to happen?

GW won't do it because they are becoming lazy on the balance again.

A Guardsman with a flamer is 10pts, and that is with the flamer costing 6pts, how often do you see flamers in armies? I never see them honestly. So in effect, the cheapest and in my opinion, best troop choice in the game doesn't take flamers with D6 shots at 6pts for the weapon. A standard ork boy is 7pts (should be 6, fight me) and the Burna boy costs 12, so that means our D3 flamer is equivalent to 5pts. Now you have to include the cost of the CC ability it gets...but honestly its pretty crap.

A Single choppa boy in CC vs a Space marine gets 3 attacks, 2 hits, 1 wound and .33 damage.

A Single BurnaBoy in CC Vs a Space Marine gets 2 attacks, 1.33 hits, .67 wounds for .44ish damage. So in essence a Choppa boy is better in CC than a Burna boy is point for point. So with that in mind I don't think the Burna CC option is worth 2pts (or the difference between a D6/D3 comparison)

Burna boys should be D3 shots and cost 8ppm at the absolute most, and in addition they should receive a boost in CC, maybe give them +1 attack with the burna.

And for leopard and others who are worried they will become OP and spammed....yeah no they won't. T4 with a 6+ save means they won't see playtime that often even with those stats and even if they do, they die to a stiff breeze and require a transport to get close enough to be used in the shooting phase. And Deep striking doesn't do much beyond give them an ability to charge, and as shown, atm they aren't very good at CC compared to a boy.