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.

I'm still waiting for the +3" range to my Flamers when most other factions went from 9" to 12". Maybe when the codex comes out...

Here's what I'd do:

Auto-hits (as they do now)

Give them a rule equivalent to Blast (i.e. more hits on bigger units) – but let them still be used as defensive weapons on vehicles

HOWEVER (and this is perhaps tangential) update Blast weapons (and the equivalent new Flamer rule as per above) so that rather than doing multiple hit rolls, they make one To Hit roll and then do D6 (or whatever) Wound rolls, up to a maximum of the number of models in the unit. This differentiates them a bit more from high RoF weapons, and avoids the (imo silly) issue of one explosion somehow hitting the same thing multiple times.

Ignore any and all benefits of cover

Wyldhunt wrote:
Think we're splitting hairs over the word "marginal" here. A plasma gun has more of an impact than a flamer does, but a lone plasma gun doesn't make me nervous the same way a multi-melta does.

The flamer feels like it has less impact than a plasma gun does despite both taking up special weapon slots. There is probably room to make the flamer more powerful (without making it overpowered) if we're willing to up its price a smidge.

I tend to think a single plasma gun is marginal yes.
I think the issue is that it offers (like melta) a radically different attack profile. So a guy with a boltgun is fairly dreadful into marines and up in the food chain. A Plasma gun (even if it kills you) has reasonable odds against anything.

For example, a marine flamer into Termagants expects to do 3.5*2/3*2/3*7=10.88 points of damage, while a marine plasma into say tactical marines expects (when in 12") to do 2*2/3*5/6*2/3*18=13.33 points of damage. Throw in that the plasma gun is 10 points to the flamers 5, and its really kind of a wash. (Especially when the marine kills himself 30%~ of the time).

But then a tactical marine with a basic boltgun already expects to kill 0.6~ termagants a go. So expecting to kill an extra termagant just doesn't seem like something that's going to determine a game. Whereas throwing out some S8 AP-3 2 damage shots into some expensive stuff your S4 AP- won't scratch might. (Although the reign of Plasma was really 8th edition I think.)

Ultimately marines - and even guardsmen - don't need a flamer to handle hordes. They can just shoot and then charge to clear them off. By contrast they are not going to do much against high T high Sv targets which plasma/melta contribute towards.

Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i am just asking for the flamers to be somewhat competitive in their niche, which they aren't at the moment.

I think most of us are in agreement on that. It's just that the specific arguments you're making seem odd and don't track.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

except that's a total strawman of my argument. an anti-hoard weapon should not ever have a minimum number of shots, below 2. there's no weapon with a flat number of shots that's considered anti-hoard that's below 3 shots, so it's stupid to have a weapon whose niche is anti-hoard, but has a 38% chance of getting fewer shots than what would otherwise be considered an anti-hoard weapon, with a max of 6 shots, still only about middle of the road for anti-hoard work when compared to things like the punisher, or onslaught. max of 6 shots is the same as an assault cannon, but the AS is much more likely to actually kill the hoard it hits than the flamer is.

This, for instance, is a little weird. It's a bit of a bummer when your flamer rolls low for its number of hits, but it's pretty similar to when you flub a to-hit roll. All weapons have failure points including the flamer. The flamer just happens to have a minimum number of hits of 1 instead of 0. I think we're all just thrown off by how insistent you are about the exact number of shots a flamer should have. It feels like you're prioritizing the number of shots over the end result that more shots would grant (higher damage output).

Similarly, you seemed to either not understand how averages worked earlier or else seemed to think that the average of your personal dice rolls in a single game should perfectly reflect the mathematical average? I think we're just confused and distracted by your arguments even though we generally agree with your overall goals.

the plasma gun is largely considered anti-elite infantry, and anit-light armor, yet the blast rule makes it better at anti-chaff than the flamer, that's before we take the range, S and AP stats into consideration, and yes plasma guns are more expensive but they flat out fill the niche better, same for grenade launchers.

Dang. Did I miss an errata that gave plasmaguns blast?

edit
fresh idea that might be even more controversial. give flamers a stepped approach. increase range to 16" 13-16" 2 shots. 8-12" 4 shots, 7 or fewer inches 6 shots. flat number of auto hitting low S medium to short range shots.

That could be interesting. Similar to tau breachers, it makes it a weapon that gets more powerful as you put yourself into riskier ranges. It would make the flamer better against all targets rather than just hordes, but being S4, AP0, D1 would probably keep them solidly in anti-light-infantry territory.

i understand quite well how averages work, but decimal averages are useless in this game, and a mathematical average doesn’t mean gak in a game based on luck where if you’re unlucky.
To make flamers competitive in their niche they need a minimum number of shots. That’s all I’m saying.

Change flamers to this :

Assault X 4 0 1 // roll one hit for every model in the target unit, up to a maximum of X

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Change flamers to this :

Assault X 4 0 1 // roll one hit for every model in the target unit, up to a maximum of X

what would that maximum be?

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Change flamers to this :

Assault X 4 0 1 // roll one hit for every model in the target unit, up to a maximum of X

what would that maximum be?

It would depend on the flamer, I would assume.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Change flamers to this :

Assault X 4 0 1 // roll one hit for every model in the target unit, up to a maximum of X

what would that maximum be?

weapon dependent, and you could even use that stat as a neat way to buff flamer-friendly factions.

Lets say

Hand flamer x = 4
Flamer x = 6
Heavy flamer x= 10
Malcador flamer x = 12
titan flamers x = 24 (feth it at that point lol)

then you can have Salamanders or sisters get +2 to their flamer shots for example

Tyel wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Think we're splitting hairs over the word "marginal" here. A plasma gun has more of an impact than a flamer does, but a lone plasma gun doesn't make me nervous the same way a multi-melta does.

The flamer feels like it has less impact than a plasma gun does despite both taking up special weapon slots. There is probably room to make the flamer more powerful (without making it overpowered) if we're willing to up its price a smidge.

I tend to think a single plasma gun is marginal yes.
I think the issue is that it offers (like melta) a radically different attack profile. So a guy with a boltgun is fairly dreadful into marines and up in the food chain. A Plasma gun (even if it kills you) has reasonable odds against anything.

For example, a marine flamer into Termagants expects to do 3.5*2/3*2/3*7=10.88 points of damage, while a marine plasma into say tactical marines expects (when in 12") to do 2*2/3*5/6*2/3*18=13.33 points of damage. Throw in that the plasma gun is 10 points to the flamers 5, and its really kind of a wash. (Especially when the marine kills himself 30%~ of the time).

But then a tactical marine with a basic boltgun already expects to kill 0.6~ termagants a go. So expecting to kill an extra termagant just doesn't seem like something that's going to determine a game. Whereas throwing out some S8 AP-3 2 damage shots into some expensive stuff your S4 AP- won't scratch might. (Although the reign of Plasma was really 8th edition I think.)

Ultimately marines - and even guardsmen - don't need a flamer to handle hordes. They can just shoot and then charge to clear them off. By contrast they are not going to do much against high T high Sv targets which plasma/melta contribute towards.

Sure. I agree with all that. And to clarify, I was agreeing with you in the quoted post as well.

I know that traditionally we have used flamers as an anti-hoard weapon, but should it be? IRL flame throwers weren't used against massed infantry (medieval equivalents maybe excepted). Flame throwers were anti-personnel but not anti-hoard. They were used against dug-in and fortified infantry.

Maybe we should concentrate on the anti-cover aspect of flamers? +1Str and +1AP against targets in cover?

I think this is probably the right general direction. As I mentioned a page or two ago, flamers felt "right" back when cover saves were a thing. Your flamer was getting rid of a 4+ save on models in cover, and being AP5 meant it might also be ignoring the target's armor save as well. So the flamer that could ignore my rangers' saves once they got close created an interesting dynamic where rangers were durable against bolters but squishy against flamers.

The tricky thing is translating the "anti-dug-in" thing into an edition where cover saves have been replaced by +1 to armor saves. +1Str and AP isn't a bad idea, but it is slightly weird that it makes flamers wound orks and marines more often, but it wounds guardsmen on a 3+ regardless. But maybe that works out given that wounding T3 on a 2+ might be a bit much. I guess you could make it +1 to Wound instead of +1 Str if that quirk does prove undesirable.

My (admittedly clunky) suggestion of putting down tokens when you shoot flamers that burn units who stay near the token in the following turn was an attempt to model something similar. Either the target stays in the midst of the flames and takes extra damage or they move away, effectively getting "flushed out" of cover.

Tygre wrote:
I know that traditionally we have used flamers as an anti-hoard weapon, but should it be? IRL flame throwers weren't used against massed infantry (medieval equivalents maybe excepted). Flame throwers were anti-personnel but not anti-hoard. They were used against dug-in and fortified infantry.

Maybe we should concentrate on the anti-cover aspect of flamers? +1Str and +1AP against targets in cover?

Flamers use to ignore cover. Just ignoring light cover would be a nice buff.

Yeah, I dunno why they lost the ignores cover rule in 8th ed. Never liked that.

How often do you actually have units that are hit by flamers benefit from cover? I don't think this would change a whole lot.

If you play in tournaments, a lot. Most of the board is light cover.

 Jidmah wrote:
How often do you actually have units that are hit by flamers benefit from cover? I don't think this would change a whole lot.

Units benefit from light cover all the time in my games, so pointing a flamer at a unit in light cover would come up pretty often. It's just that ignoring light cover with flamers isn't all that helpful. It's basically the equivalent of situationally giving the flamer AP-1. And an extra point of AP only makes a difference when your target happens to roll the exact number they otherwise would have saved on. Which is pretty underwhelming to the point that I question whether it would even warrant the extra special rules text.

Which is why something like +1S or +1 to-wound against targets in cover seems like it might be a better way to go. Although that feels less like you're ignoring the cover and more like being in cover is actively making you more burn prone.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
How often do you actually have units that are hit by flamers benefit from cover? I don't think this would change a whole lot.

Units benefit from light cover all the time in my games, so pointing a flamer at a unit in light cover would come up pretty often. It's just that ignoring light cover with flamers isn't all that helpful. It's basically the equivalent of situationally giving the flamer AP-1. And an extra point of AP only makes a difference when your target happens to roll the exact number they otherwise would have saved on. Which is pretty underwhelming to the point that I question whether it would even warrant the extra special rules text.

Which is why something like +1S or +1 to-wound against targets in cover seems like it might be a better way to go. Although that feels less like you're ignoring the cover and more like being in cover is actively making you more burn prone.

If you're hiding in something flammable, like a forest, or a section of broken pipes with who-knows-what leaking out, and it gets hit with a flamethrower...odds are you'll be burned worse than if you weren't standing in it.

 Dysartes wrote:
For the love of the Emperor, people - anti-horde, not anti-hoard.

In fairness to them....hitting someone's entire collection of stuff would in fact be anti "Hoard"

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

That sounds like a negligible upgrade.
It should be "ignores cover, hits all units in the target squad".
Which may seem like much, but flamers have short range anyway and it would make a good anti-light infantry blob weapon. You know, like how flamers are supposed to be.
If balance is a concern, I suppose it could be "ignores cover, hits up to x models in the target squad, where x is the number of models hit"

Yes of course...why shouldn't a 5pt weapon hit every single model in a target squad....I mean, on average against a blob of 30 boyz that results in 8.3 dead boyz or 66.6pts of dmg. Totally normal, and even against a 10 boy unit its 22.2pts of dmg Totally balanced. *Sarcasm*

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i understand quite well how averages work, but decimal averages are useless in this game, and a mathematical average doesn’t mean gak in a game based on luck where if you’re unlucky.
To make flamers competitive in their niche they need a minimum number of shots. That’s all I’m saying.

Let me just summarize all of Johnpjones's posts. He wants to not have to think or face chance and wants the flamer to be a no-brainer auto-take in his lists. Its atm a "if i have 5pts left over" weapon, and he wants it to be a "spam flamers for 5pts because its easy mode!"

I mean, look at some of these absolutely ridiculous suggestions we have seen so far. Auto-hit the entire unit, deal mortal wounds to every unit nearby, increase range from 12 to 16, give it +1S -1AP etc etc etc.

SemperMortis wrote:
Its atm a "if i have 5pts left over" weapon, and he wants it to be a "spam flamers for 5pts because its easy mode!"

To be fair, there's probably room for it to be more impactful (and more expensive) without also becoming an auto-take. Per above posts, plasmaguns and meltaguns feel like they have an impact on the game. Flamers usually don't. Basically, reasonable people feel that flamers aren't currently on the same level as plasma/melta and would like to see flamers brought up to that level in exchange for paying a few more points. Nothing wrong with that.

Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Its atm a "if i have 5pts left over" weapon, and he wants it to be a "spam flamers for 5pts because its easy mode!"

To be fair, there's probably room for it to be more impactful (and more expensive) without also becoming an auto-take. Per above posts, plasmaguns and meltaguns feel like they have an impact on the game. Flamers usually don't. Basically, reasonable people feel that flamers aren't currently on the same level as plasma/melta and would like to see flamers brought up to that level in exchange for paying a few more points. Nothing wrong with that.

If you are going to pay points for it to be brought up to that level sure, that is a decent trade off, but couple things with that. First off, some of these suggestions are turning a flamer into a better horde clearing weapon then a hurricane bolter, some are turning the flamer into a better anti-tank weapon then the Plasma gun. Some of these are so stupidly over powered that it would literally become auto-takes that you build your list around taking as many as possible.

Yeah there is a spot for flamers atm, you want them to do more? cool, double their cost and make them AS impactful as a plasma gun. Plasma is built to feth up medium to heavy infantry and plink wounds off vehicles. it averages 1 shot at 24 and 2 at 12, on a BS3+ model its 0.66 hits and 1.33 hits if you over charge it (and run the risk of killing yourself) you can wound T4 on 2s, otherwise its on 3s, and against multi-wound targets you are going to overcharge. A plasma gunner averages 1.33 hits, 1.11 wounds and against a Marine that is 0.74 unsaved wounds for 1.48dmg on average. Lets say its an intercessor, so 20ppm. So the Plasma gun averages, at close range, and while over charging, just under 15pts of dmg. All the while facing some risk of killing himself.

So make the Flamer equivalent to that. 10pt weapon that deals 15pts of dmg against its normal target while also facing some sort of cataclysmic chance of failure. Lets see, against orkz a flamer atm averages 3.5 shots, 1.16 wounds and basically 1 dead ork for 8pts dead, but has no chance of killing the bearer and costs 5pts less then a plasma gun, which means that for the equivalent price, 10pts, it can DOUBLE its average rate of fire but needs to have the chance of killing the bearer or friendly units if it fails. Whats that? Nobody wants to do that? Its almost like a 5pt flamer is already as good as a plasma gun point for point, and its just a few people wanting more Bolter porn fantasies? Who would have thought.

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Its atm a "if i have 5pts left over" weapon, and he wants it to be a "spam flamers for 5pts because its easy mode!"

To be fair, there's probably room for it to be more impactful (and more expensive) without also becoming an auto-take. Per above posts, plasmaguns and meltaguns feel like they have an impact on the game. Flamers usually don't. Basically, reasonable people feel that flamers aren't currently on the same level as plasma/melta and would like to see flamers brought up to that level in exchange for paying a few more points. Nothing wrong with that.

If you are going to pay points for it to be brought up to that level sure, that is a decent trade off, but couple things with that. First off, some of these suggestions are turning a flamer into a better horde clearing weapon then a hurricane bolter, some are turning the flamer into a better anti-tank weapon then the Plasma gun. Some of these are so stupidly over powered that it would literally become auto-takes that you build your list around taking as many as possible.

Yeah there is a spot for flamers atm, you want them to do more? cool, double their cost and make them AS impactful as a plasma gun. Plasma is built to feth up medium to heavy infantry and plink wounds off vehicles. it averages 1 shot at 24 and 2 at 12, on a BS3+ model its 0.66 hits and 1.33 hits if you over charge it (and run the risk of killing yourself) you can wound T4 on 2s, otherwise its on 3s, and against multi-wound targets you are going to overcharge. A plasma gunner averages 1.33 hits, 1.11 wounds and against a Marine that is 0.74 unsaved wounds for 1.48dmg on average. Lets say its an intercessor, so 20ppm. So the Plasma gun averages, at close range, and while over charging, just under 15pts of dmg. All the while facing some risk of killing himself.

So make the Flamer equivalent to that. 10pt weapon that deals 15pts of dmg against its normal target while also facing some sort of cataclysmic chance of failure. Lets see, against orkz a flamer atm averages 3.5 shots, 1.16 wounds and basically 1 dead ork for 8pts dead, but has no chance of killing the bearer and costs 5pts less then a plasma gun, which means that for the equivalent price, 10pts, it can DOUBLE its average rate of fire but needs to have the chance of killing the bearer or friendly units if it fails. Whats that? Nobody wants to do that? Its almost like a 5pt flamer is already as good as a plasma gun point for point, and its just a few people wanting more Bolter porn fantasies? Who would have thought.

While I do have imperial and chaos marine armies, I mostly play various flavors of aeldari. So I feel I can say with confidence that I don't fit the frothing bolter porn lover picture that you're painting.

Good breakdown of the damage-per-point of the flamer vs the plasma gun. I'm tempted to point out that orks, though traditionally a good target for flamers, are a slightly weird choice now that they're T5. However, the math works out very similarly against termagaunts (flamers do about 14 points of damage against them), so no worries. I do feel that your argument is leaving out a few key considerations:
* It feels like you're slightly overstating the risk of blowing yourself up with a plasma gun. Maybe I'm weird, but I'm usually pretty happy using the S7 profile unless I'm firing at something that absolutely positively has to die this turn. (Or unless I'm shooting an expensive squad with multiple plasma guns that have just arrived from reserves to deliver a sucker punch.) If you're facing marines, it's hard not to overcharge, but against anything with W1 or T3, I frequently just play it safe.

* While it's fair to crunch the numbers for 12" range, I think it's also important to remember that the plasma gun can contribute from up to 24" away. Which makes it more likely to be firing multiple times throughout the game whereas flamers are prone to only firing once or twice due to having to get within charge range before they can contribute.

* While it's fair to crunch numbers against ideal targets, it's also important to consider that a flamer's ideal target is the same as that of the common bolter or lasgun. So if you don't take any flamers, you probably still have dozens of bolters/lasguns floating around to kill termagaunts. The plasmagun gives you a weapon that can efficiently take chunks out of more durable units that bolters aren't as good against.

So basically, I feel like being 5 points less efficient against an ideal target combined with the other factors I've pointed out could reasonably make people want flamers to be better without requiring the addition of a significant drawback like the plasma gun's Gets Hot rule. It's also worth mentioning that a weapon can be balanced but still not "feel right," and that's a fair criticism. My howling banshees would be balanced if you basically gave them the same stats, rules, and wargear as swooping hawks, but machinegunning the enemy while swooping away to safety wouldn't deliver the melee shock assault "feeling" that the powersword toting models would make me expect.

Wyldhunt wrote:

While I do have imperial and chaos marine armies, I mostly play various flavors of aeldari. So I feel I can say with confidence that I don't fit the frothing bolter porn lover picture that you're painting.

Good breakdown of the damage-per-point of the flamer vs the plasma gun. I'm tempted to point out that orks, though traditionally a good target for flamers, are a slightly weird choice now that they're T5. However, the math works out very similarly against termagaunts (flamers do about 14 points of damage against them), so no worries. I do feel that your argument is leaving out a few key considerations:
* It feels like you're slightly overstating the risk of blowing yourself up with a plasma gun. Maybe I'm weird, but I'm usually pretty happy using the S7 profile unless I'm firing at something that absolutely positively has to die this turn. (Or unless I'm shooting an expensive squad with multiple plasma guns that have just arrived from reserves to deliver a sucker punch.) If you're facing marines, it's hard not to overcharge, but against anything with W1 or T3, I frequently just play it safe.

* While it's fair to crunch the numbers for 12" range, I think it's also important to remember that the plasma gun can contribute from up to 24" away. Which makes it more likely to be firing multiple times throughout the game whereas flamers are prone to only firing once or twice due to having to get within charge range before they can contribute.

* While it's fair to crunch numbers against ideal targets, it's also important to consider that a flamer's ideal target is the same as that of the common bolter or lasgun. So if you don't take any flamers, you probably still have dozens of bolters/lasguns floating around to kill termagaunts. The plasmagun gives you a weapon that can efficiently take chunks out of more durable units that bolters aren't as good against.

So basically, I feel like being 5 points less efficient against an ideal target combined with the other factors I've pointed out could reasonably make people want flamers to be better without requiring the addition of a significant drawback like the plasma gun's Gets Hot rule. It's also worth mentioning that a weapon can be balanced but still not "feel right," and that's a fair criticism. My howling banshees would be balanced if you basically gave them the same stats, rules, and wargear as swooping hawks, but machinegunning the enemy while swooping away to safety wouldn't deliver the melee shock assault "feeling" that the powersword toting models would make me expect.

Fair points. And that boils down to again, players not wanting to have to choose what to do and want a 1 size fits all solution to all targets. The suggestions in this thread about giving out mortal wounds, increasing range/strength/AP etc all boil down to players wanting the flamer to be better then the plasma gun while having none of the downsides. The trade off right now for the flamer is that at 12' its AS GOOD as the plasma gun on a point for point basis but it doesn't get the range advantage of the plasma gun, on the flipside it also doesn't have a chance to kill its bearer. So here is a fair trade off to make up for the loss of 12' of range. make the regular flamer 3pts. Now its more efficient than ever

SemperMortis wrote:

Fair points. And that boils down to again, players not wanting to have to choose what to do and want a 1 size fits all solution to all targets. The suggestions in this thread about giving out mortal wounds, increasing range/strength/AP etc all boil down to players wanting the flamer to be better then the plasma gun while having none of the downsides. The trade off right now for the flamer is that at 12' its AS GOOD as the plasma gun on a point for point basis but it doesn't get the range advantage of the plasma gun, on the flipside it also doesn't have a chance to kill its bearer. So here is a fair trade off to make up for the loss of 12' of range. make the regular flamer 3pts. Now its more efficient than ever

I get the impression that most of the people making suggestions in this thread are less worried about the points efficiency of the flamer and more concerned with trying to capture that "weapon feel." If we assume (for discussion's sake) that the problem people are trying to solve is the flamer not "feeling good," then lowering the points cost doesn't solve that problem.

Also, has anyone actually suggested making the flamer do mortal wounds? The only references to MW I can find in this thread are:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I use flamers with my Tau, but only because they are D6+2 hits each, are cheap and so can easily double up on flamers on crisis suits, and combo nicely with a strat to get mortal wounds on 6s to wound.

If it wasn't for that strat, I probably wouldn't bother with them.

... and myself here...

When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

The former isn't so much a call for all flamers to do mortals so much as a note that tau flamers are in a good place for several reasons, one of which is the ability to do mortals via a stratagem. The latter (my own suggestion) would only do mortal wounds if the target opted to sit still during their next Movement phase rather than casually stepping out of the flames. Which is quite a bit different than just having flamers doing mortal wounds when you shoot them. I was just spitballing a quick and dirty way to say, "Hey, this area is on fire. You can either move or take extra damage."

Yes, please make all Custodes Telemon Plasma Projectors heavy 3d3 S7 AP2 D2 Blast.

Flamers in general should:

A. Auto-hit
B. Ignore cover
C. somehow make morale worse.

Thats it for overarching flamer effects.

The specific weapons themselves are where you balance expected damage vs points.

If your charging 5 points to trade out a marine bolter for a flamer, it should have the same base strength and ap, but at least twice the number of hits at half the range.

Make base flamers assault 4.
Make bigger flamers have higher strength and more hits (obviously double the hits for double the points).

There are special flamers in the game that have longer range (used to represent the old Torrent rule). Those should obviously cost more than a basic flamer, but should also take into consideration what your trading out for them.

If your gonna charge 10pts for an Aquilon Solarpike for example, it needs to once again score double hits that the Lastrum storm bolter would get that your trading out.

Every model desroyed by attacks due to a "flame Weapon" +1 to Morale Tests?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Every model desroyed by attacks due to a "flame Weapon" +1 to Morale Tests?

I think just a general +1 to morale tests is fine. No need to keep adding to the value

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Flamers in general should:

A. Auto-hit
B. Ignore cover
C. somehow make morale worse.

Thats it for overarching flamer effects.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Every model desroyed by attacks due to a "flame Weapon" +1 to Morale Tests?

Congrats, you just impacted 2 factions in the entire game with your morale modifiers. And 1 of them hasn't gotten a codex yet. Every other faction functionally ignores Morale or has special rules which limit their losses to 1 model.

Lets break down the real reason people are complaining about flamers. Is it because they aren't clearing hordes well anymore? Nope. Is it because they don't do enough dmg to cheap throw away infantry? Nope. So what is the reason? Because Marines and units with Marine like statlines are THE MOST common defensive profile in the game and T4 3+ armor is really good at minimizing the impact of a Flamer dishing out 3.5 hits on average.

So why do I say the real reason isn't to kill hordes? Because when was the last time you saw a competitive horde list? They don't exist anymore because the factions which use them the most IG, Nidz and Orkz are incentivized NOT to bring hordes in a host of different ways. Blast weapon rules, coherency rules, loss of CC range rules, and most importantly MORALE at least for orkz. A single Flamer squad of 5 Marines shoots at a mob of 30 boyz. the flamer kills 1 by itself the 4 remaining bolters do 8 shots, 5.3 hits 1.7 wounds and after their 6+ saves 1.5ish dead orkz, so on average 3 dead boyz. Add in the +1 to morale thanks to your flamer rule and they are -4 which means they have a 50% chance to fail morale. if they do they lose 1 to morale and then on average 4 more to attrition. So 5 Marines with a single flamer effectively kill 8 Boyz, or 64pts. A unit of 95pts just killed more then 2/3rds its value in a single shooting phase without any other buffs. In other words, there is not a single point in favor of bringing more then MSU Boyz mobz.

So going back to the real point, why are we discussing making Flamers more deadly? Handing out Mortal wounds? etc? Because it takes on average 3.5 Flamers to kill a single Space Marine where as in previous editions it was usually 1 flamer kills 1 Marine (pre 2w Marines). So how about we just skip the BS and just come to the real point which is Marines are now too durable to fight against themselves unless they are using specialized weaponry with with either an insane number of shots or with higher S/AP then before.

I think flamers could use more of a utility buff than a damage one. Why can´t we use flamers to effectively set cover on fire to force a unit out of it? Or flame an area around an objective? Place a flamer template on the ground. Everythings moving through has to take some damage or has their ranges reduced. Isn´t that more interesting than just another iteration of "causes x mortal wounds"?

SemperMortis wrote:
So going back to the real point, why are we discussing making Flamers more deadly? Handing out Mortal wounds? etc? Because it takes on average 3.5 Flamers to kill a single Space Marine where as in previous editions it was usually 1 flamer kills 1 Marine (pre 2w Marines). So how about we just skip the BS and just come to the real point which is Marines are now too durable to fight against themselves unless they are using specialized weaponry with with either an insane number of shots or with higher S/AP then before.

SicSemperTyrannis wrote:I think flamers could use more of a utility buff than a damage one. Why can´t we use flamers to effectively set cover on fire to force a unit out of it? Or flame an area around an objective? Place a flamer template on the ground. Everythings moving through has to take some damage or has their ranges reduced. Isn´t that more interesting than just another iteration of "causes x mortal wounds"?

Agree with Tyrannis. If we were to change flamers, I'd be more inclined to do so in a way that prioritizes making them interesting over simply making them powerful. I'm not sure people are necessarily trying to turn flamers into marine killer weapons so much as they just want flamers to feel like they're bringing something interesting to the table; a slightly higher number of S4 AP- hits at short range isn't all that interesting. Especially in the context of something like a tactical squad where you're splashing a flamer in.

Highlighted the bits about mortal wounds because no one responded when I pointed out no one (except me, sorta) was pitching giving flamers mortal wound output. And my suggestion was basically what Tyrannis is pitching here but with d3MW replacing the "has to take some damage or has their ranges reduced" line. My only nitpick about Tyrannis's pitch is that placing a flamer template on the ground might run into some physical logistical problems as you might have to lift up and set down a bunch of enemy models (likely causing them to be unintentionally moved slightly), and laying the template beneath or across terrain can result in the template either being hidden or tilted at an angle. Which is why I suggested using a "hazard marker" that would theoretically be easier to place.