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.

Traditionally template weapons don't mix well with close combat. We can now use fire dice in close combat, but it is not likely (in my opinion) that any template weapons (just hand flamer relevant for now) will be allowed in close combat.

Would be more interesting to see a ruling about dual vielding hand flamers.

trojax wrote:

 Lord Fishface wrote:
I’d be much more tolerant of the profusion of Hand Flamers in the Escher upgrade packs if we could get a clarification as to whether they should have the ‘pistol’ trait.

Why would that need further clarification? they clearly don't have the pistol trait under the trait heading in any released material regardless of whether or not they are listed under pistols in the wargear sections.

Because they’re ****ing pistols?

It’s almost a side issue when the best Escher build is essentially a Guard squad, but Hand Flamers might just be vaguely worth buying if they could be used with TGB.

They can be bought from the pistol category, but doesn't have the pistol trait. If weapon categories and traits mean anything, this actually makes sense for a Hand Flamer. For example: It can be bought by fighter who has access to pistols, but it can't be used in close combat (too many problems with the template).

Baxx wrote:
They can be bought from the pistol category, but doesn't have the pistol trait. If weapon categories and traits mean anything, this actually makes sense for a Hand Flamer. For example: It can be bought by fighter who has access to pistols, but it can't be used in close combat (too many problems with the template).

It’s certainly possible that’s the writers’ intention; if the rules weren’t rife with other obvious errors I wouldn’t have questioned it.

Most of the time the hand flamers were some of the best at running people out of cover and that template did a great job of covering hand to hands at the last minute saves of death or glory. If you were lucky you could actually use it without it exploding on you.

 Lord Fishface wrote:


It’s almost a side issue when the best Escher build is essentially a Guard squad, but Hand Flamers might just be vaguely worth buying if they could be used with TGB.

Pistol trait is not needed for Twin Gun Blazing, the description of it say it allow you to make a close combat attack if you have that trait. Hand Flamer is a useless weapon in CC anyway.

 Lord Fishface wrote:

trojax wrote:

 Lord Fishface wrote:
I’d be much more tolerant of the profusion of Hand Flamers in the Escher upgrade packs if we could get a clarification as to whether they should have the ‘pistol’ trait.

Why would that need further clarification? they clearly don't have the pistol trait under the trait heading in any released material regardless of whether or not they are listed under pistols in the wargear sections.

Because they’re ****ing pistols?

It’s almost a side issue when the best Escher build is essentially a Guard squad, but Hand Flamers might just be vaguely worth buying if they could be used with TGB.

Oh, sorry. I thought they where "hand flamers"

Don't be disingenuous.

I'm not. They are not pistols, they do not have the pistol trait, what is disingenuous about that? The most I'll give you is that they maybe should have not called the pistol section of the armoury pistols, maybe they should have called it hand weapons or short range weapons but to claim something that isn't called a pistol and does not have the pistol trait as a pistol is what I would consider disingenuous.

Man, those Van Saar are better than I thought they would be (even if they did drop the Dune aesthetic of the originals).

The more hardcore, industrial look is a pretty natural fit for them and I like I'll be honest, the style looks less faux-anime and more like something that lept from the pages of one of the various 2000AD properties. This is one thing where I'm loving the visual diversity this game allows, because it is letting 40k tap back in to some old-school aesthetic wells that they haven't been able to since back in 2nd Edition, before all Imperial stuff had to be over-ornamented and Gothic. These are designs that would be at home if Rogue Trader's more bald faced 2000AD with the serial numbers filed off aesthetics had continued to the modern day. Either way, I bloody love 'em and they're a definite purchase for me when they go up for pre-order.

That said, that paint scheme isn't doing them any justice. The combo of colours and the flat colouring on the faces just doesn't do the minis justice. Luckily you can see past the subpar studio scheme to the nice lines below. Those things are going to be a joy to paint.

Probably still not buying in to the current edition of Necro until they give it a proper omnibus treatment, but I'm sure as hell buying a few boxes of those minis to use for other things (up to and including Old Necromunda games).

If nothing else, the gang redesigns have looked stellar so far, and make great fodder for any number of small skirmish wargames, so this is really a win/win for the hobby as a whole.

trojax wrote:
I'm not. They are not pistols, they do not have the pistol trait, what is disingenuous about that? The most I'll give you is that they maybe should have not called the pistol section of the armoury pistols, maybe they should have called it hand weapons or short range weapons but to claim something that isn't called a pistol and does not have the pistol trait as a pistol is what I would consider disingenuous.

Hardly disingenuous when they've been treated as a pistol in every other incarnation of the "Hand Flamer" weapon I can think of.

AFAIK they worked for the Pistol/CCW bonus attack in 7th ed 40k, back in 2nd ed 40k, and in previous versions of Necromunda. That is why this red flags as a "Is this deliberate?" moment - because, if it is a change, it is a break from the established set-up of the weapon, and it hasn't been clearly explained.

The new van Saar sculpts Remind me of the praetorians in Altered Carbon. Much like

 Dysartes wrote:

trojax wrote:
I'm not. They are not pistols, they do not have the pistol trait, what is disingenuous about that? The most I'll give you is that they maybe should have not called the pistol section of the armoury pistols, maybe they should have called it hand weapons or short range weapons but to claim something that isn't called a pistol and does not have the pistol trait as a pistol is what I would consider disingenuous.

Hardly disingenuous when they've been treated as a pistol in every other incarnation of the "Hand Flamer" weapon I can think of.

AFAIK they worked for the Pistol/CCW bonus attack in 7th ed 40k, back in 2nd ed 40k, and in previous versions of Necromunda. That is why this red flags as a "Is this deliberate?" moment - because, if it is a change, it is a break from the established set-up of the weapon, and it hasn't been clearly explained.

I don't remember hand flamers was used in close combat in old Necromunda or 40k 2nd edition. But that is a long time ago... I would guess it required some except for the template rule, as that would quickly get messy.

Hand flamer in old munda was FAQ'ed to be unusable in close combat. And in that game it actuay had a decent stat. But still not a very good purchase because one-use only.

IIRC in 2nd edition 40k, you could use a hand flamer in close combat, but it didn’t use the template. Necromunda would have been the same. The template was only 4” long, so not much of a loss. It would still set people on fire.

It wasn’t single shot in 1st edition Necromunda, but it did make an ammo roll every time it fired.

Ahh that sounds about right! Would have been fun to see the mini flamer template again, but I can understand why that was lost aeons ago for streamlining (and extremely short range).

In my campaign I'm totally using the 4" template, but at full Flamer strength, and usable in CC (without placing the template).

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
IIRC in 2nd edition 40k, you could use a hand flamer in close combat, but it didn’t use the template. Necromunda would have been the same. The template was only 4” long, so not much of a loss. It would still set people on fire.

It wasn’t single shot in 1st edition Necromunda, but it did make an ammo roll every time it fired.

In 2nd Edition & Necromunda hand flamers could be used in close combat, but the template wasn't used. I believe that it was assumed that your opponent took the burnt of the attack.

There were single shot flame weapons in Necromunda, which were specific to the Redemptionist faction. I think they were called Exterminators, and they were usually affixed to another weapon (lasgun, autogun, shotgun, Eviscerator)

Exterminators were fun. Looking forward to them making a comeback.

Hand Flamers were small template and CC in original Necromunda. This followed the RT rules.

They became one shot Flamers (normal template) in Necromunda: Underhive and NCE. No CC as ther would be too dangerous to the user.

Not sure what the heck they are now...

 notprop wrote:
Not sure what the heck they are now...

Not clear enough, apparently

Maybe one to send to the FAQ email address?

 notprop wrote:
Hand Flamers were small template and CC in original Necromunda. This followed the RT rules.

They became one shot Flamers (normal template) in Necromunda: Underhive and NCE. No CC as ther would be too dangerous to the user. .

Ah, so for the majority of Necromunda's existence, hand flamers have not been useable in melee.

The single shot rule in the Fanatic edition was to compensate for them suddenly using the medium flame template (the rules changed so that players only needed templates and dice available in 40k and WFB at the time - hence no Sustained Fire dice. Even Epic Armageddon changed from using 6cm diameter templates to 3" diameter ones).

Time for some Goliath Weapons!

There are three... three? Oh FFS... *ahem* three weapon packs!

Here are, perplexity, pics of two of the sets:







If you look closely you'll see that there are zero other-handed stubguns, zero one-handed stub cannons, no las weapons to speak of, or autoguns, a hammer that is in the same pose/position as the current hammer we already have (so that's good... I guess?), no other-handed combat-shotguns, and a good amount of arms holding no weapons, which I presume has some sort of use... and yeah.

Still, far better than the Escher sets. You won't end up with more Hand Flamers than Gangers if you buy all three (I presume). And bolt pistols, and at least one bolt gun. That's nice!

The Heavy Flamer is fething awesome. I love that.

Nice modeling, but I'm not buying into the half-Forgeworld game premise here.

Eh... another miss for me. Not digging the way these weapon packs have been done - no las, no autos, no offhand shotguns, repeated hammer for no reason (we already had a spare), heavy weapons with the same pose (unlike eschers), empty hands because why?

The off-hands are actually some of the best bits of the kit- they open more modelling options. However, it is a bit pointless without also including weapons that have no hand attached, that can be hung from belts, backpacks etc. Not every ganger needs to be shooting at that moment, but it needs to have the weapons you give it still.

I like the bolt-weapons, the shotgun and the underslung special weapons. Most the melee weapons are decent too. Dunno why they repeated weapons like the hammer, when there is more of a need for weapons like las/auto/stub stuff I feel. The heavy weapons (aside from the heavy bolter) also look a bit... off.

Yeah, not feeling these at all TBH.

I really like them, except I don't understand A). why there are three of them and B). why there are so many redundant pieces.

Again, when these weapon packs were described to me the impression I got was that they would allow gangs to field basically any weapon combination, and were a way of 'making up for' (so to speak) the limited space on the plastic sprues.

But with so many blank hands, repeated weapons and a real lack of basic variety, I don't see what they're doing. These are better than the Escher kits, which could've done with an extra autogun and shotgun here and there rather than every set coming with 2 Hand Flamers, a Flamer and a Plasma Gun (or meltagun), but they're still weird.

I think they're worse than Eschers.

Zero auto, las or stub weaponry, 1 whole shotgun, mirrored plastic poses for the hammer and axe and no other signature weapons. And the axes are glaringly more plain-looking than the plastics... like they're actually just axes and not brute cleavers and renderizers. No spud-jackers, either.

At least the Eschers had a healthy (if eccentric) variety of stuff and a needler pistol and rifle in every set.

I'm really disappointed by the omission of holstered/scabbarded/slung weapons, more than anything else. I'd buy a whole SPRUE of those. It's particularly infuriating for Stub Cannons, which don't evidently REQUIRE a two-handed grip, but yet always seem to be in one. I like all of the weapons options I've seen (though I saw three sprues in pics from some Open Day or something), but, darn it, I wanted some slung weapons!