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.

D6 +1 every 10 works.

I was also coloring my assumptions based on some of the nastier weapons that use the same rules, assuming the changes apply to them. May have overdone it.

At any rate, interesting proposed rule. I think it'd be better than current rules.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
You have to be careful with extra dice combined with auto hit because of over watch. 2d6 against 10+ units doesn't seem big when you're talking about hordes (although on average that's still 3 dead boy that would make your points back instantly) but 4d6 (2 in the shooting phase, 2 in overwatch) auto hits against an assaulting unit can kill a massive chunk of a unit with no way to dodge it

Yeah, I'll agree with you, but also put forward the idea that maybe you shouldn't charge yourself up to a unit with a flamethrower and expect to have a good time.

M.

Which is where stuff like Scytheguard is super scary for melee threats. Even elites.

They're pretty garbage. Yes, they auto-hit, but that's worthless when you can just walk around them anyway (and with only 8" range, why would you bother doing anything about them?). They're great on overwatch (assuming your opponent is charging from within 8"), but assault is bad, so it's not like their a priority. What's more, the inability to hit deepstrikers means that they're helpless in their role against the most dangerous of threats that they're meant to be useful against.

I didn't see or take a flamer since 8th dropped.
They are so trash... 1d6 hit at 8'' ? Seriously ?
(4 hits, 2 wounds, 1 ork boys killed, 2 if you are lucky. Tell me about killing horde...)
When before you had this wonderful autohit template, ignoring cover, and ap5, and it could actually kill horde.
It lost so much, it is so sad.

I'd maybe take them as part of a Special Weapons Squad (with demo charge, on a Chimera with its own heavy flamer) as part of a dedicated urban assault force. That's if I knew it was going to be a cover-heavy board going into the game, though...which is very unlikely.

M.

DG have 9” range flamers.
Also, being able to advance and fire is pretty nice.

I've got it! Flamers should be 10" range 1 auto hit per each model of the target unit within range. If only 1 model of the target unit is in range, it suffers D3 auto hits instead.

That way you still get 1-3 hits on single model targets, but can get as many hits on horde units as you can get into range. And that range actually works for units that drop in

Thats too powerfull... in 7th edition flamers were TO GOOD agaisn't hordes. For that reason you didn't saw any kind of horde list.

 Galas wrote:
Thats too powerfull... in 7th edition flamers were TO GOOD agaisn't hordes. For that reason you didn't saw any kind of horde list.

The only flamer people took in competitive 7th was the dual Deathshrouds on the Skatach...and EGrubs if playing a Flyrant Circus. The Acheron was a fringe case at best.

 Galas wrote:
Thats too powerfull... in 7th edition flamers were TO GOOD agaisn't hordes. For that reason you didn't saw any kind of horde list.

Obviously a change like this would come with a points increase, but even if you priced it cheaper than Plasma or Melta, players would still choose those over flamers
Also, 7E wasn't based on models near an objective, 8E is, so horde armies would stay strong

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Thats too powerfull... in 7th edition flamers were TO GOOD agaisn't hordes. For that reason you didn't saw any kind of horde list.

The only flamer people took in competitive 7th was the dual Deathshrouds on the Skatach...and EGrubs if playing a Flyrant Circus. The Acheron was a fringe case at best.

Because the three horde armies sucked ass. So literally there was no reason to take normal flamers. But flamers were still too powerfull agaisn't all the horde armies.

 Galas wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Thats too powerfull... in 7th edition flamers were TO GOOD agaisn't hordes. For that reason you didn't saw any kind of horde list.

The only flamer people took in competitive 7th was the dual Deathshrouds on the Skatach...and EGrubs if playing a Flyrant Circus. The Acheron was a fringe case at best.

Because the three horde armies sucked ass. So literally there was no reason to take normal flamers. But flamers were still too powerfull agaisn't all the horde armies.

Yet if they sucked anyway, then saying they were too good is fairly meaningless no?

They need to make standard flamers (the D6 S4 AP- variety) cost half as much. As it stands now they are just a bit too pricey to justify when you have better options floating around. It should be 5 points base, and HF being 10 points. At this price I now have a budget option that can offer some utility and can be more of a "why not?" upgrade option when equipping your squads.

Why would I spend 7 points on a flamer for guardsman when I can take a plasma gun for the same price and get a guaranteed death instead of hoping for 2-4 with regular saves. Same thing for space marines, they simply have better options for comparable prices. For instance, why take a heavy flamer on any squad if you can take a heavy bolter? unless that unit is mounted in a vehicle that weapon is going to be useless for a majority of the game.

I'd consider a basic flamer to be worse than a bolter, which is often 0 points for the armies that have them. So price them at 0, and that might work.

 Fafnir wrote:
I'd consider a basic flamer to be worse than a bolter, which is often 0 points for the armies that have them. So price them at 0, and that might work.

Too true....actually, storm bolters are 2 points and thats a bargain (and better than a flamer too), I can see them being 2-3 points

having a zero cost special weapons would be a bit much, even for a flamer

Most hordes are melee, in my experience. Flamers hit automatically. If you put a few flamers in your front line, ANY melee army horde or not will think twice about charging. The best use for Flamers is ironically enough, defense instead of offense.

ive been running a stormlord with 4 sponsons (8 twin heavy flamers)

a tank that drives 10 and has an 8 inch flame.... 8d6 at s5ap1..auto hit? forget all the alpha legion and alaitoc denial.

played at Da Boyz this past weekend and the tank was my mvp in multiple games solely because of it's flame.

one memorable game against a world eaters list saw us destroy each other. I killed his hades tank and brass scorpion and he killed my two shadowswords.

then he had 30 bezerkers left against my one stormlord and he didn't have a chance. the overwatch killed one squad after another.

if you build around flamers and how to use them you will love them. redundancy and duplicate is key

 Fafnir wrote:
I'd consider a basic flamer to be worse than a bolter, which is often 0 points for the armies that have them. So price them at 0, and that might work.

Because of the range?

M.

They're pretty worthless on marines. Perhaps better on cheaper models. The problem is that they are marginal over bolters point per point, especially if you factor in the range meaning the bolter will get lots of extra shooting. And you also have to count what you're giving up to get them (plasma.)

They used to be cheap or even free, and templates meant that you could get 5-10 hits on many squads. (and let's not talk about what doom sirens and lash could do!)

So they got more expensive and way less hits. And the AP changes mean they don't pen boyz/gaunts anymore either. Point for point, plasma is more efficient even against horde units. Which could be blamed on plasma being too strong, but bolters with re-roll auras catch up to the flamer really fast anyway.

They need to do more hits vs hordes. I'd say 1d3+1 per 5 models in the target unit, or something similar (as others have said.)

We're already seeing anti-fearless swarm being a huge problem in the meta (conscripts), and Nids are about to bring a lot more of it.

Yeah, the AP bit is a little weird. On one hand, something like a Terminator or (maybe) a Marine should be basically immune - always getting a save. Too sealed up. On the other, it's *really* weird my Guardsmen get one. Sure, even our modern combat fatigues are flame resistant, but my face and hands are definitely not, regardless of what millennium I'm in.

M.

 Infantryman wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I'd consider a basic flamer to be worse than a bolter, which is often 0 points for the armies that have them. So price them at 0, and that might work.

Because of the range?

M.

Yes. With bolters, I can shoot them down-field all game long. A flamer is likely only going to be able to shoot once in a game if at all, maybe twice if it's a long one. Flamers are also just a lot easier to walk around and ignore. The damage output is not nearly high enough to justify the work in delivery, and the range puts you at an instant disadvantage.

Maybe revise salvo weapon types to behave like assault weapon during your turn but shoots at 'stationary' profile for out of turn shooting. Make flamers salvo 1d6/2d6 so during your turn if you havent moved, it deals 2d6, while if you moved it deals 1d6. Flamers shoot 2d6 for overwatch.

 skchsan wrote:
Maybe revise salvo weapon types to behave like assault weapon during your turn but shoots at 'stationary' profile for out of turn shooting. Make flamers salvo 1d6/2d6 so during your turn if you havent moved, it deals 2d6, while if you moved it deals 1d6. Flamers shoot 2d6 for overwatch.

That sounds like a cool way for some sort of weapons to work (mortars?), but not flamers. They are supposed to do well moving.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I'd consider a basic flamer to be worse than a bolter, which is often 0 points for the armies that have them. So price them at 0, and that might work.

Because of the range?

M.

Yes. With bolters, I can shoot them down-field all game long. A flamer is likely only going to be able to shoot once in a game if at all, maybe twice if it's a long one. Flamers are also just a lot easier to walk around and ignore. The damage output is not nearly high enough to justify the work in delivery, and the range puts you at an instant disadvantage.

I do wonder how far they *should* be. A real flamethrower goes surprisingly far - 20m to 40m - but what's that compared to the "effective firing range" of a bolter or lasgun? We can make it whatever, but with certain ratio a dissonance sets in.

As before, the only time I ever see myself taking flamers is in forces I can tool up for close quarters engagements ahead of time - not something for random pickup games.

M.

10" would be a good start. It would be enough to threaten deepstrikers, which is pretty big. It wouldn't fix all the problems, but it would be a start.

Ideally though, the game needs a way to punish hordes, and flamers should be the solution to that. There needs to be a way to hurt them in an optimal fashion. Adding additional hits for high-model-count units would be a start, but the range also definitely needs to be addressed.

You have to consider opportunity cost here. In taking a flamer, I end up giving up not only the opportunity to take a plasma/melta/whatever else, I also end up giving up a bolter (or lasgun if you're IG). That's a pretty big sacrifice for a weapon that might not end up doing anything all game.

The more I hear about them, the more it sounds like Plasma Guns have issues. I'd guess undercosting, but I'm still weirded out by the lack of Gets Hot on all fire modes.

M.

 Infantryman wrote:
The more I hear about them, the more it sounds like Plasma Guns have issues. I'd guess undercosting, but I'm still weirded out by the lack of Gets Hot on all fire modes.

M.

They do. They're really good, anti everything choices. And with abundant re-rolls and bonuses, the gets hot doesn't even really matter. But even if plasma gets nerfed, flamers won't be worth using.

Meltas and Flamers are both in a really bad place on their own merits, AND plasma is really great. So it's a double whammy.

This much is true. Although melta at least functions within its niche. Flamers? Not so much. If flamers could at least put a dent in hordes, they'd be worth talking about on the same level as meltas. But they're pathetic at their intended role.

At least when you point a melta gun at a tank, you know that it has a good chance of doing its job, it just won't be as versatile as a plasma gun in doing so. But flamers... flamers just suck at everything.

problem aint range or dmg, it is its lack of ability to deal whit 11+ model units.

d6 hits is just fine on a 10 man units, but agasint 20 or 30 nid units it simply is a joke.

imo it should scale.
d6 for 1-10, d6+d3 for 11-20 and 2d6 for 21-30.