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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Each model in the targeted unit is hit on a 4+? I dunno how that would scale, and would make it bad vs singular targets again, which is something I don't entirely want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
Flamers are excellent charge deterrent.

No they're not once you've learned the math behind them.

Not every unit can magically always make a 9+” every time. I have seen flamer heavy vehicles torch several units in succession attempting to charge it same turn.

I think the range and ap should be tweaked. Should have at least a 9 inch range at ap-1. I would prefer if they were high risk high reward in potential damage output. Make them work like tesla weapons in 7th, d6 auto hits but on a 6 it triggers another d6 indefanitly. Fun, scary could randomly fail or win Excessivly. I play guard and even a 6 up save against flamers wouldnt feel right, we are supposed to fear flamers.

It *seems* like 4+ Save is the lowest with "exposed flesh" on the models you see it on. Thus, something like AP4 seems like it would make sense :p

M.

 Infantryman wrote:
It *seems* like 4+ Save is the lowest with "exposed flesh" on the models you see it on. Thus, something like AP4 seems like it would make sense :p

M.

I never even thought of that. I like this point lol

I think the range of 8" is fine for a normal flamer. Thats one third of a boltgun. Todays machineguns have more than three times the range of a flamer. A boltgun actually shoots tiny rockets.

Warhammer is not a real-world battle simulation, however. It's a game. Which means elements of abstraction are required for the sake of developing playable and balanced options. Right now, the range on flamers puts them right in the middle of 'useless.'

 Fafnir wrote:
Warhammer is not a real-world battle simulation, however. It's a game. Which means elements of abstraction are required for the sake of developing playable and balanced options. Right now, the range on flamers puts them right in the middle of 'useless.'

"It's a game" is only an excuse for lazy game developer who can't be bothered to make weapon useful AND make sense fluffwise.

Flamers were useful before with short range. Indeed range wise it's actually BETTER now than it's been before. Thus 8" does not make it automatically useless. It adds extra challenge but what game designers are paid for if not making workable rules?

OP here. Just read through the thread.
The most effective way to use flamers seems to be on tanks or in transports with dedicated flamer units. Those options more or less remove the range penalty. I'd like to see flamers be able to fire from deep strike so making them range 10" across the board might do the trick. To me it makes sence that a squad teleporting into action would do so to be able to bring their close range weapons to bear.

We've seen some flamer rules changes ideas being tossed around here. I think the rules are mostly fine but that 10" range would be better. Now they're arguably on par with deafult weaponry, often for the cost of 1-3 deafult weapon models.

Someone suggested you add a d6 hits per 10 models in an enemy squad. So:
1-10: 1d6
11-20: 2d6
21-30: 3d6
I guess this could work since it doesn't buff flamers vs elites and it's difficult to counter hordes today, though I find it a little too powerfull on overwatch. Maybe do the above but only let flamers do d6 on Overwatch regardless of enemy unit size? In all fairness it's more or less how flamers have always worked with templates though. The more enemy models there is the more hits you could get with a template. Templates and blasts used to scale on enemy numbers. Currently we have no game mechanics that does this, with the exception of the Leman russ demolisher.

Flamers have always negated cover in every 40k edition up untill now. The logic was that they goush an area in fire and that's really difficult to hide from (though possible irl). I don't think flamers should have ap -1 but negating cover might be a reasonable buff. If nothing else it's consistent with the previous flamers.

The one thing I feel is that hordes have for the most part been pretty bad in 40k so having a horde edition might not be too bad. I'd still like flamers to be just a little bit more powerfull though.

Just make them cost 5points again, problem solved.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Just make them cost 5points again, problem solved.

Fair price is 4 points since Mortars equivalents cost this much and are much better for the most part

I really like flamers this edition. They make charging legit scary.

 AaronWilson wrote:
I really like flamers this edition. They make charging legit scary.

This is basically the point, you can avoid them easily enough, but risk not charging to do so, they are cheap weapons, they should be useful but not “you can’t risk charging” buttons

 AaronWilson wrote:
I really like flamers this edition. They make charging legit scary.

How? Is anyone really scared of D6 autohits? Even with a T3 model that's still only 2 wounds that you get saves against. Sure, you can load up on more flamers but then you're paying more points and further reducing your effectiveness at more useful ranges.

That's the key flamer problem for me: they're useless outside of 8" so they need to be really good inside that range to compensate, but they really aren't. The best suggestion I've seen in this thread is to have them hit every model in the target unit that's in range. That makes them worse against smaller units, but better against hordes, which makes sense to me and also provides them with a niche over plasma or melta. There are already very few good anti-horde weapons in the game so adding one in would be a welcome balance change, IMO.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Just make them cost 5points again, problem solved.

A storm bolter is considerably better and costs 2 points. A bolter is better and costs 0 points.

I forgot dakka dakka is a land which only hyperbole strives.

I've played against a few units of scary flamers (UM Sternguard with a bunch of flamers in one unit)

For a World Eater player using primarily Khorne Berserkers in rhinos and some deep striking terminators, I found them to pretty scary to charge against.

In before someone tells me my personal experience is wrong and they're still garbage.

As they are now flamers are more of a utility weapon. Offensively they are slightly better than a storm bolter (when within 8" ofc), but that's not very impressive.

What it does offer is autohits. 3.5 autohits on overwatch is the output of ~5 storm bolters (19.5 bolter shots). This would not dissuade a terminator squad, but what overwatching weapon would? OTOH seeing a flamer or 2 sure would convince me to send my howling banshees somewhere else. And yes, it is possible to make a 9" charge, but even with rerolls that chance doesn't get better than a coin-flip (barring some +x" charge range abilities, but these aren't that common and aren't free either).

Flamers also negate hit modifiers. It's relatively doable to get a -1 or -2 to hit modifier going on an infantry squad, neutering bolters and the like. Flamers simply laugh at these shenanigans.

I'm not claiming flamers are op or even terribly efficient* when only considering shooting phase output, but they do have some use.


* adding d6 autohits per 10 models would absolutely destroy horde/swarm armies. The average on a D6 is 3.5. A single flamer would get 10.5 hits on a horde unit and then get to do it again during overwatch. This would make 5 man tac squads dangerous opponents, not to mention units carrying more than 1 flamer. It could be a nice rule when using Movie Marines rules?

Good posts I have seen, the flamer question is of interest.

Good:
Agreed that flamers are impressive in Overwatch.
They are good with high mobility units like tanks.
In the right situation, they are ideal on hard to hit units like aircraft (if you get the opportunity to have them in range).

Bad:
Too short a range to be used the turn a unit deep-strikes.
Uses up a slot / model carrying a flamer that could be doing damage at longer range: limited / hard to leverage utility.
The amount of hits are variable so when you finally get to use it, you may roll a one.

I find for "horde" armies, throwing a flamer in is not a bad thing.
On something like a Basilisk or other artillery vehicles it is nice to have for laying some hurt on anyone jumping the vehicle (Note, this is HEAVY flamer).
Doubling up on flamers for things like skimmers I have been wanting to try.

I guess the biggest complaint is the weapon could easily be made better but anything with "auto-hit" can quickly become OP.

Flamers are imo aren't worth points, however as a limited free weapon swap they would be able to start coming into their own.

If a unit were able to swap 1 model to a flamer for free I could see them start gaining traction.

But if you wanted to make them actually useful, they need to scale with the size of the squad you are shooting at, or perhaps even scale with the armor save somehow.

 Talizvar wrote:

I guess the biggest complaint is the weapon could easily be made better but anything with "auto-hit" can quickly become OP.

Tyranid barbed stranglers get +1 to hit when targeting units of 10 or more models. This won't work for flamers for obvious reasons, but how about giving them +1 to wound when shooting at units of 10 or larger? It makes them more effective vs larger units, but casualties are still capped at d6 hits. Maybe drop the points cost to 5?

I posted in the proposed rules section that seemed to get decently positive feedback.

I feel flamers really should have the weapon type "Flamer #" where the # indicates a max value. You auto hit a number of times equal to the number of models in the enemy unit or the Flamer #, whichever comes first.

This technically gives flamers no more than one hit on each model. This makes them not as good against low count multiple wound units, but great anti-horde when numbered correctly.

Example: I have a flamer that's statblocked as a Flamer 8. I shoot a unit of 20 Boyz. I would get 8 hits because my Flamer # comes before the total number of enemy models. Now I shoot a unit of 3 Nobz. I get 3 hits because the number of models in the enemy unit comes before my Flamer #.

I know I explained it kind of long, but it is very quick and easy to play at a glance.

That is good.

 Quickjager wrote:
Flamers are imo aren't worth points, however as a limited free weapon swap they would be able to start coming into their own.

If a unit were able to swap 1 model to a flamer for free I could see them start gaining traction.

But if you wanted to make them actually useful, they need to scale with the size of the squad you are shooting at, or perhaps even scale with the armor save somehow.

Flamers aren't what makes them useless. Your standard S4 0AP flamer, yeah not much more effective than 2 marines firing bolters.

What is terrifying is things like Plague Spitters, Heavy Flamers, Inferno Cannons etc. They are brilliant weapons against single models such as vehicles/monsters/characters/flyers and if you think you can just ignore the overwatch they can dish out you will be in for a surprise - especially when there is a couple of them in the unit.

Primark G wrote: Not every unit can magically always make a 9+” every time. I have seen flamer heavy vehicles torch several units in succession attempting to charge it same turn.

very much this. I've seen this so many times. Everyone in internet land somehow accepted that every DS or long charge will automatically make it every time. When you do make that 9+ charge it certainly has an impact, but it will be few and far between their occurrence.

Serious question,
Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?

Zustiur wrote:
Serious question,
Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?

No. The Flamer template was 8" long, so still too short for deepstrike. Overwatching with a template would be - oh wait, d6 auto hits.

All it would change is if you somehow got a unit within 8" of an enemy unit, and placed the flamer template over them, you could get I would say between 1 and 6 models underneath it (depending on coherency, etc)...

... so it's essentially the same.

EXCEPT:

You've just lengthened your opponent's entire movement phase, as now he has to make sure all of his models are exactly 2" apart, and lengthened your own shooting phase over whether or not you clip a friendly model's base with the template or not, and also lengthened the amount of time it takes to resolve the weapon, as now players must bend over the table and argue whether or not a sliver of a given base is touched or not (sometimes with shaking hands).

 Fafnir wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Just make them cost 5points again, problem solved.

A storm bolter is considerably better and costs 2 points. A bolter is better and costs 0 points.

A bolter is not better. A bolter on overwatch is 0.167. A flamer is 1.75. An order of magnitude stronger.
A rapid fire bolter is otherwise half as good.

If you make flamers as cheap or cheaper than stormbolters and find out that you've just made assault really difficult. People need to stop and consider the implications of super cheap flamers on super cheap models.

People don't use flamers, because there are so few strong assault armies floating around. Once tyranids and blood angels get some traction it will change.

Make flamers 9". Deepstrike is "more than 9", which means flamers wouldn't screw over that part and would cut down on chargers avoiding them. Drop them by a point - MAYBE two. Any give them some 10+ model mechanic.

Half these suggestions are why most of you should not balance this game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zustiur wrote:
Serious question,
Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?

No. The Flamer template was 8" long, so still too short for deepstrike. Overwatching with a template would be - oh wait, d6 auto hits.

All it would change is if you somehow got a unit within 8" of an enemy unit, and placed the flamer template over them, you could get I would say between 1 and 6 models underneath it (depending on coherency, etc)...

... so it's essentially the same.

EXCEPT:

You've just lengthened your opponent's entire movement phase, as now he has to make sure all of his models are exactly 2" apart, and lengthened your own shooting phase over whether or not you clip a friendly model's base with the template or not, and also lengthened the amount of time it takes to resolve the weapon, as now players must bend over the table and argue whether or not a sliver of a given base is touched or not (sometimes with shaking hands).

This is the exact same argument I make when locals complain about the removal of templates. The game is much better now that they are gone. Only negative drawback from the change is them being better against single models rather than units that the weapon type is actually designed for. Maybe just adding in a slight rule that if the target is a single model then it only does half hits rounding up?

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zustiur wrote:
Serious question,
Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?

No. The Flamer template was 8" long, so still too short for deepstrike. Overwatching with a template would be - oh wait, d6 auto hits.

All it would change is if you somehow got a unit within 8" of an enemy unit, and placed the flamer template over them, you could get I would say between 1 and 6 models underneath it (depending on coherency, etc)...

... so it's essentially the same.

EXCEPT:

You've just lengthened your opponent's entire movement phase, as now he has to make sure all of his models are exactly 2" apart, and lengthened your own shooting phase over whether or not you clip a friendly model's base with the template or not, and also lengthened the amount of time it takes to resolve the weapon, as now players must bend over the table and argue whether or not a sliver of a given base is touched or not (sometimes with shaking hands).

This is the exact same argument I make when locals complain about the removal of templates. The game is much better now that they are gone. Only negative drawback from the change is them being better against single models rather than units that the weapon type is actually designed for. Maybe just adding in a slight rule that if the target is a single model then it only does half hits rounding up?

Why?
It never made sense that a Battlecannon (for example) did so little damage to tanks and carnifexes. Let's say we have a 7th edition Baneblade cannon - Str 9, AP2, 10" Apocalyptic Blast. And we have our regular old 7th edition lascannon, str 9 AP 2, 1 shot.

Which one would be more devastating against, say, a Carnifex? Or even a Leman Russ?

That example alone is why it never made sense to me that blast weapons did only one hit to 1 model units. Presumably, a shell penetrating the carapace and then detonating in an "apocalyptic blast" is a tad more damaging than a laser searing a hole in the same area. I think the extra hits on a single model from formerly "blast" weapons reflects this nicely.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zustiur wrote:
Serious question,
Would bringing back templates resolve this issue?

No. The Flamer template was 8" long, so still too short for deepstrike. Overwatching with a template would be - oh wait, d6 auto hits.

All it would change is if you somehow got a unit within 8" of an enemy unit, and placed the flamer template over them, you could get I would say between 1 and 6 models underneath it (depending on coherency, etc)...

... so it's essentially the same.

EXCEPT:

You've just lengthened your opponent's entire movement phase, as now he has to make sure all of his models are exactly 2" apart, and lengthened your own shooting phase over whether or not you clip a friendly model's base with the template or not, and also lengthened the amount of time it takes to resolve the weapon, as now players must bend over the table and argue whether or not a sliver of a given base is touched or not (sometimes with shaking hands).

This is the exact same argument I make when locals complain about the removal of templates. The game is much better now that they are gone. Only negative drawback from the change is them being better against single models rather than units that the weapon type is actually designed for. Maybe just adding in a slight rule that if the target is a single model then it only does half hits rounding up?

I still liked scattering plates into units.

M.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Just make them cost 5points again, problem solved.

A storm bolter is considerably better and costs 2 points. A bolter is better and costs 0 points.

A bolter is not better. A bolter on overwatch is 0.167. A flamer is 1.75. An order of magnitude stronger.
A rapid fire bolter is otherwise half as good.

If you make flamers as cheap or cheaper than stormbolters and find out that you've just made assault really difficult. People need to stop and consider the implications of super cheap flamers on super cheap models.

People don't use flamers, because there are so few strong assault armies floating around. Once tyranids and blood angels get some traction it will change.

Make flamers 9". Deepstrike is "more than 9", which means flamers wouldn't screw over that part and would cut down on chargers avoiding them. Drop them by a point - MAYBE two. Any give them some 10+ model mechanic.

Half these suggestions are why most of you should not balance this game.

It doesn't matter how many wounds a flamer does if your opponent never lets you shoot it. It's very easy to walk around a flamer, or position yourself for charges that avoid the special weapon user in the squad. A flamer is lucky if it gets to fire once per game.

If you're expecting one flamer to do the job you're doing it wrong.