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 looking at picking up a couple of units of aggressors with the flamestorm gauntlets. Even though they're MV 5" I just don't see getting them up field very quickly. Using their taxi looks ridiculous since it can only hold 3 of them and is very expensive points wise. Any of the place them on the board effects puts them at least 9" away and that's not good for them.
Should I just give up on them or is there some way to make them useful?

I was thinking of using 3 units and Vulkan as a vanguard detachment.

Remember they can advance d6 and shoot without penalty.

They're not a fast attack option though.

I've had limited experience with a unit of 6 Aggressors following Azrael around. I've never used the flamestorm gauntlets because, frankly, I can't think of a way to make them useful. Even with advancing every turn, there's no way you're going to catch up to anything worth flaming before turn 3. I suppose road blocking and area denial is a use in and of itself, but that's a pretty expensive and fragile unit to spend on walling off a small chunk of board. As soon as they get danger close, count on them dying.

With boltstorms, the situation is much better. 18" range means you're at least going to be in range of something with some aggressive deployment and an advance roll. They may not be fancy, but they sure do drop a lot of firepower. I know Salamanders are all about flames and whatnot, but you're going to sacrifice a whole lot of effectiveness that way.

The flamer option is unfortunately trash at the moment. The best ways to deliver them are
1.) as ravenguard using strike from the shadows -flamers could work here, but are worse than standing still and shooting twice if you go first, and are harder to hide in useful spots when going second.
2.) as space wolves- out flanking, again bolters only in this approach
3.) white scars running up the field, basically makes them minimum move 8" usually closer to 10-11". But again bolters are best.

It would be nice if flamers could work, but their transport is too expensive and range is too short. So since they are the more expensive variety I see no reason you would run them.

1) Use Strike from the shadows

2) Don't use the flamers. They are useless

pismakron wrote:
1) Use Strike from the shadows

2) Don't use the flamers. They are useless

Errrrr, I think if you know your opponent running all Genestealer / Blood letter / Daemonette list while have very few shooting, the Flamer Aggressors might be useful.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

pismakron wrote:
1) Use Strike from the shadows

2) Don't use the flamers. They are useless

Errrrr, I think if you know your opponent running all Genestealer / Blood letter / Daemonette list while have very few shooting, the Flamer Aggressors might be useful.

If your opponent runs that kind of list, there is a big chance that you will be assaulted out of reserves, thus not getting any overwatch with your flamers. No really, the flamers suck.

pismakron wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:

pismakron wrote:
1) Use Strike from the shadows

2) Don't use the flamers. They are useless

Errrrr, I think if you know your opponent running all Genestealer / Blood letter / Daemonette list while have very few shooting, the Flamer Aggressors might be useful.

If your opponent runs that kind of list, there is a big chance that you will be assaulted out of reserves, thus not getting any overwatch with your flamers. No really, the flamers suck.

This is, sadly, true. Flamers cost more than bolters and do much, much less. Even if you get within 8" the flamers average 7 hits, while the bolters average 6.33. That extra two thirds of an extra hit isn't worth losing 10" of range and paying more points for.

Consider someone deep strikes a unit of bloodletters 9" away. Bolter aggressors can pop auspex scan and kill nearly two bloodletters each before they even begin to charge. Flamers will do nothing.

Aggressors with bolter gauntlets are just a quite good unit all-round. There's quite a lot you can do to make them better (like SfTS or outflank) but they are worth having without either.

If you really, really want to use them then 5 flamer guys in a repulsor (5, not 3, fit inside it) then it could do some good. Salamanders ones will do a bunch of damage, and +1 to wound is very good (it lets them wound most tanks on a 4+ even).

Repulsors are very expensive, but it's wrong to think of them just as transports. They have really serious firepower and durability. They fly, which makes them very difficult to shut down - indeed I often charge mine into other people's tanks to prevent them from shooting at me. I run a couple of repulsors and I'm very happy with them. They combo very well with aggressors and hellblasters, and also give me a place to put my characters so as to reduce my number of deployment drops.

Is your average hit based on 2 d6 or 4 d6? Because each flamer gets fired and you get 2 flamers per model (which averages 14 hits per model). And if they didn't move then they get to double that amount to an average of 28 hits per model. If you have 3 models being charged then you'd get, on average 84 hits from the unit. It's numbers like that that made me interested in them. I'd be interested in the math to see the wound numbers on both overwatch and on attacking.

I ran the numbers myself and here's what I came up with: (unit size 3)
Attacking with flamers vs T4 save 3+ having moved hits 12d6 x 3.5 = 42 hits wds = 42 x .5 x .34 = 7.14 wds x2 if they haven't moved
attacking with bolters " 36 x .66 = 23.76 hits wds = 23.7 x .5 x .34 =4.03 wds
Over watch flamers same as above
overwatch bolters 36 x .16= 6 wds = 6 x .5 x .34= 1.02 wds

It seems like once you get into firing range the flamers are far superior.

Thanks though for showing me that they can come in more than groupings of 3. I hadn't notice that on my initial read through and the boxes only come in 3's.

Each model has one pair of flamestorm gauntlets, thus can expect to land 7 hits on average.

But if you are charged out of reserves, the flamers are not in range to shoot at all. They will do zero hits. So how do you suppose to get them to double-tap? Do you expect your opponent to just helpfully move his units within 9", and then stand still?

That's what screens are for, to stop something a certain distance from some other thing.

pismakron wrote:
Each model has one pair of flamestorm gauntlets, thus can expect to land 7 hits on average.

But if you are charged out of reserves, the flamers are not in range to shoot at all. They will do zero hits. So how do you suppose to get them to double-tap? Do you expect your opponent to just helpfully move his units within 9", and then stand still?

Yup the guantlets are a pair so the stat line covers both. If it did not 2 things would happen.

1.) bolter aggressors would have 12 + d6 shots each (they also have 2 gauntlets)
2.) you would be paying for both making aggressors prohibitively expensive.

Without better range or cheaper transport the flamer aggressors are trash.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
That's what screens are for, to stop something a certain distance from some other thing.

Even if that was what screens are for, it still does not explain how you will remain stationary in the movement phase, and still get to shoot at an enemy within 8". It would require an uncommonly stupid opponent.

But if you are intent on trying out the flamer aggressors, you should go ahead. You will realise for yourself, that they will do an average of 7 hits per model.

Among my complaints with flamer aggressors is that they get no benefit from their special rules. They don't care about modifiers to hit when they advance and they almost never get to double fire (it's not impossible, particularly after a combat).

I do think they can be used in a repressor. Yes, the repressor is very expensive, but it's also very shooty. The calculation for a true fighting vehicle with a transport capacity is different to when you're thinking about a rhino for normal marines - which has no function other than as a mobile box.

It is possible to drive a repressor across a battlefield, lascannoning tanks and mowing down infantry as it goes, and then drop off assault troops like aggressors. I'd still use bolter aggressors for all the reasons stated above, but but a set of salamander flamer aggressors in a repulsor is not a completely horrible idea.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

pismakron wrote:
1) Use Strike from the shadows

2) Don't use the flamers. They are useless

Errrrr, I think if you know your opponent running all Genestealer / Blood letter / Daemonette list while have very few shooting, the Flamer Aggressors might be useful.

Even in this scenario, your unit gets an overwatch and then dies. With bolters you get 10” more range, save points, and the extra volume of shots nearly matches the flamers number of hits on average. The flamers are awful, which is a shame because they look badass.

I'm also of the opinion that dakka aggressors are much much better, but it is worth noting that flamer aggressors make better use of the Ultramarines chapter tactic that lets them fall back and shoot. It looks like the OP is running Salamanders, so it doesn't really apply to his question. Still, another fringe case where they could be somewhat decent.

In general though, the fact that they can't overwatch units that charge them outside of 8" just kills their usefulness, since dedicated melee units usually have tricks to help them make long charges (Orks, Daemons, or just standard CP rerolls on anyone). I think flamers should have a special rule that always allows them to overwatch - you're still charging through a jet of flame regardless of how far away you were when you started charging, and it would definitely cement their role as the anti-melee weapon of choice.

Even as a Salamanders player, I coudln't find a way to make these guys worth while. Consider assault centurions in a land raider instead... worked out pretty well for me.

How sad. I really liked the fluff behind the flame gauntlets.I guess it's back to the drawing board.

DraxiusII wrote:
I'm also of the opinion that dakka aggressors are much much better, but it is worth noting that flamer aggressors make better use of the Ultramarines chapter tactic that lets them fall back and shoot. It looks like the OP is running Salamanders, so it doesn't really apply to his question. Still, another fringe case where they could be somewhat decent.

In general though, the fact that they can't overwatch units that charge them outside of 8" just kills their usefulness, since dedicated melee units usually have tricks to help them make long charges (Orks, Daemons, or just standard CP rerolls on anyone). I think flamers should have a special rule that always allows them to overwatch - you're still charging through a jet of flame regardless of how far away you were when you started charging, and it would definitely cement their role as the anti-melee weapon of choice.

i have to agree with something along those lines. If overwatch functioned two different ways it would be a different story;
Charge declared within range of overwatch weapons; fire overwatch.
Charge declared outside of range of overwatch weapons: fire overwatch only if charge is successful.

This would make more sense to me than the current system, and in my opinion is one of the few ways I could see flamer template type weapons not being horribly overpriced in this edition. If this were the case I’d likely field half a dozen flamestorm aggressors.

Walk them next to Azrael.

 axisofentropy wrote:
Walk them next to Azrael.

Yeah Azrael is excellent, for both aggressors and hellblasters. Just a shame he's not a Primaris guy - though you could quite easily convert the new DA lieutenant into him, I expect. Obviously, these would still want to be dakka aggressors to benefit from Azrael's rerolls to hit.

Overall, I think dark angels might be the best army for a largely-Primaris army now. It just happens that their best bonuses and stratagems benefit their best units, and Azrael is a fantastic warlord character. I don't think it's enough for me to start painting my crimson fists green, but it's tempting!

Mandragola wrote:

 axisofentropy wrote:
Walk them next to Azrael.

Yeah Azrael is excellent, for both aggressors and hellblasters. Just a shame he's not a Primaris guy - though you could quite easily convert the new DA lieutenant into him, I expect. Obviously, these would still want to be dakka aggressors to benefit from Azrael's rerolls to hit

I converted the box set captain by tacking on an old plasma pistol. And I emailed a few tournament organizers who said a 40mm base is too large for Azrael but 32mm is ok. (Photo is before I rebased.)

I like that conversion. Pretty simple but super effective and to the point.

Yeah that's cool. You could probably also do it using the normal Primaris captain by sticking a plasma gun to his bolter.

Ultimately, Azrael's equipment isn't anything weird, so he's easy enough to convert. A sword and a bolter/plasma gun can be got easily. I'd use the lieutenant because he's got robes on.

Flamestorm gauntlets work if you run a Repulsor. As noted the grav tank can lay down a lot of Dakka... its suprisingly good.

Repulsors are overcosted significantly. T8 3+ armor is easily neutralized.

Cast MoH on it and watch what happens plus Tiggy can make it -1 to hit.

What do the BA do with it? Also, you need a plan for if you don't go first.

Deathwatch can drop in a jump captain and use their relic to port them in from another part of the map. Could be pretty hilarious with a six man unit.