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.

And have flamers lose the ability to hose down small units or single models? I'll pass.

They just need to fix the cost of Flamers so that they aren't totally overcosted compared to Storm Bolters.

 alextroy wrote:
And have flamers lose the ability to hose down small units or single models? I'll pass.

They just need to fix the cost of Flamers so that they aren't totally overcosted compared to Storm Bolters.

Even if it was 0 points, I'd still take a regular old bolter over one.

 alextroy wrote:
And have flamers lose the ability to hose down small units or single models? I'll pass.

They just need to fix the cost of Flamers so that they aren't totally overcosted compared to Storm Bolters.

\

So change it to this? The thing is they aren't doing that now. And if you drop points of them they just become better MEQ killers.

Flamer 8" Assault 2D6 S4 AP0 D1 This weapon automatically hits its target. It cannot generate more hits than there are models in the target unit when shooting infantry.

You won't get to flame out a single infantry character, but you can toast vehicles and monsters.

I'd say leave the flamer's stats and range as-is, but reduce the cost to 5 points. Really all SM special weapons except Plasma need a price drop, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I'd say leave the flamer's stats and range as-is, but reduce the cost to 5 points. Really all SM special weapons except Plasma need a price drop, but that's a discussion for another thread.

That's still 5 points more than it should cost.

Table wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Flamers are to expensive, sure.
But I wouldn't compare them to the Shredder since the latter does not auto hit.

I should have put this in my original post. Would it be better to lose the auto hit on flamers for the range and strength of the shredder?

So basically make flamer just renamed shredder?

Why not make lasgun S4 while at it? And big shoota into heavy 3 S5 -1? And bright lance S9 AP-3 Dd6.

And of course then you are looking at worse weapon vs T3 guys. Even in hands of dark eldar and even more so at the hands of IG soldier.

tneva82 wrote:

Table wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Flamers are to expensive, sure.
But I wouldn't compare them to the Shredder since the latter does not auto hit.

I should have put this in my original post. Would it be better to lose the auto hit on flamers for the range and strength of the shredder?

So basically make flamer just renamed shredder?

Why not make lasgun S4 while at it? And big shoota into heavy 3 S5 -1? And bright lance S9 AP-3 Dd6.

And of course then you are looking at worse weapon vs T3 guys. Even in hands of dark eldar and even more so at the hands of IG soldier.

It is one way to fix it. Your lasgun example has no bearing on this discussion. The fact is, to me anyway, that the shredder performs the function of a flamer better than a flamer. Perhaps its profile or one akin to it is the way to go forward. Not sure what you do not understand about this question.

Flamers are simply too expensive. Make them 5points again. I'd take them with that price.

Maybe also include a rule that they do 2D6 hits against units with more than 10 models. Apparently we need more anti-horde weapons in the game and the flamer should be it.

Overall the transition of most template weapons wasn't handled very successfully. Many small template weapons have become useful again, but the large template and flamer weapons most of the time are weaker now. They should have implemented a scaling for these weapons (they did with few units, I know). +1D3 for every 5models in the target unit for example.

An issue with threshold rules on the number of models in the target unit is that light infantry don't always come in big squads. Infantry Squads can come with 9 models. Fire and Kabalite Warriors come in squads of 5. This is especially a concern with close-range weapons because your target has probably taken some fire on previous turns and won't be at its full starting strength.

Table wrote:

It is one way to fix it. Your lasgun example has no bearing on this discussion. The fact is, to me anyway, that the shredder performs the function of a flamer better than a flamer. Perhaps its profile or one akin to it is the way to go forward. Not sure what you do not understand about this question.

Again, the math is pretty clear that the shredder is not an anti-horde weapon. This is entirely the wrong way to go if that's what you want.

Table wrote:
It is one way to fix it. Your lasgun example has no bearing on this discussion. The fact is, to me anyway, that the shredder performs the function of a flamer better than a flamer. Perhaps its profile or one akin to it is the way to go forward. Not sure what you do not understand about this question.

Rather than fix weapon you are just making 2 weapons identical. So let's change lasgun identical to bolter. Actually let's change all weapons into identical. No more problems.

And the two weapons even have distinct differences in use. Flamer is better vs T3(even with eldar. With IG and their 4+ to hit this would make the weapon even worse) and turn weapon from one that threatens chargers into one that is ignored. Shredder isn't even better against T4. It's about identical in hands of BS3+ guy and obviously would be WORSE in the hands of 4+. Extra range is thus only advantage it has but flamer shouldn't be 12" range weapon. It's always been SHORT ranged weapon.

Just fix the weapon. Issues are a) it hits flyers b) it is too expensive.

Table wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Table wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Flamers are to expensive, sure.
But I wouldn't compare them to the Shredder since the latter does not auto hit.

I should have put this in my original post. Would it be better to lose the auto hit on flamers for the range and strength of the shredder?

Shredders aren't flamers, since you didn't seem to get the hint the first time. Might as well ask if it should have the stats of a Butcher Cannon.

I am not saying they are. I am comparing the shredder, that has a similar function and target units to flamers who also have the same targeting profiles (Light Infantry). And would it be better for flamers to drop the auto hit for the shredder stat line. Its a question. But thanks for the snark.

No, you don't get it.
The reason to take flamer is the auto hit. The shredder does not have auto hit. it does not have a similar function.
if I merely want to clear light infantry I don't get a flamer. I get heavy bolters, assault cannons or just a f* load of of lasguns.

Dionysodorus wrote:
An issue with threshold rules on the number of models in the target unit is that light infantry don't always come in big squads. Infantry Squads can come with 9 models. Fire and Kabalite Warriors come in squads of 5. This is especially a concern with close-range weapons because your target has probably taken some fire on previous turns and won't be at its full starting strength.

Table wrote:

It is one way to fix it. Your lasgun example has no bearing on this discussion. The fact is, to me anyway, that the shredder performs the function of a flamer better than a flamer. Perhaps its profile or one akin to it is the way to go forward. Not sure what you do not understand about this question.

Again, the math is pretty clear that the shredder is not an anti-horde weapon. This is entirely the wrong way to go if that's what you want.

I sometimes wonder if you ever play Warhammer or just theoryhammer. The Shredder is meant as an anti horde weapon and is better at that than most of our other weapon options, it's just also very good against any infantry unit.

 Imateria wrote:

I sometimes wonder if you ever play Warhammer or just theoryhammer. The Shredder is meant as an anti horde weapon and is better at that than most of our other weapon options, it's just also very good against any infantry unit.

I'm not sure what you think we disagree on. Sure, shredders kill more Guardsmen than most other single weapons that DE have access to, and are relatively efficient at the job compared to other Eldar weapons. That's because they're just overall very powerful. Like I said, Eldar in general lack anti-horde weaponry. DE in particular are stuck with a bunch of poison weapons that are particularly bad against T3. Wyches are just about the only things in the codex that are close to being specialized for killing GEQs.

The issue is that an army with enough shredders to deal with Guardsmen is simply going to crush an army with a bunch of elite infantry. Your weird theoryhammer dig aside, that's just how the weapon profile works. Shredders kill more points of Marines in cover than they do of Guardsmen in the open. Like, if everything that could take flamers could instead take battle cannons for 1 point, you'd also see a ton of those being used to kill GEQs. But GEQs would still dominate the game because they'd still be the worst possible target for these weapons -- you'd rather shoot a battle cannon at just about anything else. Likewise a shredder always wants to be firing at something a lot beefier than a Guardsman, but you'll shoot a Guardsman if there's no better target and it's a cheap enough gun that it still works okay against a horde. This is basically the plasma problem all over again. Plasma is specialized for two wound models, but it's still good enough against a broad range of targets that people spam it and rely on it for killing vehicles and MEQs. But if an army is struggling to deal with MEQs it's kind of silly to suggest that what it really needs is more S8 multi-damage shooting. Yeah, you can price that such that it fixes the MEQ problem, but you've made matchups vs anything bigger than MEQs ridiculously one-sided. And this is mostly what we do see with DE, right? In casual games you just see them crush elite armies. I bet that the reason the OP has the impression that everything in the DE book is too cheap is that it really is, if you're in a meta where there's a lot of elite infantry. But DE stuff has to be this cheap in order for them to have a chance of dealing with hordes, since their weapon profiles are all kind of stupidly specialized towards killing bigger things.

Personally I'd like to see flamers be 3+D3 shots and make them a strait 6 hits hits if over 10 models. Or some variation of that. However most likely id like to see this if the price is the same

D6 8" S 4 Ap 0 This weapon automatically hits its target. If the target unit has over 10 models it causes 6 hits instead

Dionysodorus wrote:
I'm not sure what you think we disagree on. Sure, shredders kill more Guardsmen than most other single weapons that DE have access to, and are relatively efficient at the job compared to other Eldar weapons. That's because they're just overall very powerful. Like I said, Eldar in general lack anti-horde weaponry. DE in particular are stuck with a bunch of poison weapons that are particularly bad against T3. Wyches are just about the only things in the codex that are close to being specialized for killing GEQs.

The disagreement and theorycrafting dig is because you are offering a very weird argument that because Shredders are "better" against Marines than GEQ they are not the anti-horde choice.
I mean sure they are better vs MEQ - but so what? The problem is that due to the way points and stats work everything is better at killing Marines than GEQ.
I guess Wyches are close - if you take bags of S3 attacks (why would you?) but even then they are 8.3% more efficient vs MEQ than GEQ. At S4 they become 22% more efficient.

Against say Orks do you want to take Shredders or do you want to take Blasters? If you could take flamers instead would you take them? No, because shredders are better at everything except overwatch, which due to the stupid "can't flame them as they run in" decision, flamers don't even get to fire half the time. Also they are cheaper, for reasons.

If a weapon has to be markedly better against GEQ than MEQ you end up concluding there are no anti-horde weapons in the game. Some weapon which dealt huge numbers of S2 hits would qualify - but even then it wouldn't be a huge difference.

I don't think point cost reduction will make flamers significantly better.

IMO the problem is that they don't generate enough shots. Even if flamers were free, the cost of the carrier unit is still immense. Looking at CSM, there are Raptors (85pts) and Bikes (75pts) that can carry 3 flamers per unit and Chosen can carry 5 or 6 but need a rhino, which makes a combined 150 pts for 5 flamers.

Against T3 with 5+ save, each flamer hit kills 0.44 wounds, so killing 10 models of such a unit 22 hits or about 6 flamers. With free flamers, thats still 150pts of flamer carrying units to kill 40-100pts of light infantry. If flamers did 7 hits on average at the same price, one flamer carrying unit can more or less kill 10 light infanterist for about 110 or 120 points.

Depends on the GEQ and MEQ. And cover/non.

Tac Marines, for instance, are slightly less survivable than Guardsmen to S3AP0 outside cover. But more survivable than Kabs, and much more survivable than Guardians or Corsairs. It's not true that S3 attacks are more efficient at killing MEQ than GEQ units.

What Guardsmen do is die in droves. Sure, they are overtuned/undercosted. But if their schtick is that they give up fewer points per kill, shouldn't they be less efficient to kill than a Tac Marine, who's schtick is supposed to be that they're OK at everything? It's not tuned right, but Guardsmen should give up fewer points vs the same firepower.

Remember that many GEQ cost a heck of a lot more than 4ppm.

Back to the thread topic, the reason it needs to be pointed out that Shredderes are more anti-MEQ than anti-GEQ is that, unlike S4AP0 which kills GEQ better than MEQ, Shredders kill MEQ better than GEQ. Under the premise of 'Is this how Flamers and other anti-horde weapons should work', that's a very damning statement. If you suddenly replaced all the "anti-horde" weapons - or even just the Flamers - with Shredder-style rules, MEQ (which already have it bad) will then have it much worse. Sure, you could then put one on a Marine, but you could also put one on a Guardian or Guardsmen.

Yes, the Flamer is underwhelming. Yes, Marines are UP and Guardsmen are OP. But replacing Flamers with Shredders is a *terrible* idea.

 alextroy wrote:
And have flamers lose the ability to hose down small units or single models? I'll pass.

They just need to fix the cost of Flamers so that they aren't totally overcosted compared to Storm Bolters.

This mentality is what I don't get, why should any template weapon be the ultimate anti charictor weapon, it might be the way the rules are in 8th but its so broken it's not even funny anymore.

There's been a number of Proposed Rules. The most popular was limiting former Templates (and/or former Blasts) to limit hits to the number of models in the target.

Clearly, the Flamer would also need a buff - not just to compensate, but to bring it up a bit.

Someone upthread said Assault 2d6, autohit, limited to number of models in unit. I love that idea.

Flamers don't suck - 8" range does.

Not being able to be used against targets charging from Deep Strike is a death sentence for the weapon. The ONE thing they're supposed to be good at, deterring chargers, and it can't be used against the most common form of charge.

Tyel wrote:

The disagreement and theorycrafting dig is because you are offering a very weird argument that because Shredders are "better" against Marines than GEQ they are not the anti-horde choice.
I mean sure they are better vs MEQ - but so what? The problem is that due to the way points and stats work everything is better at killing Marines than GEQ.
I guess Wyches are close - if you take bags of S3 attacks (why would you?) but even then they are 8.3% more efficient vs MEQ than GEQ. At S4 they become 22% more efficient.

Against say Orks do you want to take Shredders or do you want to take Blasters? If you could take flamers instead would you take them? No, because shredders are better at everything except overwatch, which due to the stupid "can't flame them as they run in" decision, flamers don't even get to fire half the time. Also they are cheaper, for reasons.

If a weapon has to be markedly better against GEQ than MEQ you end up concluding there are no anti-horde weapons in the game. Some weapon which dealt huge numbers of S2 hits would qualify - but even then it wouldn't be a huge difference.

I don't think I ever said anywhere that shredders aren't an anti-horde weapon because they're more point-efficient against Marines than against GEQs. I did point out that they're actually more efficient against Marines in cover than Guardsmen in the open, which is just a tad more extreme than the issue you're pointing out with S3 AP0 attacks being mildly more efficient vs T4 3+ than T3 5+. I'm a little confused at your confusion because if you read my post past the bit you quoted I explain in detail the issue here. I agree with your post pretty much entirely, and I think you've not been very careful in reading my posts if you thought I wouldn't.

To really try to boil it down: Shredders are a particularly specialized anti-MEQ weapon. Yes, to some extent basically everything is better against GEQs than MEQs, but the degree of specialization is obviously important. You feel much better shooting bolters at GEQs than you do shooting plasma guns at them. Right? It's just kind of silly to say that we've got this thing which is supposed to be an anti-horde weapon, but it's not good enough, so let's increase its strength and AP and have it re-roll wounds. All of these changes would make it less of an anti-horde weapon, though obviously it would be better in an absolute sense vs hordes if you buff it without increasing its price. You could make flamers S9, AP-4, and flat 6 damage and that would be even better against hordes, but I hope you'd agree that at that point it's very obviously not an anti-horde weapon. My claim is that if you want to change flamers, you should probably do so in a way that doesn't drastically increase their relative effectiveness vs MEQs. Do you actually disagree with this?

Dionysodorus wrote:
I don't think I ever said anywhere that shredders aren't an anti-horde weapon because they're more point-efficient against Marines than against GEQs. I did point out that they're actually more efficient against Marines in cover than Guardsmen in the open, which is just a tad more extreme than the issue you're pointing out with S3 AP0 attacks being mildly more efficient vs T4 3+ than T3 5+. I'm a little confused at your confusion because if you read my post past the bit you quoted I explain in detail the issue here. I agree with your post pretty much entirely, and I think you've not been very careful in reading my posts if you thought I wouldn't.

To really try to boil it down: Shredders are a particularly specialized anti-MEQ weapon. Yes, to some extent basically everything is better against GEQs than MEQs, but the degree of specialization is obviously important. You feel much better shooting bolters at GEQs than you do shooting plasma guns at them. Right? It's just kind of silly to say that we've got this thing which is supposed to be an anti-horde weapon, but it's not good enough, so let's increase its strength and AP and have it re-roll wounds. All of these changes would make it less of an anti-horde weapon, though obviously it would be better in an absolute sense vs hordes if you buff it without increasing its price. You could make flamers S9, AP-4, and flat 6 damage and that would be even better against hordes, but I hope you'd agree that at that point it's very obviously not an anti-horde weapon. My claim is that if you want to change flamers, you should probably do so in a way that doesn't drastically increase their relative effectiveness vs MEQs. Do you actually disagree with this?

I think I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think the point matters that much. What I am trying to say is that the shredder is the only weapon DE kabalites, scourge etc have which increases their efficiency versus horde infantry. Kabalites with shredders will do more damage to infantry than the same points in pure splinter rifles. They are certainly a lot more efficient than blasters. Sure its even more efficient versus MEQ than versus Guardsmen - but that doesn't change that you are still at a level of efficiency which is fine. A Shredder with a Kabalite will do 54% of his points in damage to Guardsmen. The same in pure splinter rifles will do about 30%. This ignores the issues of getting into 12" range, which may be a prove a challenge, but go with it)

It might not be strictly anti-horde but its the only tool you have and its at a competitive level of efficiency. The fact you are getting 96% return versus MEQ doesn't devalue that. In terms of tournaments it just makes it even more attractive because you are likely to face both - in the same game.
I guess you could argue scourge are borderline (37% on the model itself vs guardsmen) - but this does still beat 30%. This gets even better versus Kabalites, Fire Warriors, Guardians etc.

I guess my big disagreement - which has come up across numerous threads - is this idea that DE suffer disproportionately with hordes. I don't think they do. They might do if you build an old school list, with lots of blasters floating around inefficient Venoms backed up by lance carriers - but there are plenty of tools that are fine against hordes. Kabalites alone are okay. The Dark Eldar Codex is just mathematically stronger than a lot of codexes that have come out. Kind of like the Shredder - the Codex is good enough against Hordes, and incredibly good versus more elite armies.

I mean I like it because DE were awful all through 7th (and not exactly good before then) and its nice, for at least 6 months, to be the Necrons or Eldar of the edition (Necrons starting off incredibly strong and then fading with new releases). This is sort of pure theorycraft - backed by playing games - but those codexes were just better, and I don't see why people should pretend DE are not top tier right now. 40k is largely applied probability - if your numbers are better than your opponents odds are you are going to come out ahead.

Spoletta wrote:


Also, anti-horde firepower in the game is hardly lacking, it's called bolter

Are you even playing this game ?
You need 27 bolter shots to kill 10 gaunts. That is almost 14 marines at rapid fire range to kill a little 10 gaunts squad. How is that anti horde firepower ? At least before they had AP...
That's about 80 bolter shots to kill a single full squad of termagants...

 Crimson wrote:
This is how to fix the flamer:

Flamer 8" Assault 2D6 S4 AP0 D1 This weapon automatically hits its target. It cannot generate more hits than there are models in the target unit.

I'd go with "Blast" instead of "assault" and apply it to every weapon that used to be a template weapon before 8th (or maybe assault for non heavy blasts, and blasts for heavy weapons?)

Table wrote:
We all know (or should) that everything in the Deldar codex is to cheap. But that is here nor there. I am actually glad the Deldar got a top level codex as I have always liked the army. The one and only thing that really irked me when I read the codex is how good Shredders are when comparing to flamers of all stripes and the fact it is only 8 points. It is no secret that the meta favors blobs of cheap infantry. And it is also no secret that why things are this way is anti-horde infantry firepower is abysmal in 8th. Flamers are over priced and to short ranged. Warp Flamers are 15 points for sub shredder stats and range making them the most visible example of the current problem with flamers.

So what is everyones thoughts on the Shredder and is it the way to move forward with fixing flamers? Is str 6 wounding T3 infantry on 2's the way to go? Or a big points drop? Perhaps the 12 inch range would fix things. Or maybe all three. I am not advocating for a nerf to the shredder. I am just holding it to light as a example of where flamers should be. What are everyones thoughts?

Flamers auto hit, shredders dont. Ignoring tat in your assessment makes no sense at all. Of course a shredder is better when you ignore it still has to roll to hit.

What all weapons need that have random hits(old edition temate weapons) they do more hits against larger units. Like if 10+ models instead of d3 or d6 hits they do 2d3 or 2d6. Or maybe roll two dice for number of attacks and pick highest.

 Imateria wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
An issue with threshold rules on the number of models in the target unit is that light infantry don't always come in big squads. Infantry Squads can come with 9 models. Fire and Kabalite Warriors come in squads of 5. This is especially a concern with close-range weapons because your target has probably taken some fire on previous turns and won't be at its full starting strength.

Table wrote:

It is one way to fix it. Your lasgun example has no bearing on this discussion. The fact is, to me anyway, that the shredder performs the function of a flamer better than a flamer. Perhaps its profile or one akin to it is the way to go forward. Not sure what you do not understand about this question.

Again, the math is pretty clear that the shredder is not an anti-horde weapon. This is entirely the wrong way to go if that's what you want.

I sometimes wonder if you ever play Warhammer or just theoryhammer. The Shredder is meant as an anti horde weapon and is better at that than most of our other weapon options, it's just also very good against any infantry unit.

But until you run against t5 horde it is not better than flamer at that. And against say ig worse. And in hands of ig it would be even worse.

Why "impove" flamer by making it worse anti horde weapon?

Shredder might be better anti horde weapon than other de weapons but it is not better than flamer. Unless you are talking about t5 or better horde


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

Against say Orks do you want to take Shredders or do you want to take Blasters? If you could take flamers instead would you take them? No, because shredders are better at everything except overwatch, which due to the stupid "can't flame them as they run in" decision, flamers don't even get to fire half the time. Also they are cheaper, for reasons.

If a weapon has to be markedly better against GEQ than MEQ you end up concluding there are no anti-horde weapons in the game. Some weapon which dealt huge numbers of S2 hits would qualify - but even then it wouldn't be a huge difference.

Flamers. Normal shooting identical, better in overwatch.

Even more obvious when talking about ig guys. Note topic is about flamer should have identical stats to shredder. In that case bs4 makes it way worse vs orks than current flamer without even factoring overwatch.


And if flamer makes enemy charge over 8" then job well done

Tyel wrote:

I think I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think the point matters that much. What I am trying to say is that the shredder is the only weapon DE kabalites, scourge etc have which increases their efficiency versus horde infantry. Kabalites with shredders will do more damage to infantry than the same points in pure splinter rifles. They are certainly a lot more efficient than blasters. Sure its even more efficient versus MEQ than versus Guardsmen - but that doesn't change that you are still at a level of efficiency which is fine. A Shredder with a Kabalite will do 54% of his points in damage to Guardsmen. The same in pure splinter rifles will do about 30%. This ignores the issues of getting into 12" range, which may be a prove a challenge, but go with it)

It might not be strictly anti-horde but its the only tool you have and its at a competitive level of efficiency. The fact you are getting 96% return versus MEQ doesn't devalue that. In terms of tournaments it just makes it even more attractive because you are likely to face both - in the same game.
I guess you could argue scourge are borderline (37% on the model itself vs guardsmen) - but this does still beat 30%. This gets even better versus Kabalites, Fire Warriors, Guardians etc.

I guess my big disagreement - which has come up across numerous threads - is this idea that DE suffer disproportionately with hordes. I don't think they do. They might do if you build an old school list, with lots of blasters floating around inefficient Venoms backed up by lance carriers - but there are plenty of tools that are fine against hordes. Kabalites alone are okay. The Dark Eldar Codex is just mathematically stronger than a lot of codexes that have come out. Kind of like the Shredder - the Codex is good enough against Hordes, and incredibly good versus more elite armies.

I mean I like it because DE were awful all through 7th (and not exactly good before then) and its nice, for at least 6 months, to be the Necrons or Eldar of the edition (Necrons starting off incredibly strong and then fading with new releases). This is sort of pure theorycraft - backed by playing games - but those codexes were just better, and I don't see why people should pretend DE are not top tier right now. 40k is largely applied probability - if your numbers are better than your opponents odds are you are going to come out ahead.

Yeah, to be clear, I agree with this. This is what I was trying to say two posts ago with "In casual games you just see them crush elite armies. I bet that the reason the OP has the impression that everything in the DE book is too cheap is that it really is, if you're in a meta where there's a lot of elite infantry. But DE stuff has to be this cheap in order for them to have a chance of dealing with hordes, since their weapon profiles are all kind of stupidly specialized towards killing bigger things."

I've argued in the DE Tactics thread that regular Warriors are just really, really good, and give Infantry a run for their money in a firefight (once you take morale into account). But just looking at splinter rifles, obviously they don't actually want to be shooting at T3, right? If a Kabalite horde can put up a reasonable fight against an Infantry horde, then Marines are just doomed. Death Guard shouldn't bother getting out of bed. I'm trying to distinguish the absolute power level of a weapon or unit from what it's actually specialized for killing. You can crank anything up to 11 and it'll win games against anything else, and that's what had to be done with DE in order for them to work in a GEQ meta since for some reason GW was unwilling to give them some solid specialist anti-horde options (other than Wyches, but there are issues here).

Then again without shredders etc well made de will wipeout orks no problem so claiming they struggle with hordes is bit...

Ice_can wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
And have flamers lose the ability to hose down small units or single models? I'll pass.

They just need to fix the cost of Flamers so that they aren't totally overcosted compared to Storm Bolters.

This mentality is what I don't get, why should any template weapon be the ultimate anti charictor weapon, it might be the way the rules are in 8th but its so broken it's not even funny anymore.

In 8th Edition, Templates lost the ability to create massive number of hits over a number of units. Now they can only hit one unit. I'm not willing to give up my new ability to hit that one unit really hard.

 alextroy wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
And have flamers lose the ability to hose down small units or single models? I'll pass.

They just need to fix the cost of Flamers so that they aren't totally overcosted compared to Storm Bolters.

This mentality is what I don't get, why should any template weapon be the ultimate anti charictor weapon, it might be the way the rules are in 8th but its so broken it's not even funny anymore.

In 8th Edition, Templates lost the ability to create massive number of hits over a number of units. Now they can only hit one unit. I'm not willing to give up my new ability to hit that one unit really hard.

If you were hitting multiple units with templates your opponents were not positioning properly.
So you want yet more weapons that are better against MSU and individual models than against hoards. Which does not help in anyway with the issue of GEQ spam that just can't be counted by anything other than GEQ spam with the current rules.

8th edition weapons are a mess and need a rewrite to make them function properly.