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.

That way, they have a use as an anti-deepstrike/charge deterrent - as it stands, their uses aren’t worth considering; the game is based entirely around the 9” deepstrike range.

Their offensive potential wouldn’t change (and is a separate discussion), but they’d be a worthwhile investment for units you plan to use as a front line. There’d be counterplay in having the option to make a 10/11" charge, as a price to not eat overwstch from flamers.

fe40k wrote:
That way, they have a use as an anti-deepstrike/charge deterrent - as it stands, their uses aren’t worth considering; the game is based entirely around the 9” deepstrike range.

Their offensive potential wouldn’t change (and is a separate discussion), but they’d be a worthwhile investment for units you plan to use as a front line. There’d be counterplay in having the option to make a 10/11" charge, as a price to not eat overwstch from flamers.

You are correct that the game is based around the 9" deepstrike range.

It is 100% intentional that a weapon that hits automatically is set up to stop working just before the minimum deepstrike distance (in the vast majority of cases. I can only think of one that is larger off the top of my head). There would be no counterplay. A 10/11" charge has such a insignificant chance of happening that nobody would ever attempt it. 9" charge is already less than a 50% chance. Every extra inch above that reduces the chance by a large margin. Flamers are a deterrent against getting within 8" because needing to roll a 7 is a major tipping point. 7 is by far the most probable result when rolling 2d6 which makes the 8" charge the tipping point when you have a more than 50% chance of success. Flamers keep people in the less than 50% range.

I agree with lance. No one will ever voluntarily go for a 10" charge over a 9" charge because of flamers. This wouldn't really encourage interesting decisions so much as it would just be an extra frustration to melee armies going for long charges/deepstrike charges.

This change feels like too niche of a bonus to suddenly give flamers more of a role/make them more worthwhile. If the real issue is the offensive shortcomings of the flamer, then that should be the issue that gets tackled.

There are armies ... *cough* grey knights *cough* ... wholly based in deep strike that are already in a really really bad position

 Lance845 wrote:

You are correct that the game is based around the 9" deepstrike range.

It is 100% intentional that a weapon that hits automatically is set up to stop working just before the minimum deepstrike distance (in the vast majority of cases. I can only think of one that is larger off the top of my head). There would be no counterplay. A 10/11" charge has such a insignificant chance of happening that nobody would ever attempt it. 9" charge is already less than a 50% chance. Every extra inch above that reduces the chance by a large margin. Flamers are a deterrent against getting within 8" because needing to roll a 7 is a major tipping point. 7 is by far the most probable result when rolling 2d6 which makes the 8" charge the tipping point when you have a more than 50% chance of success. Flamers keep people in the less than 50% range.

An excellent analysis. My gut reaction is that flamers not firing in overwatch is silly when considered in terms of narrative. However, when analysed in this way, it seems like anything else would largely be to the detriment of fun, and the narrative should only ever exist as a means to complement fun, not to override it.

Flamers are 8" because in prior editions, they used the tear-drop template that was 8".
Just another example of an 8E redesign hold-over from prior editions with no contemplation for it's implications.
Flamer equivalents in 8E should all be 10-12" period.

Being only d6 shots means you can far fewer hits than in prior editions, therefore the range shouldn't also be such a limitation. 10" minimum gives better chances for overwatch and actually give them purpose for and against 'deep-striking' units
But 12" would be ideal as it would mesh better with most Rapid-Fire weapons that are carried in the same unit

-

Well you got the big knight "flamer" to cook up a whole table square if you feel like it.

 Galef wrote:
Flamers are 8" because in prior editions, they used the tear-drop template that was 8".
Just another example of an 8E redesign hold-over from prior editions with no contemplation for it's implications.
Flamer equivalents in 8E should all be 10-12" period.

Being only d6 shots means you can far fewer hits than in prior editions, therefore the range shouldn't also be such a limitation. 10" minimum gives better chances for overwatch and actually give them purpose for and against 'deep-striking' units
But 12" would be ideal as it would mesh better with most Rapid-Fire weapons that are carried in the same unit

-

But that has been a massive area of contention for a number of former blast and template weapons on the change to 8th.
Some battle cannons made out like bandits and became stupidly powerful in comparison to what they used to do.
While others flamers etc became borderline unplayable, a flamer that actually scaled to 20to 40 model units would be worth some points but as it currently designed it isn't.

A flamer doesn't need more range as it makes deepstriking flamer teams insanely powerful. My sisters with 5 flamers in a squad would be very happy witg extra range as they would murder every charictor they ever meet. The issue is they can't kill volume like they used too.

Given that units cannot drop in until turn 2 in Matched play, extending the range of Flamers to 10" would only help currently bad units. Aside from WrathGuard with D-scythes (which could stay at 8") there are no Flamer units that are that powerful and would hardly be OP.

And units like Sisters that can take multiple flamer could use all the help they can get. Hordes/Chaff/Screens are a big deal in this edition. 10" range flamers could help mitigate that and make flamers actually useful instead of the hot garbage they are now.

-

 Galef wrote:
Given that units cannot drop in until turn 2 in Matched play, extending the range of Flamers to 10" would only help currently bad units. Aside from WrathGuard with D-scythes (which could stay at 8") there are no Flamer units that are that powerful and would hardly be OP.

And units like Sisters that can take multiple flamer could use all the help they can get. Hordes/Chaff/Screens are a big deal in this edition. 10" range flamers could help mitigate that and make flamers actually useful instead of the hot garbage they are now.

-

Make it S3 Assault 2d6 if you want it to be dedicated horde clearer. Only thing it should be good at clearing is T3 spam because apparently that's an issue right now. There are plenty weapns that deal with high Sv, high T, multi W, but not a single weapon dedicated to killing low Sv, low T and 1W models.

Changing S4 AP0 Assault 1d6 to S3 AP0 Assault 2d6, chance to wound:

Against GEQ (T3 Sv+5):
0.44~2.67 to 0.67~4.00
=+0.27~1.33 W's per flamer

Against Eldar/Sisters (T3 Sv+3):
0.22~1.33 to 0.33~2.00
=+0.11~0.66 W's per flamer

Against Boyz Equiv. (T4 Sv+6):
0.41~2.50 to 0.55~3.33
=+0.14~0.83 W's per flamer

Against MEQ (T4 Sv+3):
0.16~1.00 to 0.22~1.33
=+0.06~0.33 W's per flamer

 skchsan wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Given that units cannot drop in until turn 2 in Matched play, extending the range of Flamers to 10" would only help currently bad units. Aside from WrathGuard with D-scythes (which could stay at 8") there are no Flamer units that are that powerful and would hardly be OP.

And units like Sisters that can take multiple flamer could use all the help they can get. Hordes/Chaff/Screens are a big deal in this edition. 10" range flamers could help mitigate that and make flamers actually useful instead of the hot garbage they are now.

-

Make it S3 Assault 2d6 if you want it to be dedicated horde clearer. Only thing it should be good at clearing is T3 spam because apparently that's an issue right now. There are plenty weapns that deal with high Sv, high T, multi W, but not a single weapon dedicated to killing low Sv, low T and 1W models.

I'd be ok with this too (with 10" range, of course). Never really understood how chemicals lit on fire and sprayed on the enemy have the same kinetic force as an explosive .75 caliber projectile.

-

 Galef wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Given that units cannot drop in until turn 2 in Matched play, extending the range of Flamers to 10" would only help currently bad units. Aside from WrathGuard with D-scythes (which could stay at 8") there are no Flamer units that are that powerful and would hardly be OP.

And units like Sisters that can take multiple flamer could use all the help they can get. Hordes/Chaff/Screens are a big deal in this edition. 10" range flamers could help mitigate that and make flamers actually useful instead of the hot garbage they are now.

-

Make it S3 Assault 2d6 if you want it to be dedicated horde clearer. Only thing it should be good at clearing is T3 spam because apparently that's an issue right now. There are plenty weapns that deal with high Sv, high T, multi W, but not a single weapon dedicated to killing low Sv, low T and 1W models.

I'd be ok with this too (with 10" range, of course). Never really understood how chemicals lit on fire and sprayed on the enemy have the same kinetic force as an explosive .75 caliber projectile.

-

If it goes down to S3, I don't see any reason why flamers can't be 10" range, but doing so I feel will cause unwanted side effects (being able to hit flyers better, etc).

While a bit skaveneee would of been cool to give flamers a duel mode. normal mode and a high pressure mode to throw the fire a bit further on a dice roll. with like a 1 being bad.

but otherwise i dont think flamers need to change. (plasma does)

 Desubot wrote:
While a bit skaveneee would of been cool to give flamers a duel mode. normal mode and a high pressure mode to throw the fire a bit further on a dice roll. with like a 1 being bad.

but otherwise i dont think flamers need to change. (plasma does)

It does need a point reduction though..

Make it simple, flamers get to overwatch if the charge was successful, and not if the charge is unsuccessful, regardless of range. Then there is a massive downside to charging units with flamers, but you don't take the hit for failing the gamble.

To be fair, I think this should be a rule for all weapons personally, but hey ho. It makes flamers useful as defensive weapons, be it actually killing the enemy or as a means to dissuade the attacker charging, but if the attacker decides to gamble and fails the charge, they don't get roasted for their troubles.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Make it simple, flamers get to overwatch if the charge was successful, and not if the charge is unsuccessful, regardless of range. Then there is a massive downside to charging units with flamers, but you don't take the hit for failing the gamble.

To be fair, I think this should be a rule for all weapons personally, but hey ho. It makes flamers useful as defensive weapons, be it actually killing the enemy or as a means to dissuade the attacker charging, but if the attacker decides to gamble and fails the charge, they don't get roasted for their troubles.

I think that failing the charge and getting shot at was the intended point of the gamble, otherwise, it's not really a gamble. Then again, charging out of range never suffers overwatch anyway, so the gamble is totally absent in that case. I think that all of this trouble is just a result of trying to come to the best compromise available using a mechanic with randomized charges. One way to overcome this would be to get rid of randomized charges altogether, which I know a lot of people had hoped would happen in 8th edition, but I think this way of thinking neglects the fact that Warhammer is fundamentally a fun dice game and has never been a game of pure, cerebral skill. Certainly, non random charges would probably make for a more realistic mechanic, but would it actually make the game more fun? I'm not sure it would, and in any toss up between realism and fun, I'm going to opt for fun every time.

Is the current overwatch mechanic ideal. No. Does it sometimes result in situations that look a bit wonky from a narrative perspective? Sure. But from my perspective at least, I think it's probably the best balance between fun and chance that we are likely to get.

It's worth noting that fixed charge distance in a game where you can measure distances at any time would be a significant nerf to melee units/armies. You really don't want this to happen.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Make it simple, flamers get to overwatch if the charge was successful, and not if the charge is unsuccessful, regardless of range. Then there is a massive downside to charging units with flamers, but you don't take the hit for failing the gamble.

To be fair, I think this should be a rule for all weapons personally, but hey ho. It makes flamers useful as defensive weapons, be it actually killing the enemy or as a means to dissuade the attacker charging, but if the attacker decides to gamble and fails the charge, they don't get roasted for their troubles.

I think that failing the charge and getting shot at was the intended point of the gamble, otherwise, it's not really a gamble. Then again, charging out of range never suffers overwatch anyway, so the gamble is totally absent in that case. I think that all of this trouble is just a result of trying to come to the best compromise available using a mechanic with randomized charges. One way to overcome this would be to get rid of randomized charges altogether, which I know a lot of people had hoped would happen in 8th edition, but I think this way of thinking neglects the fact that Warhammer is fundamentally a fun dice game and has never been a game of pure, cerebral skill. Certainly, non random charges would probably make for a more realistic mechanic, but would it actually make the game more fun? I'm not sure it would, and in any toss up between realism and fun, I'm going to opt for fun every time.

Is the current overwatch mechanic ideal. No. Does it sometimes result in situations that look a bit wonky from a narrative perspective? Sure. But from my perspective at least, I think it's probably the best balance between fun and chance that we are likely to get.

My suggestion ignores the mechanic of charging out of line of sight to avoid overwatch though. Even if they charged out of line of sight, and made it into combat, flamers would be able to the overwatch.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

Spoiler:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Make it simple, flamers get to overwatch if the charge was successful, and not if the charge is unsuccessful, regardless of range. Then there is a massive downside to charging units with flamers, but you don't take the hit for failing the gamble.

To be fair, I think this should be a rule for all weapons personally, but hey ho. It makes flamers useful as defensive weapons, be it actually killing the enemy or as a means to dissuade the attacker charging, but if the attacker decides to gamble and fails the charge, they don't get roasted for their troubles.

I think that failing the charge and getting shot at was the intended point of the gamble, otherwise, it's not really a gamble. Then again, charging out of range never suffers overwatch anyway, so the gamble is totally absent in that case. I think that all of this trouble is just a result of trying to come to the best compromise available using a mechanic with randomized charges. One way to overcome this would be to get rid of randomized charges altogether, which I know a lot of people had hoped would happen in 8th edition, but I think this way of thinking neglects the fact that Warhammer is fundamentally a fun dice game and has never been a game of pure, cerebral skill. Certainly, non random charges would probably make for a more realistic mechanic, but would it actually make the game more fun? I'm not sure it would, and in any toss up between realism and fun, I'm going to opt for fun every time.

Is the current overwatch mechanic ideal. No. Does it sometimes result in situations that look a bit wonky from a narrative perspective? Sure. But from my perspective at least, I think it's probably the best balance between fun and chance that we are likely to get.

My suggestion ignores the mechanic of charging out of line of sight to avoid overwatch though. Even if they charged out of line of sight, and made it into combat, flamers would be able to the overwatch.

Yeah. I got that. I just don't agree with it. Charging out of line of sight to avoid overwatch is both a fun and acceptable strategic tactic from my point of view.

Charging from out of line of sight can represent getting the drop on the enemy and sticking the knife in before they can react. A trooper with a flamer isn’t omniscient so shouldn’t be immune to being ‘got’ like this. Bad idea IMO.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's worth noting that fixed charge distance in a game where you can measure distances at any time would be a significant nerf to melee units/armies. You really don't want this to happen.

We should go back to the good old days, where your ability to judge distance by eye was critical, you had to charge who you shot, and you weren't allowed to pre-measure anything. I remember guess range weapons - I'm firing my lobba precisely 22.5". Hopefully it'll hit something.

[/nostalgia]

I agree that overwatch being less effective the longer you have to react is a bit backward - a 12" charge should be easier to react to than a 1" charge.

It's almost like the overwatch should be 2 stages - first you fire weapons in range, then you can fire everything else if they make the charge. But charging is a bit abstract as it is, where if you somehow knew you weren't going to make it, then you don't move at all.

Integrating charging with the movement phase would be a way to go - move the distance you can, then resolve overwatch with everyone in range. If this was the same as advancing, it would make it a more interesting route to take.

move + advance = further move, but no fighting if you roll well
move + charge = same further move, fight if you get close but they'll shoot you back.

Simply put that any unit which wasn't in CC at the start of the turn can shoot, so models charge in the movement phase, shoot in the shooting phase, are overwatched by who they charged at the start of the combat phase. This also stops the weird ability of a unit to only fire one missile a turn, unless 15 units fail a charge at them, in which case the damn thing's a minigun. pick a unit which charged you, and shoot overwatch at them. then start resolving fights.

This would mean that a failed charger still moves up, it's exactly like an advance move, but they get overwatched. Make certain weapons such that you can shoot if you charged or advanced, eg assaults are normal, rapid fire is -1, heavy is a no go.

Net result: if you're in range of a flamer at the start of the fight phase, and you charged them, they will burn you. if you declared a charge from across the board, and naturally failed, then the flamer won't get you.

Alternate idea: when flamer-bearing units are charged (regardless of range), roll a d6 for each enemy model. The model is hit on a roll of 6.

This can make charging a unit with flamers dangerous, but with the likelihood of only 1 in 6 models getting hit, it’s more of a deterrent than an actual threat.

Alternatively could do the ork thing and make most "flamers" a duel weapon one in shooting and one in melee.

better then getting nothing at all.

Aside from charging around cover (like bursting through a window) I don't understand why weapon range is a factor in overwatch anyway. If they're closing the gap then obviously they will enter your weapon range. This is because you only can fire overwatch when the enemy jumps up and shouts CHARGE!
I feel like it should be more of a reflex roll, but would it be based on movement speed? Like yours versus theirs...
Regardless, my friends and I play what you roll for charge is how far you move, then overwatch fires.

 Dominar _Jameson_V wrote:
Aside from charging around cover (like bursting through a window) I don't understand why weapon range is a factor in overwatch anyway. If they're closing the gap then obviously they will enter your weapon range. This is because you only can fire overwatch when the enemy jumps up and shouts CHARGE!
I feel like it should be more of a reflex roll, but would it be based on movement speed? Like yours versus theirs...
Regardless, my friends and I play what you roll for charge is how far you move, then overwatch fires.

Its an abstraction.

men dont just stop mid trot to get ready to sprint into combat while they give their enemies time to reload or do whatever.

and i dont think gw ever set a time scale for 8th did they. (like one turn is 1 minute kinda thing)

Also movement as initiative would be wonky. vehicles/ flyers and jump pack guys suddenly get big bonuses for no real reason. while one flavor of veteran terminator is suddenly better to react that another. as well a veteran terminator at 4-5 move is worse to react that a fresh faced scout on a bike or even walking. and alternative to this is with moral (considering its a very underutilized stat) (basicly a cool check to see if you do a thing instead of panicking)

 Galef wrote:
Flamers are 8" because in prior editions, they used the tear-drop template that was 8".
Just another example of an 8E redesign hold-over from prior editions with no contemplation for it's implications.
Flamer equivalents in 8E should all be 10-12" period.

Being only d6 shots means you can far fewer hits than in prior editions, therefore the range shouldn't also be such a limitation. 10" minimum gives better chances for overwatch and actually give them purpose for and against 'deep-striking' units
But 12" would be ideal as it would mesh better with most Rapid-Fire weapons that are carried in the same unit

-

Making the range longer doesn't do anything to make me really want to take the weapon though. It's 7 points. That's especially wasted on Marine BS. Guard you can at least make an argument for.

Flamers need to go back to being 5 points and they need to ignore cover again. It doesn't do too much but it gives the weapon more of a niche than just being anti-charge, seeing as nobody is afraid of a single flamer and you need like 3 to do Overwatch work.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Flamers need to go back to being 5 points and they need to ignore cover again. It doesn't do too much but it gives the weapon more of a niche than just being anti-charge, seeing as nobody is afraid of a single flamer and you need like 3 to do Overwatch work.

I agree with that, but it still won't do much of a difference if it's still only 8". 10" is specifically needed not only for Overwatch, but for use both for and against "deep striking" units.
With premeasuring, it is too easy to just place your unit outside 8" and completely ignore Flamers. And Flamers being only d6 shots means sometimes you only get 1-2, and even with 6 shots, that just BARELY kills 1 Marine.

So Flamers need BOTH of the following:
-Bumped to 10"
-Dropped to 5ppm

Ignoring the cover bonus is good too, but as you mentioned, it really doesn't do much in 8E

-

Nope, flamers should absolutely not be 10". The entire game mechanics are built around certain limitations - one of those being not deepstriking and firing a bunch of auto-hit weapons, etc. I would only yield this point on heavy flamers, as they need some purpose in the game, and they used to shoot much further. However, then it makes those an auto-take 100% of the time on tanks, and hinders assault armies even more.

Ignoring cover does plenty if you play with proper tables, so I'd be fine with that. I agree a price decrease is in order (a Stormbolter at 2 points, shooting 4 times at 12" is better - even when needing to roll to hit). 5-6 points would be fine.

So it's ok for units to drop in Rapid Fire range, but not Flamer range for....reasons. Auto-hit is only strong if the weapon profile itself is too. S4 d6 shots is weaksauce unless you can reliably generate loads of shots (like 5-6 each and every time)
I absolutely disagree that Flamers would be "auto-include" if they were 10". Plasma is still a thing and is still a better "multi-use" option.
What 10" Flamers WILL do is make another valid option besides Plasma for a special weapon choice. Now if we can fix Melta, there might be a bit more variety.

-

Because of overwatch. There is a good balance of risking a further charge, OR being with range of auto-hit weapons when you charge. That's the entire point.