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.

Flamers could overwatch in 7E regardless of being in range AND you had to take the closest models. People hardly spammed regular Flamers then.
In 8E you aren't forced to take the closets models, so losing 2-3 models to weaksauce Flamers does nothing to prevent a charge in most situations (i.e. all situations in which there were more than 5 models in the unit).
As is stand now, you make a choice between staying outside 8" to avoid the Overwatch, but risk not rolling high enough to make the charge
Or just getting guaranteeing the charge but taking the Overwatch.
The obvious choice is to always guarantee the charge because Flamers rarely make a dent in the charging unit, either because of their good armour save, or vast number of models not caring.

10" Flamers are not only reasonable, but that extra 2" makes them a valid weapon choice worthy of consideration.

Otherwise, make them as cheaper as a StormBolter, because that's about what they average for damage, but they just trade range for auto-hitting.
Stormbolters are still 2ppm right? Cuz that's all Flamers are worth right now

-

*shrug*

If I was playing Orks, I'd buy a 10" range flamer on every model I could over a slugga or whatever base weapon I could get my hands on. D6 autohits vs. BS 5+ with a good chance my opponent is running one or more units with a -1 penalty to be hit?

And thats what we are talking about. A weapon with a 100% hit rate vs every other weapon having the worst possible success rate.

Yeah, landing in rapid fire range is fine. 2 shots that hit on 6s is mostly no hits.

Landing in flamer range is at minimum 1 hit but an average 3/4ish.

You cant undermine that. Especially when some armies can equip every model in the unit with a flamer.

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, landing in rapid fire range is fine. 2 shots that hit on 6s is mostly no hits.

What?
Landing from reserves does not make you hit on 6s. Marines with Plasma guns would still hit on 3+ with 2 shots each.

Anyway. I'm willing to yield my point about Flamers being useful for 'deep striking' and Overwatch if only to keep the conversation moving.
If 10" is unacceptable because they's suddenly be OP, than they need, NEED to be more hits or to be 2ppm like Stormbolters.

At 8" they get 1, maybe 2 turns of use over the course of the entire game. Over 2 turns, they'll average 7 hits, but could easily get 3-4 or 9-10. That's unacceptably unreliable
Stormbolter at 12" get 8 shot guaranteed over 2 turns. Yes they have to hit, but with reroll 1s HQs in just about every Codex, Stormbolter have a decent hit rate, but are useful over far more than 1-2 turns.
So either Flamers need to have more hits or be far cheaper. I think a good solution would be to add another D6 hits if the target unit has 5+ models in range.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, landing in rapid fire range is fine. 2 shots that hit on 6s is mostly no hits.

What?
Landing from reserves does not make you hit on 6s. Marines with Plasma guns would still hit on 3+ with 2 shots each.

Obviously I was talking about the weapons being used in Overwatch. In what other condition in the game does every weapon but the auto hitting flamer only hit on 6s?

But hey, lets use the basic deepstrike and shoot example you bring up.

BS3 rapid fire range. You have a good chance for 1 hit and a kind of poor chance for 2 and a slim chance for none.

Flamers again, 3/4 automatically on average with a top of 6 and a minimum of 1.

An entire unit equiped with them.

It's still incredibly broken to have a auto hitting weapon over a rapid fire one.

 Galef wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, landing in rapid fire range is fine. 2 shots that hit on 6s is mostly no hits.

What?
Landing from reserves does not make you hit on 6s. Marines with Plasma guns would still hit on 3+ with 2 shots each.

Anyway. I'm willing to yield my point about Flamers being useful for 'deep striking' and Overwatch if only to keep the conversation moving.
If 10" is unacceptable because they's suddenly be OP, than they need, NEED to be more hits or to be 2ppm like Stormbolters.

At 8" they get 1, maybe 2 turns of use over the course of the entire game. Over 2 turns, they'll average 7 hits, but could easily get 3-4 or 9-10. That's unacceptably unreliable
Stormbolter at 12" get 8 shot guaranteed over 2 turns. Yes they have to hit, but with reroll 1s HQs in just about every Codex, Stormbolter have a decent hit rate, but are useful over far more than 1-2 turns.
So either Flamers need to have more hits or be far cheaper. I think a good solution would be to add another D6 hits if the target unit has 5+ models in range.

-

Range isn't why people don't take flamers its that they suck against what should be great targets for them.
Take guardsmen or orks both are going to be in a minimum of 10 and potentially upto 30.
Even with 5 flamers you avarage 17 hits.
Guardsmen first
You cause 11 wounds
You kill 7 guard outside cover without strategums
Against the orks
9 wounds
You kill 8 boys
That's with 5 flamers simply the shot count doesn't scale ir work.
It has to be D3 or D6 per 3 or 5 models and not allow cover.
That would give flamers a role to perform now they are a anti horde weapon thats better against MSU.

There was a thread on here a couple of weeks ago which had a good conclusion for flamers, which basically gave it a minimum & maximum amount of attacks depending on models in range. something like minimum 3 attacks, or as many as there are models in range, to a maximum of 6. so not ineffective against single models, and scales up in proportion to how many models there are to hit, as it should.

 some bloke wrote:
There was a thread on here a couple of weeks ago which had a good conclusion for flamers, which basically gave it a minimum & maximum amount of attacks depending on models in range. something like minimum 3 attacks, or as many as there are models in range, to a maximum of 6. so not ineffective against single models, and scales up in proportion to how many models there are to hit, as it should.

Why should it cap at 6 hits given some singke unita can be 30+ models, i think guard can go to 40 or 60 via strategum and orks similar. Maxing out is fine but 6 hits even against blocks of 20 doesn't cut it.

Ice_can wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
There was a thread on here a couple of weeks ago which had a good conclusion for flamers, which basically gave it a minimum & maximum amount of attacks depending on models in range. something like minimum 3 attacks, or as many as there are models in range, to a maximum of 6. so not ineffective against single models, and scales up in proportion to how many models there are to hit, as it should.

Why should it cap at 6 hits given some singke unita can be 30+ models, i think guard can go to 40 or 60 via strategum and orks similar. Maxing out is fine but 6 hits even against blocks of 20 doesn't cut it.

Because gsc can have a unit of 20 each with flamers. How pissed are you going to be when 6+ x20 auto hits land on your units. It doesnt matter if they have low str or crap ap. Law of averages. You WILL roll enough 1s that your characters/units will just disappear.

Even minimum 3 x 20 auto hits mean most 5ish wound characters stand little to no chance.

Ice_can wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
There was a thread on here a couple of weeks ago which had a good conclusion for flamers, which basically gave it a minimum & maximum amount of attacks depending on models in range. something like minimum 3 attacks, or as many as there are models in range, to a maximum of 6. so not ineffective against single models, and scales up in proportion to how many models there are to hit, as it should.

Why should it cap at 6 hits given some singke unita can be 30+ models, i think guard can go to 40 or 60 via strategum and orks similar. Maxing out is fine but 6 hits even against blocks of 20 doesn't cut it.

Because you wouldn't expect a 7 point flamer to take out a unit of 20 models.

Putting a maximum cap on what each flamer can do is important. Otherwise, a unit with a flamer against a unit of 30 models could score 30 hits. per flamer. Now put that in the unit of 20 in a gsc. That's 30 x 20 = 600 auto hits.

so yeah, putting a cap on it would have to be a key feature. but similarly, rolling a 1 when confronted with 30 termagaunts all around you is unrealistic. so having minimum 3, or as many models as are in range to a maximum of 6, would make it more realistic without turning a surrounded guardsman with a flamer into a pirouette of death-flame.

I like the idea of Flamers having the same number of hits as there are models in the target unit IN RANGE of the Flamer.
If that were the case, then yeah 8" is plenty. There is also no need to cap the number of hits because there is no way you'd get all 30 Orks in the unit within 8" of your model with the Flamer, unless they've surrounded you and for some reason you aren't in melee already.

As for Characters, if they are the target unit, the Flamer would only get 1 hit, because there is only 1 model in that unit.

I would, however, make Flamers only S3 with this change if only because of those few units that can have multiple Flamers in the same unit.
And ignore cover, as well

-

 Galef wrote:
I like the idea of Flamers having the same number of hits as there are models in the target unit IN RANGE of the Flamer.
If that were the case, then yeah 8" is plenty. There is also no need to cap the number of hits because there is no way you'd get all 30 Orks in the unit within 8" of your model with the Flamer, unless they've surrounded you and for some reason you aren't in melee already.

As for Characters, if they are the target unit, the Flamer would only get 1 hit, because there is only 1 model in that unit.

I would, however, make Flamers only S3 with this change if only because of those few units that can have multiple Flamers in the same unit.
And ignore cover, as well

-

I believe that crisis suits and some other units can both have flamers and fall back & still shoot. there are also a lot of units which can fall back and charge again.

unit attacks crisis suit, doesn't hurt it, and in it's turn he moves 1.1" away, and lands 20-30 autohits on your unit. not really balanced. even at S3, that's 10-15 dead termagaunts.

another example:

unit of 30 boys charge a unit of 20 gsc guys with flamers. they're 5" away. gsc lands 600 autohits on the boys.

without a cap, the flamers would just be unfair. everyone would have them, and the game would devolve into autohit-wars. who can take the most flamers on the least models.

 some bloke wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I like the idea of Flamers having the same number of hits as there are models in the target unit IN RANGE of the Flamer.
If that were the case, then yeah 8" is plenty. There is also no need to cap the number of hits because there is no way you'd get all 30 Orks in the unit within 8" of your model with the Flamer, unless they've surrounded you and for some reason you aren't in melee already.

As for Characters, if they are the target unit, the Flamer would only get 1 hit, because there is only 1 model in that unit.

I would, however, make Flamers only S3 with this change if only because of those few units that can have multiple Flamers in the same unit.
And ignore cover, as well

-

I believe that crisis suits and some other units can both have flamers and fall back & still shoot. there are also a lot of units which can fall back and charge again.

unit attacks crisis suit, doesn't hurt it, and in it's turn he moves 1.1" away, and lands 20-30 autohits on your unit. not really balanced. even at S3, that's 10-15 dead termagaunts.

another example:

unit of 30 boys charge a unit of 20 gsc guys with flamers. they're 5" away. gsc lands 600 autohits on the boys.

without a cap, the flamers would just be unfair. everyone would have them, and the game would devolve into autohit-wars. who can take the most flamers on the least models.

I'm sorry, but if 20-30 of ANYTHING charges a Crisis suit, it isn't likely to be alive to fall back and shoot, so I don't agree that a cap is needed.
If the Crisis suit does manage to survive to fall back, then they need all the help they can get to not get charged again.
But that is also why I would change basic Flamers to only be S3, rather than cap the number of hits

A potentially better change (although number of hits = models in range isn't that complicated IMO) would be to add an additional d6 if the target unit numbers more than 5 models
So as now, Flamers are d6 autohits. If the target unit has 6 or more models, Flamers would be 2d6 auto hits.

-

 Galef wrote:
I'm sorry, but if 20-30 of ANYTHING charges a Crisis suit, it isn't likely to be alive to fall back and shoot, so I don't agree that a cap is needed.
If the Crisis suit does manage to survive to fall back, then they need all the help they can get to not get charged again.
But that is also why I would change basic Flamers to only be S3, rather than cap the number of hits

A potentially better change (although number of hits = models in range isn't that complicated IMO) would be to add an additional d6 if the target unit numbers more than 5 models
So as now, Flamers are d6 autohits. If the target unit has 6 or more models, Flamers would be 2d6 auto hits.

-

The crisis suit was just an example. let's go on another route - one large unit charges another, wipes them out, and moves toward the nearest enemy unit. this unit then moves forward, so all 3 of their 5 point flamers are in range of all the other units models, and each 7 point weapon lands 30 hits. that's 90 hits, for 21 points. it's vastly overpowered, even at S3. this would kill 25 ork boys. it would kill 37.5 gaunts. to kill a 10-man space marine squad would only take 9 flamers in full range. Imagine the comeback for burna-boy-battlewagons! all 10 models are in 8" of the battlewagon, so 150 hits. heck, nowadays you can have multiple units, so 20 burnas could be in there - 200 hits. 600 against a 30-model horde.

Yes, flamers need to be more effective than they are, but making them essentially an 8" aura which autohits all models in range in one unit isn't the way to go.

The additional hits for units with more than 5 models is a sensible route, and the easiest to implement. I also feel that flamers should really be standardised as anti-horde weapons - heavy flamers, skorchas etc should inflict more hits, not higher strength. I kinda feel that fire is fire, bigger flamers make more fire, not stronger fire!

 some bloke wrote:
I kinda feel that fire is fire, bigger flamers make more fire, not stronger fire!

That's too funny. And I agree to a point.
But I think the point of flamers isn't than they are shooting more than just fire, but sticky flammable chemicals that are on fire.
A Heavy Flamer shoots thicker, more "high pressure" gouts of said chemical making it harder to avoid/put out the flames, thus making it easier to wound the target.
In that regard, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Heavy Flamers to have higher strength and better AP than a regular one.

Regarding the overwatch/consolidation of units and the # of hits = models. One of the things that 8E removed is how spacing your models out matter by removing template.
If Flamers caused hits depending on how many models are in range, than spacing would matter again and Horde players could intentionally minimize hits if they knew what they were doing.

But 2d6 hits for units with 6+ models is an easier solution for sure

-

Where did we jump from 6 hits max regardless of unit size to now hitting every model in the unit?
I'm was pointing out that they don't cut it currently. They are great against charictors and msu but suck against blob hordes.

Scaling at D6 per 5 or part their off is one option but it makes having to take 6 model units uber painful.
More granularity is better in someways but would be brutal on time taken to play the game is your counting say d3 per 3 models in a 30 or 40 model blob thats taken some casualties last turn.

Ice_can wrote:
Where did we jump from 6 hits max regardless of unit size to now hitting every model in the unit?
I'm was pointing out that they don't cut it currently. They are great against charictors and msu but suck against blob hordes.

Scaling at D6 per 5 or part their off is one option but it makes having to take 6 model units uber painful.
More granularity is better in someways but would be brutal on time taken to play the game is your counting say d3 per 3 models in a 30 or 40 model blob thats taken some casualties last turn.

I do agree that taking 6 man units would suck in this case, whereas with the 3, or number in range up to 6, hits (let's call it "3(6)" for now) would only add one extra hit, if the whole unit was in range.

I think counting models in units and having 2 hits for each 3 models etc etc would slow the game to a crawl. I also suspect that the above would slow the game down too.

I miss templates. blast & flamer weapons used to be more likely to hit things the more there were to hit. It's just a shame it slowed the movement phase down so much!


We need a simple method where you get more hits the more models you can target. so models out of range don't count, and not as binary as an extra D6 if there's more than 5 models.

Perhaps simply changing it to a flat 2D6 hits, to a maximum of the number of models in range in the target unit. No, they won't be as effective against monsters and tanks. but when did anyone ever kill a tank with a flamer?

This would improve the anti-horde aspect of flamers without overpowering them, and decrease their effect on single models. I don't think that's such a blow, because yes, flamers are more effective against single models now, but so are explosives, and we haven't affected them. flamers, realistically, work on a collateral damage system - if you aim at 5 guys, and hit all of them, the presence of the other 4 guys doesn't affect how burnt each guy is. if you remove 4 and do the same flame, the one guy left doesn't get 5 times as set on fire. With the damage stat on weapons now, killing one big thing should be about damage, killing lots of small things should be about quantity of hits.

I never suggested d6 per 5 models. I just said you get an additional d6 if the target unit had more than 5 models. So at max you could get 12 hits, but on average you get 7 against big unit.
It makes Flamers WANT to shoot a bigger units instead of MSU and Characters



still doesn't allow them more than 1 use due to there crap range, but at least they'll have a better chance of being useful the one time they do get used.

-

 Galef wrote:
I never suggested d6 per 5 models. I just said you get an additional d6 if the target unit had more than 5 models. So at max you could get 12 hits, but on average you get 7 against big unit.
It makes Flamers WANT to shoot a bigger units instead of MSU and Characters



still doesn't allow them more than 1 use due to there crap range, but at least they'll have a better chance of being useful the one time they do get used.

-

Right. so, GSC again, average 7 hits x 20 models = 140 auto hits. With the potential (granted never going to happen) for 40 minimum and 240 max. 60-180 is not an unreasonable range of what we would likely see. Not 180 SHOTS, which is what 30 4 point termagants with 4 point devourers get when they use a stratagem to shoot twice. Which means only about half will hit and half of that will wound and no AP so saves. But 180 HITS which eliminates an entire barrier of diminishing effect and doesn't cost a stratagem with 10 less models.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I never suggested d6 per 5 models. I just said you get an additional d6 if the target unit had more than 5 models. So at max you could get 12 hits, but on average you get 7 against big unit.
It makes Flamers WANT to shoot a bigger units instead of MSU and Characters



still doesn't allow them more than 1 use due to there crap range, but at least they'll have a better chance of being useful the one time they do get used.

-

Right. so, GSC again, average 7 hits x 20 models = 140 auto hits. With the potential (granted never going to happen) for 40 minimum and 240 max. 60-180 is not an unreasonable range of what we would likely see.

But if the range stays at 8" (which it should if we are going with the 2d6 hits on large units) the chances of ALL 20 MODELS being in range is absolutely the epitome of improbable. And that unit cannot be cheap, nor would someone want to put 20 Flamers in the unit as you would want some ablative wounds on such a large squishy unit.
So again, this is VERY improbable and the opponent has the ability to mitigate this even further by:
A) using screens
B) taking more MSU units if feasible
C) taking durable units

I've also mentioned that with this particular change, basic Flamers should be S3 for this reason. It lowers the average actually wounds possible on tougher units, but still has the ability to wipe cheap chaff.....which is the point of Flamers.
I just don't feel any example of a unit full of Flamers would be that OP with this change as you'd still have a unit that is more than likely more expensive than their intended targets.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I never suggested d6 per 5 models. I just said you get an additional d6 if the target unit had more than 5 models. So at max you could get 12 hits, but on average you get 7 against big unit.
It makes Flamers WANT to shoot a bigger units instead of MSU and Characters



still doesn't allow them more than 1 use due to there crap range, but at least they'll have a better chance of being useful the one time they do get used.

-

Right. so, GSC again, average 7 hits x 20 models = 140 auto hits. With the potential (granted never going to happen) for 40 minimum and 240 max. 60-180 is not an unreasonable range of what we would likely see.

But if the range stays at 8" (which it should if we are going with the 2d6 hits on large units) that chances of ALL 20 MODELS being in range is absolutely the epitome of improbable.

GSC have this handy ability where 1, they can deepstrike over and over in a game, and 2, when they deepstrike they have a chance to get a lot closer then the 9" barrier of the standard game.

And that unit cannot be cheap, nor would someone want to put 20 Flamers in the unit as you would want some ablative wounds on such a large squishy unit.
So again, this is VERY improbable and the opponent has the ability to mitigate this by:
A) using screens

Screens are exactly the units you want to be using this against so things like Genestealers can get to the single models inside.

B) taking more MSU units if feasible

With an average 140 I could feel confident in a split fire.

C) taking durable units

As we have seen, durability means nothing vs the law of averages. Everyone complains about IG and the lowly lasgun because more shots is better then less.

I've also mentioned that with this particular change, basic Flamers should be S3 for this reason. It lowers the average actually wounds possible on tougher units, but still has the ability to wipe cheap chaff.....which is the point of Flamers.
I just don't feel any example of a unit full of Flamers would be that OP with this change as you'd still have a unit that is more than likely more expensive than their intended targets.

-

I respect that you feel that way. But you don't seem to think about the over all consequences of the things you suggest. Your mindset seems to sit firmly in that "how would this impact a unit of marines with 3 flamers top". Which to be fair, most people do when making these suggestions.

 Lance845 wrote:
I respect that you feel that way. But you don't seem to think about the over all consequences of the things you suggest. Your mindset seems to sit firmly in that "how would this impact a unit of marines with 3 flamers top". Which to be fair, most people do when making these suggestions.

Indeed I do think this way, or rather, I try to think in ways that would benefit the most units. But this game is far, FAR too vast for any single solution to be ideal for EVERY UNIT. Some units will still be crap, some units will get a severe buff.
But if the change makes MORE units/options worth taking than before, I feel it's worth the risk that 1-2 units might be OP for a while.

Because if they do become OP, we can adjust their points cost via CA. Given GSC army rules, making THEIR flamers more expensive, or not even applying my suggested change at all, would be fair.
I try to never assume that a blanket change won't also require some points adjustments for some units. But I do have a bad habit of not making this clear.

At any rate, I greatly appreciate the civility in which we've been able to carry on this topic. You don't see that often when 2 posters have such different opinions

-

I like the idea of Flamers ignoring cover and always being able to fire overwatch, regardless of range.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I like the idea of Flamers ignoring cover and always being able to fire overwatch, regardless of range.

Honestly, range should be outright ignored for any weapon firing Overwatch. The Charging unit is moving closer to you, so all your weapons will eventually get range to them.
For weapons that are Rapid Fire or Melta, you can always assume the enemy is in minimum range needed for the rule to "kick in".

It's not like the charging unit is like "Oi, we's chargin' ya, you gonna shoot?" and then the waits there until the unit fires and THEN the starts moving.
The charging unit is already charging. That's the whole reason you only hit on 6s is because you're "snap firing"

-

Interesting note that might be relevant to this thread: CA will give Sisters of Battle Seraphims a Stratagem to make their Flamers 12" on the turn they arrive. I believe we discussed this unit earlier and why making Flamers 12" was a bad idea in some people's opinion.
Yet GW seems to disagree and is giving SoB this very thing, specifically for the unit discussed it would be broken on.

I had proposed Flamers be 12" specifically to make them useful when a unit drops in. I can live with it being a stratagem costing CPs.
Is that a good compromise to making them 12" all the time? If so, we could apply this kind of Strat to all armies with Flamer units, and it cost more CPs for units like GSCs that can have 20 flamers in a single unit

-

 Galef wrote:
Interesting note that might be relevant to this thread: CA will give Sisters of Battle Seraphims a Stratagem to make their Flamers 12" on the turn they arrive. I believe we discussed this unit earlier and why making Flamers 12" was a bad idea in some people's opinion.
Yet GW seems to disagree and is giving SoB this very thing, specifically for the unit discussed it would be broken on.

I had proposed Flamers be 12" specifically to make them useful when a unit drops in. I can live with it being a stratagem costing CPs.
Is that a good compromise to making them 12" all the time? If so, we could apply this kind of Strat to all armies with Flamer units, and it cost more CPs for units like GSCs that can have 20 flamers in a single unit

-

1) A stratagem means it can only be used on a single unit once a turn.

2) stratagems cost a (Generally) limited resource.

3) GW sucks at game design and introduces broken ass gak all the time.


There SHOULD be some generally unbreakable guidelines that are laid down to keep the game functional and balanced. Some core elements in the games structure that keep the general structure going and soft limits the power and potential within the game.

The Deep Strike range, I think, is one of those. In fact, I don't even think GSC should be breaking it. But I definitely don't think that just because 1 group is breaking one of those guidelines doesn't mean everyone should be as well.

What I think could work (Just spitballing here) for flamers is getting their d6 auto hits, but also making another d3 attacks that are not auto hits for each 5 models in the target unit. Not guaranteeing the bonus hits goes a long way to making what they do more balanced.

I think given all that, it is reasonalbly balanced to give any army a stratagem to extend their Flamer to 12".
As you mention, it would be for only 1 unit per turn and use limited resources.
But a 1 turn drop with flamers that can be used in that drop would make flamers worth taking.

-

 Galef wrote:
I think given all that, it is reasonalbly balanced to give any army a stratagem to extend their Flamer to 12".
As you mention, it would be for only 1 unit per turn and use limited resources.
But a 1 turn drop with flamers that can be used in that drop would make flamers worth taking.

-

But to the 3rd point, GW gave imperium soup the broken opportunity to make that limited resource somewhat less than limited. It stops beinga limited resource if you end the game with about the same amount of points you started with even though you spent them like mad. Granted, we dont know if sisters will feed into that. But we DO know the people your suggesting we extend this to are already a part of that problem.

Forget the 3 flamer generic marine unit. Salamanders. Salamanders with flamers on everything.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think given all that, it is reasonalbly balanced to give any army a stratagem to extend their Flamer to 12".
As you mention, it would be for only 1 unit per turn and use limited resources.
But a 1 turn drop with flamers that can be used in that drop would make flamers worth taking.

-

But to the 3rd point, GW gave imperium soup the broken opportunity to make that limited resource somewhat less than limited. It stops beinga limited resource if you end the game with about the same amount of points you started with even though you spent them like mad. Granted, we dont know if sisters will feed into that. But we DO know the people your suggesting we extend this to are already a part of that problem.

Forget the 3 flamer generic marine unit. Salamanders. Salamanders with flamers on everything.

But how many units can both have multiple flamers AND arrive outside of 9" of any enemy unit.
Also keep in mind that Tactical Reserves limits you to coming in on turn 2 now (for those using the Beat rules, which is most of them). So not only would you have to use CPs for 1 unit to have 12" Flamer, but you'd have to give up one of that unit's turns to do so.
I'm still not seeing this as an issue. It doesn't have enough potential to be broken, but has enough to be useful

-

Flamethrowers are in such a bad spot right now compared to the other special weapons a substantial buff would not be the end of the world.

My preference would be 12 inch range, 2d6 hits, s3, ap-

1d6 is just so unreliable, and even with a perfect roll of a 6 you are still paying roughly 7-9 points for 6 bolter hits. Its not in any danger of being broken, and in most circumstances except overwatch it is less reliable than a 2 point storm bolter.

Even if you buffed flamers significantly its not like they would overshadow the other special weapons. Most units would still prefer Plasma for its sheer versatility in dismantling elite infantry and vehicles. Giving Flamers a 12 inch range doesn't make them the best weapon in the game. At the end of the day its still a special weapon that takes up a special weapon slot that doesn't accomplish anything significantly different from what your standard bolters are doing.

I really don't understand why people are so adverse to literally the worst special weapon in the entire being made *useable*