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.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

It's basically a meme at this point for some members of the forum to whine about anything new these days regardless of how it actually plays

hence the discussion about tactics between fellow Sons of Nocturne.

I've felt this entire addition that Salamanders work best when supporting frontline troops with mid table control. Now they have fluffy rules that bare that out. cant wait to get the fyreslayers endless spells and paint up fire shield & magmic eruption pyromancy effects. it looks so much better than putting the card next to the models.

Bray'arth is even more insane now if you give him the relic for regaining wounds/6+FNP and cast might of heroes, he should get some work done. properly supported.

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

No, it’s not. New GW wording. And RAW since you don’t pick a unit/ a model - it affects your whole army.

I mean they are good with flamers and meltas, seems alright. Though I feel kind of bad for none vanilla marines as what exactly do they do ?

Judging by the one PA book we got, I'm not sure I have high hopes for the other marines to be showcased in the books if they are anything like the new Eldar stuff. While it'll be good, it won't be successor super rules good.

That said, Salamanders seem really good and tough for what they do. I mean every codex should feel that way. If you run into a guard parking lot well used it should feel bad, same for a tooled up Sallies list, IH list, etc, etc.

The issue is not all books have that yet and they really should have at this point. It's all the schizo GW design train, they never follow through with a plan all the way they are the kings of the half arsed plans.

EricDominus wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

No, it’s not. New GW wording. And RAW since you don’t pick a unit/ a model - it affects your whole army.

I haven't seen the stratagem's wording but do you honestly think GW intended to make a 1 CP stratagem that gives your entire army's flamers a mortal wound on 4+?
For just 1 second think about that and realise that even if your right, and I doubt you are, its 100% going to get changed in the week 2 faq.

If that is accurate I once more wonder what the editor was doing, aside from not being there, as it seems like if its worded so that is accurate yeah it seems a little strong.

I say it seems strong when say, for 2 CP guard can roll a D6 for each enemy squad and on a 6 do 1 whole mortal wound to it.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just does not belong.

EricDominus wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

No, it’s not. New GW wording. And RAW since you don’t pick a unit/ a model - it affects your whole army.

That's not the intent and you know it. If you want to complain about the new Marine supplements being OP fine, but complaim about their actual strengths and abilities and not a stratagem that requires you to rules lawyer and interpret what was clearly intended one way as another for it to function how you want it to.


The stratagem verbatim for those that haven't seen it.

"Use this Stratagem in your shooting phase or in your opponents Charge phase, when a SALAMANDERS from your army shoots with a flame or melta weapon (see Codex Space Marines). Until the end of that Phase, when resolving an attack made with that weapon, on an unmodified wound roll of 4+ the target suffers 1 Mortal Wound in addition to any other damage."

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

No, it’s not. New GW wording. And RAW since you don’t pick a unit/ a model - it affects your whole army.

That's not the intent and you know it. If you want to complain about the new Marine supplements being OP fine, but complaim about their actual strengths and abilities and not a stratagem that requires you to rules lawyer and interpret what was clearly intended one way as another for it to function how you want it to.


The stratagem verbatim for those that haven't seen it.

"Use this Stratagem in your shooting phase or in your opponents Charge phase, when a SALAMANDERS from your army shoots with a flame or melta weapon (see Codex Space Marines). Until the end of that Phase, when resolving an attack made with that weapon, on an unmodified wound roll of 4+ the target suffers 1 Mortal Wound in addition to any other damage."

THAT weapon.
so once again people can't read and make stuff up in their head to be outraged about.
it points to a specific weapon, the one on a salamander model that you just selected to shoot with has. Not every flamer or melta weapon in your army from that point onwards.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
If that is accurate I once more wonder what the editor was doing, aside from not being there, as it seems like if its worded so that is accurate yeah it seems a little strong.

I say it seems strong when say, for 2 CP guard can roll a D6 for each enemy squad and on a 6 do 1 whole mortal wound to it.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just does not belong.

you think that is bad? how about a save vs mortal wounds, that you can can get against mw coming from spells, and not other sources, after you lose MW from a spell

 Ordana wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

EricDominus wrote:
Oh, i forgot to mention: 4+ mortal wounds from flamers is an ARMY WIDE BONUS

No, it is not. It's a 1CP Stratagem that affects ONE model in your entire army, and doesn't even benefit from the +1 To Wound bonus from the Tactical Doctrine.

No, it’s not. New GW wording. And RAW since you don’t pick a unit/ a model - it affects your whole army.

That's not the intent and you know it. If you want to complain about the new Marine supplements being OP fine, but complaim about their actual strengths and abilities and not a stratagem that requires you to rules lawyer and interpret what was clearly intended one way as another for it to function how you want it to.


The stratagem verbatim for those that haven't seen it.

"Use this Stratagem in your shooting phase or in your opponents Charge phase, when a SALAMANDERS from your army shoots with a flame or melta weapon (see Codex Space Marines). Until the end of that Phase, when resolving an attack made with that weapon, on an unmodified wound roll of 4+ the target suffers 1 Mortal Wound in addition to any other damage."

THAT weapon.
so once again people can't read and make stuff up in their head to be outraged about.
it points to a specific weapon, the one on a salamander model that you just selected to shoot with has. Not every flamer or melta weapon in your army from that point onwards.

"so once again people can't read and make stuff up in their head to be outraged about."

Don't fall from your high arse.

With this wording it clearly works on the whole army (You don't reroll only one hit roll from Chapter Master's aura only because it now says reroll THE HIT ROLL).

Butt.

I've got a full version of this stratagem and it as follows: Use this Stratagem in your shooting phase or in your opponents Charge phase, when a SALAMANDERS MODEL from your army shoots with a flame or melta weapon (see Codex Space Marines). Until the end of that Phase, when resolving an attack made with that weapon, on an unmodified wound roll of 4+ the target suffers 1 Mortal Wound in addition to any other damage.

With the full wording i might agree, that this is a one model only. But it still 12 mortal wounds (18 if He'Stan is nearby) from a single aggressor.

Not that it really matters.

If you got in range with flamer aggressors and spent those 2 CPs for maximum shots, the target was already toast without additional MWs.

Spoletta wrote:
Not that it really matters.

If you got in range with flamer aggressors and spent those 2 CPs for maximum shots, the target was already toast without additional MWs.

I was going to point out that it might still be useful if someone charged them with a rhino to eat the overwatch.

Then I started thinking about the numbers.

Auto hits
You are wounding on a 4+ due to the +1 from being Salamander
We’ll assume -1 AP from being in the tactical doctrine, so save on a 4+
So you need 40 shots to turn a metal box into a burnt out husk.
An aggressor with flamestorm gauntlets doubleshotting on overwatch gets ~14 each, 3 of them is 42.

Dead rhino. No CPs used. Just with the doctrines.

Most of what I've heard about salamanders isn't horrible. However I've heard they have a votlw equivalent strategem that works for all their units not just infantry. That's csm best strategem but better. That's gak.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

Serious answer - you have a unit. That unit is arbitrarily stronger depending on the colour it is painted. You can set one price for it - do you price it for red paint, green paint, blue paint, or silver?

I'd forgotten about the stratagem. That feels like a much more worthwhile usage of the tanking Captain than trying to squeeze him into a role that he's not relying able enough to do.

A.T. wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

Serious answer - you have a unit. That unit is arbitrarily stronger depending on the colour it is painted. You can set one price for it - do you price it for red paint, green paint, blue paint, or silver?

In an ideal world you could work something out army wide.

If all your units are a little overpriced, but the ones for your color are a little overpowered, it evens out. You are not going to spam 100% of your good units, as you still need to take some stock units, fill roles, etc. So each color army is rewarded to play to their strengths, but overall as an army everything is balanced.

Now, we are far from an ideal world. Some units start out overpowered and underpriced, some colors buffs synergies better with the overall meta, and not everything is even remotely created equal. And competitive play rewards exploiting the broken stuff.

In theory, I could be done in a fair way. In practice, there are far too many moving parts to get any sort of equal balance going on. Especially when people are aiming to maximize competitiveness.

 Nevelon wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

Serious answer - you have a unit. That unit is arbitrarily stronger depending on the colour it is painted. You can set one price for it - do you price it for red paint, green paint, blue paint, or silver?

In an ideal world you could work something out army wide.

If all your units are a little overpriced, but the ones for your color are a little overpowered, it evens out. You are not going to spam 100% of your good units, as you still need to take some stock units, fill roles, etc. So each color army is rewarded to play to their strengths, but overall as an army everything is balanced.

Now, we are far from an ideal world. Some units start out overpowered and underpriced, some colors buffs synergies better with the overall meta, and not everything is even remotely created equal. And competitive play rewards exploiting the broken stuff.

In theory, I could be done in a fair way. In practice, there are far too many moving parts to get any sort of equal balance going on. Especially when people are aiming to maximize competitiveness.

But should it? Do you really want to Flanderize all the SM Chapters into only being able to take the things they get buffs for because everything is kind of bad without the Chapter-specific buffs?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

In an ideal world you could work something out army wide.

If all your units are a little overpriced, but the ones for your color are a little overpowered, it evens out. You are not going to spam 100% of your good units, as you still need to take some stock units, fill roles, etc. So each color army is rewarded to play to their strengths, but overall as an army everything is balanced.

Now, we are far from an ideal world. Some units start out overpowered and underpriced, some colors buffs synergies better with the overall meta, and not everything is even remotely created equal. And competitive play rewards exploiting the broken stuff.

In theory, I could be done in a fair way. In practice, there are far too many moving parts to get any sort of equal balance going on. Especially when people are aiming to maximize competitiveness.

But should it? Do you really want to Flanderize all the SM Chapters into only being able to take the things they get buffs for because everything is kind of bad without the Chapter-specific buffs?

At the FLGS level, where you don’t need to squeeze every last ounce of power out of a list it works just fine. The problem is that 40k rewards skew lists and specialization. There is no mechanical reason not to embrace full flanderization, and only take things that double down on your strengths. However, once you step away from the bleeding edge of power, a host of other options open up. But both you and your opponent need to be on the same page.

My theory here is that people will take non-optimal units for assorted reasons. Your choppy chapter might need some fire support, your castle army needs someone to go out and grab objectives. You still need troops/HQs, even if you are not one of the optimal colors to get the most out of them. You might have a yellow player and a white player with very similar TAC lists, but the yellow will shoot a little better, and the white will be a little more mobile.

In practice, this will not happen outside of friendly relaxed play. It’s not “optimal”. 40k is casually easy to break, always has been. It’s best when everyone is on the same page on what kind of game they want to play.

Just a little thought experiment on how it could work, in an ideal world, over my morning coffee. As an idea I like the concept. Although with the bloat in 40k, it probably never could without a massive amount of work.

Squads doing 30 MW and Smash Captains with Damage 12 weapons? Who the Hell is writing this crap lol

 Elfric wrote:
Squads doing 30 MW and Smash Captains with Damage 12 weapons? Who the Hell is writing this crap lol

The 30 MW is a 4 CP strat I think, and it's only one unit doing the MW if I understood well.

WhiteDog wrote:

 Elfric wrote:
Squads doing 30 MW and Smash Captains with Damage 12 weapons? Who the Hell is writing this crap lol

The 30 MW is a 4 CP strat I think, and it's only one unit doing the MW if I understood well.

Agents of Vect is 4CP and is nowhere near as broke as that.

LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

 Elfric wrote:
Squads doing 30 MW and Smash Captains with Damage 12 weapons? Who the Hell is writing this crap lol

That many MW is fake news.
Its unmodifier 4+ to wound on 1 weapon from 1 model that causes MW.
So the most damage your doing is the 2d6 from the Aggressor Flamestorm gauntlet. stratagem for max shots and your doing 6 mortal wounds.
Which is a lot, but not nearly the same thing.

The fact that they got a superior version of votlw is what irks me. It's bad enough that sm get everyone else's stuff but they get better versions of it.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The fact that they got a superior version of votlw is what irks me. It's bad enough that sm get everyone else's stuff but they get better versions of it.

GW has no clue how to balance SM's as they are so the only option they see is to throw a gakload of special rules on it and hope it works.

Turns out throwing a load of special rules on an army that is mediocre might make them to good. Who could have known.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Im gonna keep running my Salamanders as Salamanders, that's for sure.

I don't see why they should receive a range buff. Maybe we should just lock the tactical doctrine bonus to the chapters themself instead of giving it to the successors as well (unless they're Inheritors).

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

The marine book itself is a functional army. Salamanders might not be top, but simply by being new Marines they will be good.

 Ordana wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The fact that they got a superior version of votlw is what irks me. It's bad enough that sm get everyone else's stuff but they get better versions of it.

GW has no clue how to balance SM's as they are so the only option they see is to throw a gakload of special rules on it and hope it works.

Turns out throwing a load of special rules on an army that is mediocre might make them to good. Who could have known.

well that's how GW's been buffing all the other armies. well that and making them much lower points cost. fact is GW could keep pushing marine points lower and lower, or they could start making marines feel elite. Personally I like that Marines feel elite, before hand they just felt like tough guys in power armor, but not partiuclarly elite, things like guard orders, etc really helped those armies feel their role, and now space Marines feel like they should.