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.

Back to templates! Thats the buff we need

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i've never understood how there's an argument about if a model is under the template or not...especially if everything is measured from the base...is the base under the template? yes, it is, or no it isn't.

Unless you are playing TTS, there always is room for discussion when models just barely touch the edge of the teardrop - especially if people are looking through the template at an angle, they see more models covered than there actually are. This especially happens when the target unit is near the table center, but also when you can't actually place the template on top of models because of terrain, other tall model nearby or banners/boss poles. Last, but not least, people often don't get that hitting the model isn't enough when that model is hanging off the base.

The new solution sucks, but the old one was one of the worst parts of playing 40k.

 Jidmah wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You actually didn't say why my idea was crazy, just that you don't like it because Orks. Orks shouldn't be taken into consideration because their codex needs an overhaul anyway.

Spotted the GW rules dev.

I'm a GW Rules Dev because I think they need a complete overhaul?

No, because you think orks shouldn't be taken into consideration for sweeping rules changes, just like them.

 Jidmah wrote:
No, because you think orks shouldn't be taken into consideration for sweeping rules changes, just like them.

Orks have so many inherent problems that they need a sweeping rules change themselves. Buffed flamers are the least of their problems to be frank.

On the idea of simulating template effects;

AoS has some flamer-like weapons, or sweeping weapons, where you roll a number of dice/attempt hit rolls for each enemy model within range of the weapon.

It needs an exception for monsters/vehicles, etcs to work obviously, and at least for AoS, when my Skaven warpfire or Lumineth Bladelords get stuck in to an enemy horde unit, it can take quite a long time to resolve how many dice I'm using. Then I have to actually roll all the damn dice.

But, I could see it being a solid alternative to just a d6 autohitting shots.

 Jidmah wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i've never understood how there's an argument about if a model is under the template or not...especially if everything is measured from the base...is the base under the template? yes, it is, or no it isn't.

Unless you are playing TTS, there always is room for discussion when models just barely touch the edge of the teardrop - especially if people are looking through the template at an angle, they see more models covered than there actually are. This especially happens when the target unit is near the table center, but also when you can't actually place the template on top of models because of terrain, other tall model nearby or banners/boss poles. Last, but not least, people often don't get that hitting the model isn't enough when that model is hanging off the base.

The new solution sucks, but the old one was one of the worst parts of playing 40k.

literally never had an issue figuring out what models are under the template, and the center of table is even less of an issue now that table sizes are smaller.

also it seems to be plenty fine for necromunda and HH.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You actually didn't say why my idea was crazy, just that you don't like it because Orks. Orks shouldn't be taken into consideration because their codex needs an overhaul anyway.

The intent behind the OP is to buff flamers vs Hordes, Orkz are a horde therefore the changes target them specifically. Almost all the solutions offered so far would make the flamers better vs Marines or other tougher targets, especially the +1S -1AP suggestion. The suggestion of more hits is fine except i do want to point out my main contention with the OP's statement. NOBODY IS BRINGING HORDES. GW did your work for you already OP, they effectively murdered hordes by making them either too expensive, too crappy or too dangerous to even remotely think about bringing. Killing 6 boyz out of a blob of 30 pretty much guarantees 5 more dead Orkz from Morale for example

As far as "Their codex needs an overhaul" i agree. Historically how often have Orkz gotten 2 codexs in a single edition. I'll give you a hint, we are in 9th edition and orkz have only ever had 6 codex. GW didn't give us one in 5th or 6th. And most of us wish they hadn't given us one in 7th with how badly it was written. So going back to the point we aren't likely to receive an overhaul so any proposed rules right now would impact orkz as they currently exist. Also, even if they did it wouldn't change the fact that buffing a flamer making it more better vs hordes isn't going to be any better then either because as mentioned it already more than doubles the RoF of a bolter on average. You want it to be more reliable? Fine, make it flat 3 shots a turn.

 Jidmah wrote:
Spotted the GW rules dev.

Twice Jid in a day, I laughed thanks.

Also, historically, flamethrowers have not been a weapon you use against massed infantry in an open field. A much more effective weapon for that is your basic belt fed machine gun.

You use flamethrowers to clear infantry out of entrenched positions such as trenches, pillboxes, bunkers etc.

 Blackie wrote:

Which make sense though. Firing a flame thrower point blank seems pretty stupid, the bearer would burn himself.

Which is understandable for infantry, bikers, etc. However, they can't fire into engagement anyway.

What's a flame thrower going to do against the front or side of a tank? Molotovs worked in WW2 by have flammable chemicals drip into the engine compartment, but flame throwers would avoid that by being directed away from that area.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, historically, flamethrowers have not been a weapon you use against massed infantry in an open field. A much more effective weapon for that is your basic belt fed machine gun.

You use flamethrowers to clear infantry out of entrenched positions such as trenches, pillboxes, bunkers etc.

unless they're going to get a special rule to make them more effective against troops in various types of cover/terrain, that doesn't change anything.

also while i do like mechanics/rules making sense from a real life standpoint with some suspension of disbelief, how flamerthrowers were used historically isn't particularly relevant since the 40kverse has flamers that operate quite differently, using a single small fuel tank in many cases for example, rather than two large fuel tanks that fit on a backpack.

point being that the flamers are supposed to be anti-hoard weapons, their current statline makes them hit or miss at best in that regard. even with catachan rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
flamers are supposed to be anti-hoard weapons, but with D6 shots, a roll of 1 or 2, even 3 on a S4 weapon tends to have underwhelming results even against guard.
so how about a buff?
i'm thinking D6+1 or 2D3

In a word...No.

a Flamer averages 3.5 hits a turn, in terms of a bolter that is equivalent to 5.25 Bolter shots or 2.6 Marines shooting their bolters at half range. So 5pts more then doubles your RoF for a bolter. Whether you view that as worth 5pts is a question, maybe drop it to 3pts, but buff it? No. You start making Flamers too powerful and you will quickly run into flamer bombs where players just max out the # of flamers they can take and keep them in reserve for a deep strike bomb.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

Yep, you just went crazy. A LD Debuff would have little to no impact on most factions especially Power armored armies, Orkz on the other hand...you just likely caused them to fail morale. Similar impact for ignoring cover. Doesn't matter for Space Marines all that much, but for those same orkz, you just reduced their armor save by 50% The problem a lot of people run into is that they adjust the game in their heads to target their most common opponent and damn the consequences against the other factions who would be more significantly impacted.

Racerguy180 wrote:

As a Salamander, they don't need more hits, they need more effective hits...

Again, it more than doubles the RoF for the model. you want more effective hits? Buy a heavy flamer.

 Jidmah wrote:


My main gripes with templates were
1) the fights over how many models were underneath them and the inability of people to understand how perspective works
2) making every single model placement matter

Rare moment of agreement with jid.

should flamers be better than bolters? considering they're an upgrade for tactical marines, and a few other squads, i would say yes, they should be better at nearly everything in the game than a bolter, otherwise it's not really and upgrade is it? sidegrade or even possibly a downgrade.

What if we think like GW for a moment. What if instead of auto-hitting, it instead invalidates infantry saves? Still d6 shots, but now base infantry (Troops with no Invuln or FNP) get no save against it. Vehicles get a save, as does anything with a vehicle keyword.

Auto-wounds infantry. Basically it should auto-wound troops and Elite infantry with no secondary save.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if we think like GW for a moment. What if instead of auto-hitting, it instead invalidates infantry saves? Still d6 shots, but now base infantry (Troops with no Invuln or FNP) get no save against it. Vehicles get a save, as does anything with a vehicle keyword.

Auto-wounds infantry. Basically it should auto-wound troops and Elite infantry with no secondary save.

Well someone complained my idea of ignoring cover and a small LD debuff was too powerful, so clearly you're heading the right direction.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if we think like GW for a moment. What if instead of auto-hitting, it instead invalidates infantry saves? Still d6 shots, but now base infantry (Troops with no Invuln or FNP) get no save against it. Vehicles get a save, as does anything with a vehicle keyword.

Auto-wounds infantry. Basically it should auto-wound troops and Elite infantry with no secondary save.

Well someone complained my idea of ignoring cover and a small LD debuff was too powerful, so clearly you're heading the right direction.

So far people have asked for:

Auto-hitting 3/4 shots
Ignores Cover
Ignores LoS
And making it S5 AP1.

Right now, base stock, a Salamander Space Marine does +1 to wound with a standard flamer. If we are going to look at buffing a base weapon, we have to consider all faction uses.

An "ignores armor save" option does that. The best flamer units in the game, (Salamanders and Baal Preds) already have rediculous +wound ratios, so is an "auto wound cheap trash units" really that big of a buff? Especially if we upgrade the cost. Guard don't take them because it makes them have to get up close, which is not where guard want to be. SM don't take them because there are flat out better options. Burna boys, well, no one takes Burna boys, so is that really an issue?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if we think like GW for a moment. What if instead of auto-hitting, it instead invalidates infantry saves? Still d6 shots, but now base infantry (Troops with no Invuln or FNP) get no save against it. Vehicles get a save, as does anything with a vehicle keyword.

Auto-wounds infantry. Basically it should auto-wound troops and Elite infantry with no secondary save.

Well someone complained my idea of ignoring cover and a small LD debuff was too powerful, so clearly you're heading the right direction.

So far people have asked for:

Auto-hitting 3/4 shots
Ignores Cover
Ignores LoS
And making it S5 AP1.

Right now, base stock, a Salamander Space Marine does +1 to wound with a standard flamer. If we are going to look at buffing a base weapon, we have to consider all faction uses.

An "ignores armor save" option does that. The best flamer units in the game, (Salamanders and Baal Preds) already have rediculous +wound ratios, so is an "auto wound cheap trash units" really that big of a buff? Especially if we upgrade the cost. Guard don't take them because it makes them have to get up close, which is not where guard want to be. SM don't take them because there are flat out better options. Burna boys, well, no one takes Burna boys, so is that really an issue?

Well so far we don't have to include ALL fix ideas.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
should flamers be better than bolters? considering they're an upgrade for tactical marines, and a few other squads, i would say yes, they should be better at nearly everything in the game than a bolter, otherwise it's not really and upgrade is it? sidegrade or even possibly a downgrade.

One more time, at 12' a flamer averages 3.5 hits a turn, a bolter averages 1.33. That is a dmg increase of 263% So 5pts buys you a 263% increase in dmg at 12' range....I would argue that is already better then a bolter by a significant amount.

The problem isn't that its not already an upgrade, its that its a situational upgrade and that is what bothers a lot of people. People don't like situational upgrades, they like no brainers. Why pay 5pts for an upgrade you might not get to use because of its relative short range? Its not that great of a weapon to base a drop strike around so therefore its being talked about here LOL.

The problem is not that you may not get to use it for Xpts. The problem with flamer weapons, other then does like pre nerf liquifires, is that no one wants to get in to flamer range and then see a 1 rolled for number of hits. it is the same problem regular lascannons have. The weapon is too swingy.

Thadin wrote:On the idea of simulating template effects;

AoS has some flamer-like weapons, or sweeping weapons, where you roll a number of dice/attempt hit rolls for each enemy model within range of the weapon.

It needs an exception for monsters/vehicles, etcs to work obviously, and at least for AoS, when my Skaven warpfire or Lumineth Bladelords get stuck in to an enemy horde unit, it can take quite a long time to resolve how many dice I'm using. Then I have to actually roll all the damn dice.

But, I could see it being a solid alternative to just a d6 autohitting shots.

The problem with both that and the return to templates is that it punishes people for not painstakingly spreading their models out as far as possible every time they move them. Which is annoying to do and annoying to wait on. So it feels bad to spread your models out, but then it also feels bad to not spread them out because then your opponents flamers become more effective. So you end up with a mechanic that ends up feeling unpleasant regardless of what you do. And that goes double if you happen to be playing a melee horde army that relies on clumping up models in engagement range.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Also, historically, flamethrowers have not been a weapon you use against massed infantry in an open field. A much more effective weapon for that is your basic belt fed machine gun.

You use flamethrowers to clear infantry out of entrenched positions such as trenches, pillboxes, bunkers etc.

Yeah. This is a matter of flamethrowers being cool but the rules of the game kind of getting away from them. In previous editions, my eldar rangers could have a 3+ cover save while in terrain but no save at all when they got hit by a flamer. So you had an interesting bit of back and forth there. The short-ranged flamer would ruin the rangers' day if I let it get close to me, but my opponent passed up a plasma or melta gun to take that flamer. Now, the flamers only "ignore cover" if said cover is dense. And even if we let flamers ignore the benefits of light cover, they'd still feel a little lackluster even against units like my rangers.

So while it feels like flamers should be used to clear out enemy bunkers, I'm not sure the current cover rules lend themselves to that.

Karol wrote:The problem is not that you may not get to use it for Xpts. The problem with flamer weapons, other then does like pre nerf liquifires, is that no one wants to get in to flamer range and then see a 1 rolled for number of hits. it is the same problem regular lascannons have. The weapon is too swingy.

Well, sort of. "Swingy" implies that flamers perform well a reasonable percentage of the time. Like, I'm bummed when a lascannon rolls a 1 for damage, but at least it will roll a 6 just as often. And its high strength and decent AP mean that I make it to the damage roll semi-reliably. But even if a flamer had a flat 6 shots, it would still be kind of an iffy choice against anything but lightly-armored T3 units.

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

Why the hell is everyone so hell bent on making a 5pt weapon upgrade so ridiculously powerful?

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

Why the hell is everyone so hell bent on making a 5pt weapon upgrade so ridiculously powerful?

Some of these are a little silly.
I just don’t think an anti-hoard weapon should ever get only 1 shot.
A 2 shot minimum seems perfectly reasonable
It doesn’t really matter what the mathhammer of random shot weapons is, because that doesn’t change the fact that 4 flamers can each roll 1 for their number of shots in a single turn. What’s the average number of shots then?

It doesn’t need to be devastating by any means.

Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon. A dedicated AT gun should never cause only 1 wound as a base damage (ya know before any damage reduction rules are applied)

Make flame weapons Assault weapons, and slap the Blast rule on them.

Done

SemperMortis wrote:

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

- Ministorum flamer is S5 and 5 points.
- Witchseeker flamer is AP-1 and comes free on the datasheet on a 14 point model.
- Cognis flamer is D6+2 shots and 5 points.
- Incinerator is S6 AP-1 and 5 points.
- T’au flamer is D6+2 shots and 5/10/15 points.

I hardly see how it's overpowered when similar options already exist, and I didn't even cover them all. Out of this entire list the only one even taken is the Tau Flamer. No-one is taking the rest.

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

Overpowered by what metric? If we're talking about a squad of tactical marines, going from a bolter to a flamer means going from 1 or 2 (depending on movement) shots at 12.1"-24" of range to 0 shots and spending points to do so. And you're using up that slot to add anti-infantry shooting to squad that already has it rather than adding another plasma or meltagun to your army. So hitting a little harder when you are in range doesn't seem ridiculous. Also, we're talking about 2 extra hits. So an extra...
...1 Wound VS a marine which becomes an extra 0.67~ unsaved wounds after a 3+ save.
...0.67 Wounds VS an ork boy which becomes an extra 0.56~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.
...1.33~ Wounds VS a termagaunt which becomes an extra 1.11~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.

Are you of the opinion that a flamer killing an extra 1/4th of a marine, 1/2 of an ork, or a single extra termagaunt takes the weapon from being balanced to being overpowered? And if so, do you feel the flamer is in a good place currently?

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

Overpowered by what criteria? Obviously this variant would have more defensive benefits than the others. The point of this version is to trade the superior offense boosts of other special weapons for defensive benefits that are more situational by virtue of only kicking in when you face an opponent that's likely to charge a unit that happens to contain a flamer. If you're facing Tau or Thousand Sons or any number of armies that don't rely on melee to finish units off, it's entirely possible that you'll never get the chance to overwatch with the flamer. And if you do get to use it, well, congrats on taking an average of 0.67 Wounds off of the meq squad coming your way. But if you're facing daemons or tyranids, knowing your tac squad has a flamer might make your opponent reconsider trying to finish your tacs off with charging gargoyles. In other words, the weapon has a niche and an impact on decision making but doesn't strike me as overpowered. But hey. Maybe I'm missing something.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

My suggestion was that units would get hit by the mortal wounds if they opted to hold still and stand in the middle of the flames. If you're not within 3" of the token at the end of the Movement phase, you're fine. Granted, larger units might have more trouble getting clear than MSU. Which indirectly comes back around to making the flamer useful against hordes.

I'm willing to have my mind changed, but it seems like you're being really disingenuous here.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
It doesn’t really matter what the mathhammer of random shot weapons is, because that doesn’t change the fact that 4 flamers can each roll 1 for their number of shots in a single turn. What’s the average number of shots then?

The average sum of 4d6 would remain 14 even if you occasionally roll badly because that's how averages work. The average is 14 not despite the possibility of rolling four 1s, but because of that possibility.

It doesn’t need to be devastating by any means.

Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon. A dedicated AT gun should never cause only 1 wound as a base damage (ya know before any damage reduction rules are applied)

Agreed that the humble flamer doesn't need to be a stupendously powerful weapon. Honestly, I don't think the flamer is all that bad for its current cost. That said, I think the case could be made that it would be more viscerally, emotionally, and mechanically satisfying to give the flamer a little more oomph (and presumably raise its points cost accordingly.) Currently, the average performance of a flamer against a squad of termagaunts is something like 3.5 hits = 2.33~ wounds = 1.94~ dead termagaunts. Which is okay and probably about right for 5 points versus an ideal target, but also not very exciting. It lacks the same feeling of satisfaction that comes with killing a marine with a plasma gun or taking a big chunk out of a vehicle's Wounds with a meltagun.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

Yep, you just went crazy. A LD Debuff would have little to no impact on most factions especially Power armored armies, Orkz on the other hand...you just likely caused them to fail morale. Similar impact for ignoring cover. Doesn't matter for Space Marines all that much, but for those same orkz, you just reduced their armor save by 50% The problem a lot of people run into is that they adjust the game in their heads to target their most common opponent and damn the consequences against the other factions who would be more significantly impacted.

You actually didn't say why my idea was crazy, just that you don't like it because Orks. Orks shouldn't be taken into consideration because their codex needs an overhaul anyway.

And power armour dudes don't need additional buffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make flame weapons Assault weapons, and slap the Blast rule on them.

Done

Basic flamers are all assault weapons already, while heavy ones are mostly carried by stuff (starting with vehicles) that ignores the penalty for moving and firing anyway.

Blast would be the obvious fix as the template since historically flamer and blast weapons all used templates.

 Blackie wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think a simple Ignoring Cover and some LD debuff would suffice. It doesn't need to be crazy.

Yep, you just went crazy. A LD Debuff would have little to no impact on most factions especially Power armored armies, Orkz on the other hand...you just likely caused them to fail morale. Similar impact for ignoring cover. Doesn't matter for Space Marines all that much, but for those same orkz, you just reduced their armor save by 50% The problem a lot of people run into is that they adjust the game in their heads to target their most common opponent and damn the consequences against the other factions who would be more significantly impacted.

You actually didn't say why my idea was crazy, just that you don't like it because Orks. Orks shouldn't be taken into consideration because their codex needs an overhaul anyway.

And power armour dudes don't need additional buffs.

Ah yes, all those Space Marines that are ALWAYS lugging Flamers all the time LOL.

Got an actual criticism?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Ah yes, all those Space Marines that are ALWAYS lugging Flamers all the time LOL.

Got an actual criticism?

I mean, power armour factions don't need another good tool to be added in their deck of options.

So an eventual buff to flamer that just ignores cover and decrease LD is almost useless against units that have really high saves, AoC and really high LD or ways to be immune to LD shenanigans. On the other hand it would be a massive nerf for other kinds of units. Sounds like a bespoke solution, rather than a universal one. Just like "make flamers completely ignore saves!", which would make ork burnas crazy with 10-12 flamer guys while SM flamers would not be that good against hordes with low saves.

A universal blast special rule added to all flamers would make those weapons more useful for all the factions, without breaking anything.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon.

Nah, the hoard equivalent of a lascannon would be a gold-plated lascannon - much more appealing to a dragon's avarice.

Now, the flamer is definitely anti-horde in the same way that a lascannon is anti-armour - though, depending on the composition of a given dragon's hoard, the fire could well be seen as anti-hoard as well. Bad for artwork or books, but melting gold means you still have the gold at the end, just in a less-useful form...

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Well...CSM flamers, from the new WC update, are getting a buff.

Colour me unimpressed. One weapon maketh not a codex.

btw at the same time we got access to flamers and combiflamers severly restricted
so instead of 5 flamers /combiflamer chosen squad you get 3 flamers which in essence just ammount to the average rolls of 5 former flamer chosen.

actually under the average

because 5 x3.5 = 17.5 flamer shots from old chosen
new chosen get 3x3.5 +6 =16.5 average.

so we are now worse at "letting the galaxy burn" .

and don't get started on the legionaires which are not allowed anymore to double up on flamers

SemperMortis wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
should flamers be better than bolters? considering they're an upgrade for tactical marines, and a few other squads, i would say yes, they should be better at nearly everything in the game than a bolter, otherwise it's not really and upgrade is it? sidegrade or even possibly a downgrade.

One more time, at 12' a flamer averages 3.5 hits a turn, a bolter averages 1.33. That is a dmg increase of 263% So 5pts buys you a 263% increase in dmg at 12' range....I would argue that is already better then a bolter by a significant amount.

The problem isn't that its not already an upgrade, its that its a situational upgrade and that is what bothers a lot of people. People don't like situational upgrades, they like no brainers. Why pay 5pts for an upgrade you might not get to use because of its relative short range? Its not that great of a weapon to base a drop strike around so therefore its being talked about here LOL.

No, the problem is many armies struggle to get units into the situation where it's good and even when you do, the return on your investment is often pitiful, and the opportunity cost not worth it. I have multiple inferno pistols in my BA army because I find the trade-off worth it even though they are very situational. They also do something my regular weapons don't, which is another problem with the flamer - it's a boltgun that gets more hits at close range when most armies that can take them are already armed with boltguns. The most common one even gets bonus shots with that boltgun if they stand still.

The problem with your damage increase numbers is they only apply once you're in range (they also don't take into account very common to-hit bonuses, that often apply to bolters). They don't account for the shots you missed out on because a model had a flamer instead of a boltgun.

Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

MY PITCHES:
1. Just make them Assault d6+2. Honestly, tau flamers feel about right. A couple extra shots makes the gun feel worthwhile against heavy infantry and also makes it significantly more effective against light infantry.

2. Give them a special rule that lets you overwatch for free with any flamers in a unit. Kind of has that flamers-as-defense vibe you get from Space Hulk. Makes the flamer a playstyle-changing choice. Basically doubles the flamer's shots if you know your opponent is going to be charging you.

3. When you shoot a flamer, put down a Hazard Token. Hazard Tokens go away at the start of the next player turn. At the end of the next Movement phase, any units within 3" of a Hazard Token suffers d3 mortal wounds. Basically, the flames stick around and spread for a little while, and you have to clear out of their way or take damage.

1 is the simplest and makes flamers a bit more killy. 2 is still pretty simple and makes flamers more than just a pure number crunch against plasma guns. 3 is the most complicated, but it sort of recaptures that "bunker clearing" feeling. Plus, making an entire objective scoring area an inferno for a turn sounds like an interesting way to shake up the game state.

1: Overpowered. You just upped the average hits from 3.5 to 5.5 so now for 5pts its 412% better then a bolter 12' range.

Overpowered by what metric? If we're talking about a squad of tactical marines, going from a bolter to a flamer means going from 1 or 2 (depending on movement) shots at 12.1"-24" of range to 0 shots and spending points to do so. And you're using up that slot to add anti-infantry shooting to squad that already has it rather than adding another plasma or meltagun to your army. So hitting a little harder when you are in range doesn't seem ridiculous. Also, we're talking about 2 extra hits. So an extra...
...1 Wound VS a marine which becomes an extra 0.67~ unsaved wounds after a 3+ save.
...0.67 Wounds VS an ork boy which becomes an extra 0.56~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.
...1.33~ Wounds VS a termagaunt which becomes an extra 1.11~ unsaved wounds after a 6+ save.

Are you of the opinion that a flamer killing an extra 1/4th of a marine, 1/2 of an ork, or a single extra termagaunt takes the weapon from being balanced to being overpowered? And if so, do you feel the flamer is in a good place currently?

2: Overpowered. You just made them auto-takes for defensive uses if nothing else. It makes its points back with 1 overwatch on average.

Overpowered by what criteria? Obviously this variant would have more defensive benefits than the others. The point of this version is to trade the superior offense boosts of other special weapons for defensive benefits that are more situational by virtue of only kicking in when you face an opponent that's likely to charge a unit that happens to contain a flamer. If you're facing Tau or Thousand Sons or any number of armies that don't rely on melee to finish units off, it's entirely possible that you'll never get the chance to overwatch with the flamer. And if you do get to use it, well, congrats on taking an average of 0.67 Wounds off of the meq squad coming your way. But if you're facing daemons or tyranids, knowing your tac squad has a flamer might make your opponent reconsider trying to finish your tacs off with charging gargoyles. In other words, the weapon has a niche and an impact on decision making but doesn't strike me as overpowered. But hey. Maybe I'm missing something.

3: Overpowered. 5pts now hands out D3 mortal wounds to any unit near where you put your token.

My suggestion was that units would get hit by the mortal wounds if they opted to hold still and stand in the middle of the flames. If you're not within 3" of the token at the end of the Movement phase, you're fine. Granted, larger units might have more trouble getting clear than MSU. Which indirectly comes back around to making the flamer useful against hordes.

I'm willing to have my mind changed, but it seems like you're being really disingenuous here.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
It doesn’t really matter what the mathhammer of random shot weapons is, because that doesn’t change the fact that 4 flamers can each roll 1 for their number of shots in a single turn. What’s the average number of shots then?

The average sum of 4d6 would remain 14 even if you occasionally roll badly because that's how averages work. The average is 14 not despite the possibility of rolling four 1s, but because of that possibility.

It doesn’t need to be devastating by any means.

Like so many have said it’s the hoard equivalent of the lascannon. A dedicated AT gun should never cause only 1 wound as a base damage (ya know before any damage reduction rules are applied)

Agreed that the humble flamer doesn't need to be a stupendously powerful weapon. Honestly, I don't think the flamer is all that bad for its current cost. That said, I think the case could be made that it would be more viscerally, emotionally, and mechanically satisfying to give the flamer a little more oomph (and presumably raise its points cost accordingly.) Currently, the average performance of a flamer against a squad of termagaunts is something like 3.5 hits = 2.33~ wounds = 1.94~ dead termagaunts. Which is okay and probably about right for 5 points versus an ideal target, but also not very exciting. It lacks the same feeling of satisfaction that comes with killing a marine with a plasma gun or taking a big chunk out of a vehicle's Wounds with a meltagun.

14 is the theoretical average, but the average of 4 results rolled in a single turn is not likely to be the same as a theoretical average. If you’d like I can get 4D6 out and roll them to see what the average of that actual roll was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the heretics can get D6+2 damage lascannons (which makes sense for their role) it’s likely all lascannons will be getting buffed, then flamers can get D6+1