Blackie wrote:

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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This could all be resolved easily by two main changes.

1. Make the game based around a D10, not a D6.

2. Make weapons affect given targets in a substantially different manner.

A Anti-infantry ranged weapons like Flamers against keyword infantry targets now deals auto D6+2 hits. Flamers against Vehicles deal 1 hit, at half strength.

Anti-Tank ranged weapons like Lascannons (S9+) deal D6+6 wounds if against keyword vehicle units.. Or flat 3 against infantry.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This could all be resolved easily by two main changes.

1. Make the game based around a D10, not a D6.

2. Make weapons affect given targets in a substantially different manner.

A Anti-infantry ranged weapons like Flamers against keyword infantry targets now deals auto D6+2 hits. Flamers against Vehicles deal 1 hit, at half strength.

Anti-Tank ranged weapons like Lascannons (S9+) deal D6+6 wounds if against keyword vehicle units.. Or flat 3 against infantry.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

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

Tyel wrote:
Its a reasonable argument that the flamer should be buffed (along with grenade launchers, all special weapons etc) - but these should in turn be chunkier, 20+ point upgrades that push a unit in that direction.

If weapons are going to be 5 points, obviously their effect has to be somewhat marginal.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
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.

The odds of rolling a 14 on 4d6 is only 11.27%.

However, the odds of rolling 13, 14, or 15 is 32.87%.
12-16 is more than 50%.
For reference, the odds of rolling 4 on 4d6 is .08%. Less than one in a thousand. Hell, you've got 90% odds of rolling a 10+.

The more dice you roll, the closer to the average you'll get consistently.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

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

The odds of rolling a 14 on 4d6 is only 11.27%.

However, the odds of rolling 13, 14, or 15 is 32.87%.
12-16 is more than 50%.
For reference, the odds of rolling 4 on 4d6 is .08%. Less than one in a thousand. Hell, you've got 90% odds of rolling a 10+.

The more dice you roll, the closer to the average you'll get consistently.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do we need to buff Grenade Launchers when Plasma and Melta are already super powerful? Just retire them to legends and be done with it. Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Sniper rifles, serve really zero purpose in the Guard these days. As they are currently the only faction that includes them as special weapons (Launchers and Sniper Rifles) dropping them off the books wouldn't really hurt anything.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Its a reasonable argument that the flamer should be buffed (along with grenade launchers, all special weapons etc) - but these should in turn be chunkier, 20+ point upgrades that push a unit in that direction.

If weapons are going to be 5 points, obviously their effect has to be somewhat marginal.

Bad take is bad.

Plasma Guns aren't 20 points and don't have only a marginal effect. Plasma isn't broken either.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

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

The odds of rolling a 14 on 4d6 is only 11.27%.

However, the odds of rolling 13, 14, or 15 is 32.87%.
12-16 is more than 50%.
For reference, the odds of rolling 4 on 4d6 is .08%. Less than one in a thousand. Hell, you've got 90% odds of rolling a 10+.

The more dice you roll, the closer to the average you'll get consistently.

the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?
and just a side rant, i hate when people use numbers like 2.5 or 3.5 average shots or wounds for X weapons. those are pointless, useless numbers since you can't have half a hit or half a wound in game.
sure for many purposes decimals work, but not for warhammer. if it's not a a full whole number, the number behind the decimal doesn't really matter. .98 wounds in game just translates to still mean 0 wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do we need to buff Grenade Launchers when Plasma and Melta are already super powerful? Just retire them to legends and be done with it. Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Sniper rifles, serve really zero purpose in the Guard these days. As they are currently the only faction that includes them as special weapons (Launchers and Sniper Rifles) dropping them off the books wouldn't really hurt anything.

i mean some people like the options, and taking options away isn't really a good answer, when people are just asking for all options to be useful. not necessarily meta, but useful.

hell players like me who got most of their models when they were kids might have primarily only grenade launchers, and flamers for their special weapons because for years those were the only special weapons that came in a kit.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do we need to buff Grenade Launchers when Plasma and Melta are already super powerful? Just retire them to legends and be done with it. Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Sniper rifles, serve really zero purpose in the Guard these days. As they are currently the only faction that includes them as special weapons (Launchers and Sniper Rifles) dropping them off the books wouldn't really hurt anything.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do we need to buff Grenade Launchers when Plasma and Melta are already super powerful? Just retire them to legends and be done with it. Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Sniper rifles, serve really zero purpose in the Guard these days. As they are currently the only faction that includes them as special weapons (Launchers and Sniper Rifles) dropping them off the books wouldn't really hurt anything.

Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?

I just rolled* two multi-melta shots, and I got a 1 and a 2 on the to-hit roll.
Conclusion: Multi-meltas are bad at anti-tank.

I agree that, if we want the flamer to be a dedicated anti-horde weapon, raising the floor of its performance has merit, but an anecdotal subpar dice roll on a tiny number of dice isn't a compelling argument.


Edited for more analogous example.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?

I just rolled* two multi-melta shots, and I got a 1 and a 2 on the to-hit roll.
Conclusion: Multi-meltas are bad at anti-tank.

I agree that, if we want the flamer to be a dedicated anti-horde weapon, raising the floor of its performance has merit, but an anecdotal subpar dice roll on a tiny number of dice isn't a compelling argument.


Edited for more analogous example.

edited for a more analogous example, yet was an awful analogous example…
Rolling a 1 for damage on a lascannon would have been a better analogy.

Would it make you feel better if I rolled an average of 1 or 2 on 4 dice for 100 rolls?

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the point being, a 1 for a hoarde clearing weapon shouldnt even be a thing.
i just rolled 4 D6, the results? 1, 2, 3, 4. 10 shots, from 4 weapons, averaging 2.5 shots per weapon. when it takes 4 weapons thats not exactly an effective hoard clearing weapon is it?

I just rolled* two multi-melta shots, and I got a 1 and a 2 on the to-hit roll.
Conclusion: Multi-meltas are bad at anti-tank.

I agree that, if we want the flamer to be a dedicated anti-horde weapon, raising the floor of its performance has merit, but an anecdotal subpar dice roll on a tiny number of dice isn't a compelling argument.


Edited for more analogous example.

edited for a more analogous example, yet was an awful analogous example…
Rolling a 1 for damage on a lascannon would have been a better analogy.

Would it make you feel better if I rolled an average of 1 or 2 on 4 dice for 100 rolls?

If that happened, your dice are probably weighted.

And 2.5 S4 AP0 D1 hits are still close to twice as good as two BS 3+ shots of the same.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i am just asking for the flamers to be somewhat competitive in their niche, which they aren't at the moment.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

except that's a total strawman of my argument. an anti-hoard weapon should not ever have a minimum number of shots, below 2. there's no weapon with a flat number of shots that's considered anti-hoard that's below 3 shots, so it's stupid to have a weapon whose niche is anti-hoard, but has a 38% chance of getting fewer shots than what would otherwise be considered an anti-hoard weapon, with a max of 6 shots, still only about middle of the road for anti-hoard work when compared to things like the punisher, or onslaught. max of 6 shots is the same as an assault cannon, but the AS is much more likely to actually kill the hoard it hits than the flamer is.

the plasma gun is largely considered anti-elite infantry, and anit-light armor, yet the blast rule makes it better at anti-chaff than the flamer, that's before we take the range, S and AP stats into consideration, and yes plasma guns are more expensive but they flat out fill the niche better, same for grenade launchers.

edit
fresh idea that might be even more controversial. give flamers a stepped approach. increase range to 16" 13-16" 2 shots. 8-12" 4 shots, 7 or fewer inches 6 shots. flat number of auto hitting low S medium to short range shots.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flamers aren’t good, and could use a buff.

However, saying “You can roll bad,” as a reason to buff a weapon is a really dumb reason. That applies to basically every weapon ever.

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

Tygre wrote:
I know that traditionally we have used flamers as an anti-hoard weapon, but should it be? IRL flame throwers weren't used against massed infantry (medieval equivalents maybe excepted). Flame throwers were anti-personnel but not anti-hoard. They were used against dug-in and fortified infantry.

Maybe we should concentrate on the anti-cover aspect of flamers? +1Str and +1AP against targets in cover?

 Dysartes wrote:
For the love of the Emperor, people - anti-horde, not anti-hoard.

CthulusSpy wrote:

Tygre wrote:
I know that traditionally we have used flamers as an anti-hoard weapon, but should it be? IRL flame throwers weren't used against massed infantry (medieval equivalents maybe excepted). Flame throwers were anti-personnel but not anti-hoard. They were used against dug-in and fortified infantry.

Maybe we should concentrate on the anti-cover aspect of flamers? +1Str and +1AP against targets in cover?

Well yeah, because massed infantry wasn't a thing by the time flame throwers were introduced. The invention of the machine gun saw to that.
Can't use flamethrowers against massed infantry when massed infantry no longer exists.