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.

I'm a Salamanders player and I have questions or it may just be a rant. With Salamanders being a army known for flamers, why do the rules state that only Blood Angels and their successors can use heavy flamers and hand flamers? If someone can help me with this I would be greatly appreciative.

Because only the BA Tactical Squad kit (which is not available any more) comes with them. Welcome to the sucky world of "No Model, No Rules"

Are you sure they can't take hand flamers? There's some in their upgrade kit.

beast_gts wrote:
Are you sure they can't take hand flamers? There's some in their upgrade kit.

Intercessors can, Firstborn cannot.

Fret not, as there is already a Primaris flamer (called "Pyroblaster") in the Black Templar squad sprue and thus, exclusively available for them.

No flamers for the flamer Chapter, again...

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because only the BA Tactical Squad kit (which is not available any more) comes with them. Welcome to the sucky world of "No Model, No Rules"

Nice (wrong) conspiracy theory, but it's this way since 5th edition. Two editions before said Tactical Squad kit was made. It's because GW had competent rules writer then who wanted to encourage mobile assault play style with BA and gave their tacticals assault weapon type option in heavy weapon slot to not punish BA players for taking their own troops while keeping adherence to fluffy battle company organization. It's just that people writing Salamander rules two editions later had far less of a clue so they did lazy lowest effort possible job.

I wish people stopped peddling NMNR fakesplanation in a world where Primaris and Deathwatch exist (both of which having heavy Doubleyes Model Absolutely No Rules syndrome) and instead got a clue and started paying attention who writes what (funnily enough, 90% of problems with rules in Codex books always happens thanks to the same 3-4 incompetent, grandfathered in people) but until then, conspiracy theory it is I guess...

 Irbis wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because only the BA Tactical Squad kit (which is not available any more) comes with them. Welcome to the sucky world of "No Model, No Rules"

Nice (wrong) conspiracy theory, but it's this way since 5th edition. Two editions before said Tactical Squad kit was made. It's because GW had competent rules writer then who wanted to encourage mobile assault play style with BA and gave their tacticals assault weapon type option in heavy weapon slot to not punish BA players for taking their own troops while keeping adherence to fluffy battle company organization. It's just that people writing Salamander rules two editions later had far less of a clue so they did lazy lowest effort possible job.

I wish people stopped peddling NMNR fakesplanation in a world where Primaris and Deathwatch exist (both of which having heavy Doubleyes Model Absolutely No Rules syndrome) and instead got a clue and started paying attention who writes what (funnily enough, 90% of problems with rules in Codex books always happens thanks to the same 3-4 incompetent, grandfathered in people) but until then, conspiracy theory it is I guess...

So much hot air being expended there for no real result...

Who wants to explain the 'special issue bolter ammo and which models have shot selectors on their bolters' 'conspiracy' to Irbis then..?

lol

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Who wants to explain the 'special issue bolter ammo and which models have shot selectors on their bolters' 'conspiracy' to Irbis then..?

lol

If he'd actually have looked in the SM codex he'd see the bizarre policy of NMNR beautifully inconsistently applied yet again. Tacticals cannot take Heavy or Hand Flamers as the kit does not come with them, except for a legacy BA squad kit, so only BAs can take them. Buuuuuuutttttt- Intercessors can freely take Hand Flamers, despite the only (official) source of that part being the previously linked Salamanders upgrade kit. Exactly the same principle of sourcing bits from other kits, but one is restricted whereas the other is not because reasons.

Hand flamers are on the assault intercessors kits along with all other options for intercessor sergeants.

Cuz GW doesn't give a flying feth about the 18th....

I quit playing 40k w my Salamanders cuz they don't feel like Salamanders. If I wanted to play lame-ass Ultramanders I would've.

In 30k, I can field all the flame/melta/volkite I want to. All the while playing like they ACTUALLY should.

Andykp wrote:
Hand flamers are on the assault intercessors kits along with all other options for intercessor sergeants.

I stand corrected. Still sourced from a different kit though, so my point still stands.

Forgefather68 wrote:
I'm a Salamanders player and I have questions or it may just be a rant. With Salamanders being a army known for flamers, why do the rules state that only Blood Angels and their successors can use heavy flamers and hand flamers? If someone can help me with this I would be greatly appreciative.

Wow as a fellow salamander player....it is yet another reason why i do not play 9th ed.

Oldhammer or no hammer for me and my group.

Both the 4th ed codex and the 5th ed codex (and the 1.0 HH book) salamanders had rules that highlighted their focus on flamer/melta and thunder hammers.

My 5th ed list has no less than 6 heavy and 2 regular flamers not counting the melta's and hammers.

 Irbis wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because only the BA Tactical Squad kit (which is not available any more) comes with them. Welcome to the sucky world of "No Model, No Rules"

Nice (wrong) conspiracy theory, but it's this way since 5th edition. Two editions before said Tactical Squad kit was made. It's because GW had competent rules writer then who wanted to encourage mobile assault play style with BA and gave their tacticals assault weapon type option in heavy weapon slot to not punish BA players for taking their own troops while keeping adherence to fluffy battle company organization. It's just that people writing Salamander rules two editions later had far less of a clue so they did lazy lowest effort possible job.

I wish people stopped peddling NMNR fakesplanation in a world where Primaris and Deathwatch exist

So it was just a coincidence that Deathwatch were the first army to lose the Chaplain on a bike when they were first released in 7th, correct?

 aphyon wrote:


Both the 4th ed codex and the 5th ed codex (and the 1.0 HH book) salamanders had rules that highlighted their focus on flamer/melta and thunder hammers.

Ironically, the vast majority of 4th ed Salamanders players suddenly became very invested in the Cleanse and Purify trait giving them access to two plasma guns per Tactical Squad...

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 aphyon wrote:


Both the 4th ed codex and the 5th ed codex (and the 1.0 HH book) salamanders had rules that highlighted their focus on flamer/melta and thunder hammers.

Ironically, the vast majority of 4th ed Salamanders players suddenly became very invested in the Cleanse and Purify trait giving them access to two plasma guns per Tactical Squad...

And those players aren't Salamanders....They're space marine players!

Is there a stratagem for the use of flamers? And a question regarding pyroclast units what battlefield role do they fill and are they legal in 9th?

Forgefather68 wrote:
Is there a stratagem for the use of flamers? And a question regarding pyroclast units what battlefield role do they fill and are they legal in 9th?

There are a few in the 8th edition Salamander supplement book, which should still be valid for 9th.

(Not sure if they have been FAQ’d)

2 CP to get max hits instead of variable for a unit
1 CP to turn them into pistols for a unit
1 CP to do MWs on a 4+ to hit

And the super doctrine gives you +1 to wound with flamers/meta while in tactical doctrine.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 aphyon wrote:


Both the 4th ed codex and the 5th ed codex (and the 1.0 HH book) salamanders had rules that highlighted their focus on flamer/melta and thunder hammers.

Ironically, the vast majority of 4th ed Salamanders players suddenly became very invested in the Cleanse and Purify trait giving them access to two plasma guns per Tactical Squad...

And those players aren't Salamanders....They're space marine players!

And those whv max on flamers meltas just care about free bonus rules. Just like all bikb white scas just want power rules rather than fluff(no. All bike ws is not fluffy).

Ipeople like to claim fluff but it's actually free bonus rules.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 aphyon wrote:


Both the 4th ed codex and the 5th ed codex (and the 1.0 HH book) salamanders had rules that highlighted their focus on flamer/melta and thunder hammers.

Ironically, the vast majority of 4th ed Salamanders players suddenly became very invested in the Cleanse and Purify trait giving them access to two plasma guns per Tactical Squad...

And those players aren't Salamanders....They're space marine players!

Sounds like they were trying to be mini dark angels. plasma is their thing.

Forgefather68 wrote:Is there a stratagem for the use of flamers? And a question regarding pyroclast units what battlefield role do they fill and are they legal in 9th?

If you are talking the HH ones, i do not think they exist by the time of 40K but i do love the models and the ability to be flamers or meltas.

tneva82 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 aphyon wrote:


Both the 4th ed codex and the 5th ed codex (and the 1.0 HH book) salamanders had rules that highlighted their focus on flamer/melta and thunder hammers.

Ironically, the vast majority of 4th ed Salamanders players suddenly became very invested in the Cleanse and Purify trait giving them access to two plasma guns per Tactical Squad...

And those players aren't Salamanders....They're space marine players!

And those whv max on flamers meltas just care about free bonus rules. Just like all bikb white scas just want power rules rather than fluff(no. All bike ws is not fluffy).

Ipeople like to claim fluff but it's actually free bonus rules.

My salamanders never use Vulkan He'stan to get those bonus rules. the only named character i use is Brey'arth because he is a dreadnought.....i like dreadnoughts. and i still have loads of flamers and meltas in my list because they are salamanders.

The best white scars rules for fluff are still from 3rd ed specifically the white dwarf article they put into the index astartes books.

tneva82 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 aphyon wrote:


Both the 4th ed codex and the 5th ed codex (and the 1.0 HH book) salamanders had rules that highlighted their focus on flamer/melta and thunder hammers.

Ironically, the vast majority of 4th ed Salamanders players suddenly became very invested in the Cleanse and Purify trait giving them access to two plasma guns per Tactical Squad...

And those players aren't Salamanders....They're space marine players!

And those whv max on flamers meltas just care about free bonus rules. Just like all bikb white scas just want power rules rather than fluff(no. All bike ws is not fluffy).

Ipeople like to claim fluff but it's actually free bonus rules.

I could care less about free rules. Just let me take flamer & melta squads, which the 18th is kinda renowned for.

 aphyon wrote:

The best white scars rules for fluff are still from 3rd ed specifically the white dwarf article they put into the index astartes books.

Just so long as you didn't want to take any infantry unit without a dedicated transport, Dreadnoughts, Vindicators, Land Raiders (besides dedicated transport), or Devastators.

The Index Astartes rules were full on Gotta Go Fast! flanderisation.
But you could take power lances (only an infinitesimal number of people ever did) so fluffy!

I like to imagine Paul Sawyer's face when he read those rules and saw how his beloved Dreadnoughts were swept into the bin.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

The best white scars rules for fluff are still from 3rd ed specifically the white dwarf article they put into the index astartes books.

Just so long as you didn't want to take any infantry unit without a dedicated transport, Dreadnoughts, Vindicators, Land Raiders (besides dedicated transport), or Devastators.

The Index Astartes rules were full on Gotta Go Fast! flanderisation.
But you could take power lances (only an infinitesimal number of people ever did) so fluffy!

I like to imagine Paul Sawyer's face when he read those rules and saw how his beloved Dreadnoughts were swept into the bin.

You mean the white scars actually behaving like...white scars? as they are described in the lore? oh my what a travesty



And they could take infantry not in transports.....they just needed to bring their own...via bike or jump pack.

Aside from the unit restrictions and the lances you forgot all the other special rules.

.born in the saddle
.mounted veterans
.counter attack
.flankers
.hit&run
.10 man bike squads (nobody else could take squads that big)

White Scars make more frequent use of fast units, not exclusively.

Apart from names and amount of specific equipment, they are organised as any other Codex compliant chapter.

Forcing a player to only play "my definition of fast units" or those in transports is a limitation that is not covered by the actual lore.

a_typical_hero wrote:
White Scars make more frequent use of fast units, not exclusively.

Apart from names and amount of specific equipment, they are organised as any other Codex compliant chapter.

Forcing a player to only play "my definition of fast units" or those in transports is a limitation that is not covered by the actual lore.

They are not forcing anything. it is fluff based rules based on the setting

There was always the option to play vanilla marines and make your own chapter that likes to fight your own way (4th ed marine codex trait system was great for that same for the guard 3rd/4th ed doctrine system)

the Scars excelled at a CC oriented bike army, by comparison the ravenwing could also run a bike army but it behaved different, had different restriction and was more shooting focused.

The options and restrictions in the old codexes/editions allowed for much more flavor that appealed to a players love of their preferred faction.

The rules are arbitrarily forcing a limit on your army composition in order to gain bonuses which seem fit for White Scars.

Field the exact same army but leave the Rhino at home for your Tactical squad and your army is no longer White Scars, going by the crunch.

The limitations are arbitrarily, because nowhere in the fluff does it ever state that White Scars never leave their base without a transport, jump pack or bike. On the opposite, they are a codex compliant chapter and would make full use of any unit and tactic in there, if it means victory.

Going fast is a preference, not an obligation.

People like flanderised marines I suppose. No judgement, its silly in fluff and stories but fine to differentiate on the table. Unless you dislike marines getting so many rules which is understandable but again, what people want if they are buying the supplements i guess.

Organization isn't employment. The Executioners are codex-compliant.

Salamanders arent compliant.

Never have never will. They are organized and prosecute war as directed by Vulkan as all are adherents to the Promethium code, not damn Robute(oops I messed up) Guiliman!

a_typical_hero wrote:The rules are arbitrarily forcing a limit on your army composition in order to gain bonuses which seem fit for White Scars.

Field the exact same army but leave the Rhino at home for your Tactical squad and your army is no longer White Scars, going by the crunch.

The limitations are arbitrarily, because nowhere in the fluff does it ever state that White Scars never leave their base without a transport, jump pack or bike. On the opposite, they are a codex compliant chapter and would make full use of any unit and tactic in there, if it means victory.

Going fast is a preference, not an obligation.

Except you cannot field the exact same army, as 10 man bike squads as troops (or not as troops) are not allowed in any other marine force. it is something only WS do along with a few other FOC changes.

much like many other "codex compliant" chapters that differ in combat tactics/favored units.

Dai wrote:People like flanderised marines I suppose. No judgement, its silly in fluff and stories but fine to differentiate on the table. Unless you dislike marines getting so many rules which is understandable but again, what people want if they are buying the supplements i guess.

The 4th ed eldar codex also allows you to build all the craftworld thematic armies.