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.
Really all they need to be solid is re-roll to wound vs units in cover, and +1 inch of range to make it a 9 inch weapon. Following that, reduce the price to 2 points, in line with a storm bolter.
Boom. Weapon fixed.
Bedouin Dynasty: 10000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4000 pts
The Custodes Winter Watch 4000 pts
MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum.
9 inches isn't enough for Flamers, since Deep Strike requiers more than 9 inches. You still wouldn't be in range when Deep Striking, and you still wouldn't be in range for Overwatch against Deep Strikers.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I'd be happy if flamers were always treated as being in range for overwatch. heck, all guns should be, really. you're running into range!
to combat T'au and their abilities, you could simply state tht "A unit which is being charged always counts its weapons as being in range for the purposes of overwatch", to stop support units having infinite range weapons.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
some bloke wrote: I'd be happy if flamers were always treated as being in range for overwatch. heck, all guns should be, really. you're running into range!
to combat T'au and their abilities, you could simply state tht "A unit which is being charged always counts its weapons as being in range for the purposes of overwatch", to stop support units having infinite range weapons.
Why, because ranged units weren't dominant enough?
Flamers were created I think as a deterrent for mass rushes. I think that cheap auto-hitting low strength weapons would be great to dissuade my opponents 20 Tzangors from rushing in and melting my face. It wouldn't stop all rushes, but it would make them think twice. Also, it would make Witchseekers fly off the shelves.
Valkyrie wrote: Don't see why this is necessary. Flamers are pretty decent at the moment, not being in DS overwatch range isn't much of a downside.
Flamers are a bit weird in that they're quite context heavy. For one thing, they're better-looking the worse the actual model holding them is. A model that hits on a 2+ is getting +16% hits, on average; a model that hits on 4+ is getting +100% hits, on average.
On Space Marines, you're paying three times the cost of a combi-bolter for something that is... arguably the same value. Even before factoring in bolter drill, a combi-bolter can fire 2 shots at long range or 4 shots close-up, and costs 2 points. With a 3+ to hit, assuming no re-rolls etc, that's an average of 2.66 hits within 12". Meanwhile, a flamer lands an average of 3.5 hits with the same Strength, AP, and Damage at 8", and is useless beyond that. Its only saving grace is being an Assault weapon, but that's of limited value with such short range; Space Marines have limited options to Advance-and-charge, so a short-range Assault weapon is weak on combat troops, and limited options to Advance-and-shoot or load up on unit-wide Assault weapons, so there are very few units that wouldn't rather just stay still and double-tap the whole squad's bolters. The problem would only be worse for Primaris, if they had access to flamers.
On Imperial Guard, you're paying twice as much as a grenade launcher in exchange for +1S and twice as many hits, on a third of the range. And thanks to Forwards, For The Emperor, your rapid fire squads can Advance without losing out on fire from the rest of the squad. It's still not amazing, but there's definitely much more leeway there, because you have support for Advance+shoot and your baseline is worse so auto-hit is better.
I will always be in favor of simple blanket changes where possible. In this case, there are too many side-effects to extending the range of Flamers. Namely, creating the potential for units that can spam then and DS becoming OP. A dozen Flamers dropping in a auto-hitting their target would be very popular and remove chaff instantly.
Instead, I like the idea that was previously mentioned: Allow attacks against Overwatch to have more range. But I don't think counting everything as in Range for Overwatch is a good idea, since it also creates un-chargable big blobs that could have 20+" range flamers (guys in the back of a large unit still in range of charging models 9+" away)
No, I think a better rule would be the following: When resolving an attack during Overwatch, treat all weapons with less than 12" range as having 12" range. That would keep positioning relevant while giving Flamers and even some Pistols a boost to represent the enemy closing into their range
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/16 15:14:38
Flamer's don't really have a niche that other weapons don't already fulfill better, and usually for cheaper. Ignoring Cover and/or always being in range for Overwatch would give people more reasons to include them in their lists.
Orodhen wrote: Flamer's don't really have a niche that other weapons don't already fulfill better, and usually for cheaper. Ignoring Cover and/or always being in range for Overwatch would give people more reasons to include them in their lists.
Orodhen wrote: Flamer's don't really have a niche that other weapons don't already fulfill better, and usually for cheaper. Ignoring Cover and/or always being in range for Overwatch would give people more reasons to include them in their lists.
Agreed.
-
Agreed, this is remarkable apt. Only problem is like he said, spam. Burnaboyz, Witchseekers,etc. All units that can max out flamers? So advance up to the opponent, and unleash 10d6 autohitting S4 shots? Followed by the inevitable 10d6 of overwatch, could get broken.
Orodhen wrote: Flamer's don't really have a niche that other weapons don't already fulfill better, and usually for cheaper. Ignoring Cover and/or always being in range for Overwatch would give people more reasons to include them in their lists.
Agreed.
-
Agreed, this is remarkable apt. Only problem is like he said, spam. Burnaboyz, Witchseekers,etc. All units that can max out flamers? So advance up to the opponent, and unleash 10d6 autohitting S4 shots? Followed by the inevitable 10d6 of overwatch, could get broken.
Burnas don't use the typical Flamer profile; they're currently gimped at only D3 hits, not D6. And you roll once for the whole unit so a full mob of 15 could get quite easily get only 15 hits.
Of course Burnas sucking is one of the reasons Ork players don't currently take Burna Boyz...
-Flamers ignore bonuses to armor saves granted by cover.
-A model with a flamer may shoot at an enemy unit during overwatch regardless of the distance the unit is away from the firing model. (Upping the range to 12" isn't enough, there are models that can charge from further than 12").
Fixed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/17 06:20:39
-Flamers ignore bonuses to armor saves granted by cover.
-A model with a flamer may shoot at an enemy unit during overwatch regardless of the distance the unit is away from the firing model. (Upping the range to 12" isn't enough, there are models that can charge from further than 12").
Fixed.
It was my understanding that you could only select a unit as the target of a charge if it was within 12” of the unit declaring he charge, irrespective of how far the charging unit can actually charge, like 3d6 for example. Unless there’s a unit with a special rule I’ve missed, I don’t see why the flamer’s range should be more than 12”. This would only lead to models with flamers at the back of large units being able to fire overwatch even though they are nowhere near the charge or end up engaged in melee. Unless this is your intention?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/17 07:31:39
-Flamers ignore bonuses to armor saves granted by cover.
-A model with a flamer may shoot at an enemy unit during overwatch regardless of the distance the unit is away from the firing model. (Upping the range to 12" isn't enough, there are models that can charge from further than 12").
Fixed.
It was my understanding that you could only select a unit as the target of a charge if it was within 12” of the unit declaring he charge, irrespective of how far the charging unit can actually charge, like 3d6 for example. Unless there’s a unit with a special rule I’ve missed, I don’t see why the flamer’s range should be more than 12”. This would only lead to models with flamers at the back of large units being able to fire overwatch even though they are nowhere near the charge or end up engaged in melee. Unless this is your intention?
Making a flamer 12 inch range for overwatch is a bad idea as, when something gets rules to allow charging from outwith 12 inches or from out of los flamers still don't work and it also does mess up the few flamers that already have longer ranges.
To be fair just giving them ignore cover, and points costs that is appropriate is probably the most balanced solution, though as pointed out ironically counter to how GW costs them flamers are worth more to lower BS units than higher BS units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/17 08:39:09
One change we tried in my local (this spawned from some narrative city fighting games but we adopted it to normal house rules as a laugh) was -
Flamers have 6" range, always count as in range for overwatch and cannot hit aircraft
when a flamer shoots in the shooting phase it scores a hit for each enemy model in the target unit within range
Ignores covers
when fired in overwatch, it scores d6 hits for each 10 models in charging unit.
We also pumped the point cost up slightly, it made flamers feel threatening in their role as troop clearers but tougher smaller units (like terms, Lychguard, Tyranid warriors) tended to shrug it off.
Aother potential change we suggested was boosting the range to 8" but making it Str 3
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: One change we tried in my local (this spawned from some narrative city fighting games but we adopted it to normal house rules as a laugh) was -
Flamers have 6" range, always count as in range for overwatch and cannot hit aircraft
when a flamer shoots in the shooting phase it scores a hit for each enemy model in the target unit within range
Ignores covers
when fired in overwatch, it scores d6 hits for each 10 models in charging unit.
We also pumped the point cost up slightly, it made flamers feel threatening in their role as troop clearers but tougher smaller units (like terms, Lychguard, Tyranid warriors) tended to shrug it off.
Aother potential change we suggested was boosting the range to 8" but making it Str 3
The underlined part seems really brutal- getting up close and personal to a horde unit with 2+ flamers would make mincemeat of them. Trading multiple hits against a single target woudn't even feel like a loss.
Do you run handflamers that way too? I imagine combiflamers see a lot of use on your tables.
Aash wrote: It was my understanding that you could only select a unit as the target of a charge if it was within 12” of the unit declaring he charge, irrespective of how far the charging unit can actually charge, like 3d6 for example. Unless there’s a unit with a special rule I’ve missed, I don’t see why the flamer’s range should be more than 12”. This would only lead to models with flamers at the back of large units being able to fire overwatch even though they are nowhere near the charge or end up engaged in melee. Unless this is your intention?
It is my understanding that there are units that can declare charges up to 18" away through special rules, although I may be wrong on that.
Yes, the second part is my intention exactly. The flamer guy isn't gonna sit around on his butt while his unit gets charged by enemies. I suppose you can argue that a flamer guy near the back should be punished for not being "positioned properly", but with the removal of vehicle facings, and the removal of the "nearest model gets removed" casualty system that kind of "realism" is already long gone.
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: One change we tried in my local (this spawned from some narrative city fighting games but we adopted it to normal house rules as a laugh) was -
Flamers have 6" range, always count as in range for overwatch and cannot hit aircraft
when a flamer shoots in the shooting phase it scores a hit for each enemy model in the target unit within range
Ignores covers
when fired in overwatch, it scores d6 hits for each 10 models in charging unit.
We also pumped the point cost up slightly, it made flamers feel threatening in their role as troop clearers but tougher smaller units (like terms, Lychguard, Tyranid warriors) tended to shrug it off.
Aother potential change we suggested was boosting the range to 8" but making it Str 3
The underlined part seems really brutal- getting up close and personal to a horde unit with 2+ flamers would make mincemeat of them. Trading multiple hits against a single target woudn't even feel like a loss.
Do you run handflamers that way too? I imagine combiflamers see a lot of use on your tables.
Honestly people rarely let the Flamers get that close, the units that carry them really get blown up quite quickly and with dense LoS blocking terrain its a excellent game of cat and mouse. It does mean some players pace out to 2" coherency again to minimize hits. the horde players haven't really been too bothered about it, as they can either speed into combat and eat the overwatch and still kill a lot or the armies simply just play around them.
Hand flamers are ran with 3" range but in close combat I think they default to d6 hits? I've not had much experience against them. Also flamers do get a sizeable point increase, they cost like 14 points to make them potentially effective but not a no brainer choice.
Aash wrote: It was my understanding that you could only select a unit as the target of a charge if it was within 12” of the unit declaring he charge, irrespective of how far the charging unit can actually charge, like 3d6 for example. Unless there’s a unit with a special rule I’ve missed, I don’t see why the flamer’s range should be more than 12”. This would only lead to models with flamers at the back of large units being able to fire overwatch even though they are nowhere near the charge or end up engaged in melee. Unless this is your intention?
It is my understanding that there are units that can declare charges up to 18" away through special rules, although I may be wrong on that.
Yes, the second part is my intention exactly. The flamer guy isn't gonna sit around on his butt while his unit gets charged by enemies. I suppose you can argue that a flamer guy near the back should be punished for not being "positioned properly", but with the removal of vehicle facings, and the removal of the "nearest model gets removed" casualty system that kind of "realism" is already long gone.
Evasor Assassin rolls 3d6 for charge range.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/21 00:38:34
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
Perhaps the amount of hits is the issue? Getting less shots in with a flamethrower than some joker with a machine gun is a bit of a stab to the nuts. Maybe 2d3 per flamer? Or 1+ wound to stuff in cover?
cody.d. wrote: Perhaps the amount of hits is the issue? Getting less shots in with a flamethrower than some joker with a machine gun is a bit of a stab to the nuts. Maybe 2d3 per flamer? Or 1+ wound to stuff in cover?
Maybe add a d3 for every five models in the targeted unit?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/21 04:28:25
Peregrine wrote: Better solution: blast weapons automatically hit, up to one hit per model in the target unit. Remove the shoot twice rule from the tanks that have it, re-balance point costs as necessary. Blast weapons are now good for anti-horde duty and guaranteeing that you can't miss entirely, but can't stack up tons of hits on single-model targets. You're either in the blast or you aren't, no counting twice.
Hopefully you're meaning models under a template? Allowing a vindicator to wipe out one unit per turn, no matter how big it is, is just silly.
There could be scope for an overruling "blast" rule, which would apply to all the old template weapons. This has been discussed with fairly universal support when trying to improve flamers:
Blast: A blast weapon fires a number of shots equal to either it's profile or the number of models in the target unit; use whichever is lowest.
So, a Heavy Blast 8 would get 1 shot vs a single model, 5 against a tactical squad, 8 against a 10 man squad, and 8 against a 100-ork blob.
a Flamer (Assault Blast 6) would do the same, but as per it's rules, would auto-hit with a maximum of 6 hits.
Heavy Blast 2D6 would be an interesting weapon to run.
Combining this with the dual-profile, you might end up with:
Battlecannon:
~Shell Heavy 1 S8 AP-3 Dam 2D3
~Blast Heavy Blast 8 S4 AP-1 Dam 1
This would add so much design space for these fairly flat and frankly boring to use weapons. You can have armour piercing cannons for tank hunting:
~Shell Heavy 1 S10 AP-5 Dam 6
~Blast Heavy Blast 3 S4 AP- Dam 1
you can have quad-cannons for clearing infantry:
~Shell Heavy 4 S5 AP-1 Dam 2
~Blast Heavy Blast 16 S4 AP- Dam 1
and these weapons will actually be better when fired at their designated targets.
so flamers would be Assault Blast X, with X modified to suit the flamers. Heavy flamers will get more hits, hand flamers less. I think 5 or 6 hits per flamer is about right.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
Peregrine wrote: Better solution: blast weapons automatically hit, up to one hit per model in the target unit. Remove the shoot twice rule from the tanks that have it, re-balance point costs as necessary. Blast weapons are now good for anti-horde duty and guaranteeing that you can't miss entirely, but can't stack up tons of hits on single-model targets. You're either in the blast or you aren't, no counting twice.
Hopefully you're meaning models under a template? Allowing a vindicator to wipe out one unit per turn, no matter how big it is, is just silly.
There could be scope for an overruling "blast" rule, which would apply to all the old template weapons. This has been discussed with fairly universal support when trying to improve flamers:
Blast: A blast weapon fires a number of shots equal to either it's profile or the number of models in the target unit; use whichever is lowest.
So, a Heavy Blast 8 would get 1 shot vs a single model, 5 against a tactical squad, 8 against a 10 man squad, and 8 against a 100-ork blob.
a Flamer (Assault Blast 6) would do the same, but as per it's rules, would auto-hit with a maximum of 6 hits.
Heavy Blast 2D6 would be an interesting weapon to run.
Combining this with the dual-profile, you might end up with:
Battlecannon:
~Shell Heavy 1 S8 AP-3 Dam 2D3
~Blast Heavy Blast 8 S4 AP-1 Dam 1
This would add so much design space for these fairly flat and frankly boring to use weapons. You can have armour piercing cannons for tank hunting:
~Shell Heavy 1 S10 AP-5 Dam 6
~Blast Heavy Blast 3 S4 AP- Dam 1
you can have quad-cannons for clearing infantry:
~Shell Heavy 4 S5 AP-1 Dam 2
~Blast Heavy Blast 16 S4 AP- Dam 1
and these weapons will actually be better when fired at their designated targets.
so flamers would be Assault Blast X, with X modified to suit the flamers. Heavy flamers will get more hits, hand flamers less. I think 5 or 6 hits per flamer is about right.
That is certainly smooth and scales up well for infantry. I would still add a minimum value , even though it would throw a wrinkle in there.
One thing I like about the current system is the visual image of a flamer hosing left to right on a crowd, or holding a stream of fire on a single model.
This would be particularly bad for blasts- a battlecannon fired at a lone guardsman and a battlecannon fired at a landraider would have 1 shot- 1 50% chance to hit.
10000 pts
4000 pts
| 
Krieg | 
| 
| Blackshields 
