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.

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

If you're not happy when you roll a 2 or 3 on 1d6, why would you be happy if you got that result on some other combo?

which flamer are you using that DOESN'T have a buff? To my knowledge, both Knights and Tau have buffed Flamers, I was under the impression that everyone had them.

ccs wrote:
If you're not happy when you roll a 2 or 3 on 1d6, why would you be happy if you got that result on some other combo?

Because your odds of getting that result are significantly lower?

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

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

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

Racerguy180 wrote:

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

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

Hence why I gave my two fixes. The latter part doesn't do much with the core rules but I think 100% of people agree LD needs to be a more useful stat and that the core rules don't help with it.

Flamers should go back to using templates (somehow templates still work as a game mechanic long as everything in the game is wearing power armour, according to GW. Curious...)

Cover should also change from a save buff to a hit debuff, which would make auto-hitting template weapons a more useful weapon for attacking units in terrain.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Flamers should go back to using templates (somehow templates still work as a game mechanic long as everything in the game is wearing power armour, according to GW. Curious...)

But there's no significant difference in power by using templates or D6. Hits are basically the same. With the D6 system you can actually get more hits vs enemy units with spread out models or enemy units with a very low models count. With a template you get max one hit against a single model, while you can get 6 by using the D6 system. Several flamer weapons also have longer range now or tools to increase their range.

Flamers might look less powerful than they used to be because they don't bypass lowest armour saves anymore and some chaff got tougher (like orks with their T5, marines with their 2W, etc...). And in the current meta there's a lot of standard units that are extremely tough compared to what used to be the standard for an infantry model. Like T5 3W instead of T4 1W.

Make the game more focussed on 1W models and flamers would be good again.

 carldooley wrote:
which flamer are you using that DOESN'T have a buff? To my knowledge, both Knights and Tau have buffed Flamers, I was under the impression that everyone had them.

This highlights the issue perfectly. The flamers that do get used are the ones that are buffed. Anyone who only has access to regular flamers just doesn't use them. I think the game is far too lethal as it is, so I'd rather not see the damage output of flamers buffed too much, especially for units that can take multiple of them. However, I do think flamers should probably be a free upgrade for units that can take them. If you look at something like a Tactical squad, you give up your bolter to get a flamer, which has identical S and AP. By the time you're in range to fire your flamer, you've probably given up at least the same number of shots as the flamer will get hits. The fact nobody takes them right now suggests they're simply not better than just taking a basic gun.

I once (8th ed) killed 11 bloodletters with two flamers, and that felt pretty great. Maybe they should just change it to straight up 6 hits instead of d6. And probably add a rule that they cant hit flyers.

 Gitdakka wrote:
I once (8th ed) killed 11 bloodletters with two flamers, and that felt pretty great. Maybe they should just change it to straight up 6 hits instead of d6. And probably add a rule that they cant hit flyers.

They'd be too powerful vs units with low model count then. Maybe they should get the blast equivalent rule though. If a model carrying a flamer weapon targets a unit with 11+ models it gets max autohits, and at least 3 if it targets a unit with 6+ models.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Flamers should go back to using templates (somehow templates still work as a game mechanic long as everything in the game is wearing power armour, according to GW. Curious...)

Cover should also change from a save buff to a hit debuff, which would make auto-hitting template weapons a more useful weapon for attacking units in terrain.

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

Personally I would prefer if they got a rule that would simulate what templates do, which is essentially to generate more hits if there are more models nearby.

My idea would be a mix of the blast and rapid fire rules - if within half range, you default the number of hits to the number models in the target unit.
Examples:
Guardsmen with flamers jump out of their chimera right in front of a unit of 30 ork boyz, each flamer gets 6 hits
If they do the same to a unit of custodes guardians, they get d6 hits, minimum 3
If they flame a rhino, they get d6 hits

This makes them good against hordes, not that good against elites and as bad as they are now versus single models or when arriving from deep strike.

In a word? Yes.

Unless you got ways to "cheat" (Sisters, Salamanders, etc) then regular flamers are pretty terrible.

Them not having the Blast-rule (or something similar) makes no sense.

Edit: I heard that flamers are D6+2 hits in the upcomming CSM-codex, was this just a rumor?

 MinscS2 wrote:
In a word? Yes.

Unless you got ways to "cheat" (Sisters, Salamanders, etc) then regular flamers are pretty terrible.

Them not having the Blast-rule (or something similar) makes no sense.

Edit: I heard that flamers are D6+2 hits in the upcomming CSM-codex, was this just a rumor?

Nah it's part of their doctrines equivalent, "let the galaxy burn".

Slipspace wrote:

This highlights the issue perfectly. The flamers that do get used are the ones that are buffed. Anyone who only has access to regular flamers just doesn't use them. I think the game is far too lethal as it is, so I'd rather not see the damage output of flamers buffed too much, especially for units that can take multiple of them. However, I do think flamers should probably be a free upgrade for units that can take them. If you look at something like a Tactical squad, you give up your bolter to get a flamer, which has identical S and AP. By the time you're in range to fire your flamer, you've probably given up at least the same number of shots as the flamer will get hits. The fact nobody takes them right now suggests they're simply not better than just taking a basic gun.

100% this. Which SM (other than something like the BT flamer), Guard, or GSC player takes their flamers? The regular flamer either needs:
- A point drop. Around 3 points.
- Ignore light cover.
- AP-1.
- S5.
- D6 + 2 shots.

Which ork player takes their flamers?

And if you buff the regular flamer to S5, AP-1, etc... what about the heavy flamer then?

I use flamers with my Tau, but only because they are D6+2 hits each, are cheap and so can easily double up on flamers on crisis suits, and combo nicely with a strat to get mortal wounds on 6s to wound.

If it wasn't for that strat, I probably wouldn't bother with them.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I use flamers with my Tau, but only because they are D6+2 hits each, are cheap and so can easily double up on flamers on crisis suits, and combo nicely with a strat to get mortal wounds on 6s to wound.

If it wasn't for that strat, I probably wouldn't bother with them.

Yeah, the extra hits, plus the way weapon costs work on suits and the overwatch damage definitely encourages flamers on suits. I just think it's the wrong way to go, to make them even more lethal to the extent they did.

Blast and Ignore Cover should help without making them too overpowered.

 Blackie wrote:
Which ork player takes their flamers?

And if you buff the regular flamer to S5, AP-1, etc... what about the heavy flamer then?

You don’t do both, either/or.

Personally though, I’d just prefer regular flamers to be cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Karhedron wrote:
Blast and Ignore Cover should help without making them too overpowered.

I wouldn’t give flamers blast. Then you can’t fire them from vehicles or monsters into engagement range.

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.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


And if you buff the regular flamer to S5, AP-1, etc... what about the heavy flamer then?

You don’t do both, either/or.

Yeah, I got what you said. But heavy flamers and their equivalents make sense as long as they are +1S and -1AP compared to regular flamers. If they had just +1S or -1AP they'd be too similar to flamers. Hence if GW buffs either S or AP on regular flamers they have to do the same to heavy flamers too, to justify the differentiation between the two weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:


I wouldn’t give flamers blast. Then you can’t fire them from vehicles or monsters into engagement range.

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

Can we stop with the "Do X need Buffs?" threads? Nothing in this edition needs buffs. Enough with the power creep. Laspistols and flamers can wound Titans. The only thing I would ever change about flamers is a side change. Make them Heavy d3+3 shots.

I think there's a strong argument that all D6/D3/2D3+X^2 weapons should get a flat number and be balanced accordingly.

I'm not convinced flamers would be overpowered if they always did 3 or 4 hits. Any more than Lascannons would be broken if they did flat 3-4 damage.

Tyel wrote:
I think there's a strong argument that all D6/D3/2D3+X^2 weapons should get a flat number and be balanced accordingly.

I'm not convinced flamers would be overpowered if they always did 3 or 4 hits. Any more than Lascannons would be broken if they did flat 3-4 damage.

100% agree, get rid of the random amount of shots/damage, it slows down the game and only serves for feelbad moments

Well...CSM flamers, from the new WC update, are getting a buff.

Colour me unimpressed. One weapon maketh not a codex.

ccs wrote:
If you're not happy when you roll a 2 or 3 on 1d6, why would you be happy if you got that result on some other combo?

2D3 guarantees no result lower than a 2. 2 or 3 isn't great for hoard clearing, but 2 minimum i can stomach.
personally i'd prefer the D6+1 shots, gives you a minimum of 2, with a maximum of 7


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
which flamer are you using that DOESN'T have a buff? To my knowledge, both Knights and Tau have buffed Flamers, I was under the impression that everyone had them.

This highlights the issue perfectly. The flamers that do get used are the ones that are buffed. Anyone who only has access to regular flamers just doesn't use them. I think the game is far too lethal as it is, so I'd rather not see the damage output of flamers buffed too much, especially for units that can take multiple of them. However, I do think flamers should probably be a free upgrade for units that can take them. If you look at something like a Tactical squad, you give up your bolter to get a flamer, which has identical S and AP. By the time you're in range to fire your flamer, you've probably given up at least the same number of shots as the flamer will get hits. The fact nobody takes them right now suggests they're simply not better than just taking a basic gun.

i agree the game is too lethal, but i don't think guaranteeing a minimum of 2 hits and a possible max of 7 is asking too much.
i'm just asking for the weapon to make sense for the role it is supposed to fill


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Flamers should go back to using templates (somehow templates still work as a game mechanic long as everything in the game is wearing power armour, according to GW. Curious...)

Cover should also change from a save buff to a hit debuff, which would make auto-hitting template weapons a more useful weapon for attacking units in terrain.

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

Personally I would prefer if they got a rule that would simulate what templates do, which is essentially to generate more hits if there are more models nearby.

My idea would be a mix of the blast and rapid fire rules - if within half range, you default the number of hits to the number models in the target unit.
Examples:
Guardsmen with flamers jump out of their chimera right in front of a unit of 30 ork boyz, each flamer gets 6 hits
If they do the same to a unit of custodes guardians, they get d6 hits, minimum 3
If they flame a rhino, they get d6 hits

This makes them good against hordes, not that good against elites and as bad as they are now versus single models or when arriving from deep strike.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


And if you buff the regular flamer to S5, AP-1, etc... what about the heavy flamer then?

You don’t do both, either/or.

Yeah, I got what you said. But heavy flamers and their equivalents make sense as long as they are +1S and -1AP compared to regular flamers. If they had just +1S or -1AP they'd be too similar to flamers. Hence if GW buffs either S or AP on regular flamers they have to do the same to heavy flamers too, to justify the differentiation between the two weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:give heavies an option for mortal wounds, or D2 then?

Jarms48 wrote:


I wouldn’t give flamers blast. Then you can’t fire them from vehicles or monsters into engagement range.

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop with the "Do X need Buffs?" threads? Nothing in this edition needs buffs. Enough with the power creep. Laspistols and flamers can wound Titans. The only thing I would ever change about flamers is a side change. Make them Heavy d3+3 shots.

so you agree...they need a buff to how many shots they can get...why didn't you just say so from the start?

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.

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.