Tactical Flamers: Does anyone take them?

[ContemptuousAngel]

Burn them all! I will be running at least one 5 man squad of TASC with a heavy flamer in a razorback with a heavy flamer in nearly every game. I kitted out my stern guard with a heavy flamer as well.

You want this objective? Come and get it!

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

I think I'm going to go for it.  Heavy flamer, flamer, combi-melta on sergeant.  I have a few Sergeants with power swords already so the combi is more just for options, not necessarily for the same squad.

[ThatOneMarshal]

Hmm I like the idea of the heavy flamer, melta, and combi melta. Put them in a drop pod and then combat squad them on the drop. That or in a rhino plasma gun and heavy flamer maybe though I'm not to sure about that one yet. The salamander pattern squad ( flamer, heavy flamer, combi flamer or two hand flamers) might be fun but it may be detrimental because of multiplie flamers.

[Zeller]

I use a flamer on my tactical with a missile launcher. I rarely get to fire it though.

 

It seems the days of the Blood Angels are dead and we are simply the red Salamanders. Shame.

[Shaezus]

I would agree with you all if it wasn't for how the rule is worded, "If a unit is firing more than one shot with the template type,"

 

I feel that I have derailed this thread enough so I will drop it now, sorry for the OT rules debate.

 

To answer the OP, I plan to take a ten man squad with flamer, combiflamer/lightningclaw and plasma cannon in a rhino. Maybe the lightningclaw is to much but I like the model (see my avatar) and want them to be able to take objectives by charging.

Dude..discussions like this show that you are a determined player and help make us all better players :)

 

I don't want to derail things either although it's a relevant debate. I can understand your interpretation of the ruling but RAW and RAI this still occurs within the usual sequence of firing by different weapons. Not just weapon type i.e. Lascannons and lasguns do not fire at the same time. Nor boltguns and stormbolters.

[ChapelXIII]

I use a flamer on my tactical with a missile launcher. I rarely get to fire it though.

 

It seems the days of the Blood Angels are dead and we are simply the red Salamanders. Shame.

Salamanders wish they were Blood Angels. A heavy flamer does not a salamander make. It is the assault type of weapon that us important here. Blood Angels specialize in close combat encounters. Heavy flamers just give us a heavy hit before we finish them off.

[Shaezus]

I use a flamer on my tactical with a missile launcher. I rarely get to fire it though.

 

It seems the days of the Blood Angels are dead and we are simply the red Salamanders. Shame.

Salamanders have golden-armoured demi-gods with winged jump packs? They have the galaxy's most ferocious lunatics in their death company? They have a chapter master who can confidently challenge any character in the galaxy to a hand to hand duel to the death? They have fast tanks? Land raiders as dedicated transport? An abundance of psykers? Assault squads with melta?

 

They have none of these, so please don't tell me you really think all of that is totally undone by the addition of....a heavy flamer.

[Zeller]

Gentleman, I am aware of the Blood Angel's way of war. I play them, after all. Salamander comparison aside, the Blood Angels are not undone by a simply heavy flamer. I just find the instant obsession and auto-include mentality that seems to have popped up since the book dropped to be extremely amusing. I see it as a "let's all jump on the flamer bus." I'm also slow to accept change. All space marines are demi-gods. If you're referring to sanguinary guard, I find their stat line especially lacking, even among space marines, given their purpose. I understand we're just another codex chapter and the loadout of a tactical squad is as variable in the Angels as it is in any other chapter. Even so, this borders on an affinity for flame weapons if it becomes the norm, which is the Salamander's business. Ultimately, you can do what you want with your models.

[Cronhour]

I think tacticals are meant to be a Jack of all trades Their str is their versatility. I'd go Heavy flamer melta so theres no diminisging returns from dual templates, you have an answer for high str and armour untis they might run into and they're both assault weapons so you can pop them and bolt pistols before charging in.

[Shaezus]

Absolutely, but nothing feeds the soul like a good 40k debate eh.

 

Way I see it - and it's all about if they fit in your list or not - I can now use tacs to a) perform an anti-horde role quite brutally, allowing tougher and more aggressive units to hit the hard stuff; b) provide a dispensible distraction for the assault units and c) provide a cheap but hard-to shift objective holding unit. They fill these roles much better for me with the HF included so the decision to include it is purely a practical one.

 

Considering the advance of hive fleet Leviathan it's not unreasonable for the BA to realise the value of the HF and make it more widely available.

[Zeller]

Very true. Come to think of it, playing more aggressively against my DE friend and dropping off a squad with that many flame templates right next to his disembarked units would be heart warming. I need more models. :(

[Shaezus]

Oh please do let me know how that goes! What's that new rule called again...no escape? Where a template weapon does D6 hits on a passenger unit inside an open-topped transport. You could quite possibly kill his troops before they even disembark!

 

I did this vs an ork player with a lot of hordes in trukks, thanks to no escape and multiple exploding trukks my 2 fragiosos and DC heavy flamer dread killed some 40+ orks on turn 1, without actually targeting them. He conceded his turn 1 without firing a shot :D So good luck with that tactic!

[Firepower]

Burn them all!

This guy gets it.

However I should inform you that your avatar is clearly a xeno, and must be purged. :teehee:

[ContemptuousAngel]

That is the cutest xenos breed you'll ever be torn apart by!

My son's first halloween, as yoda. :)

[bystrom]

I would agree with you all if it wasn't for how the rule is worded, "If a unit is firing more than one shot with the template type,"

I feel that I have derailed this thread enough so I will drop it now, sorry for the OT rules debate.

To answer the OP, I plan to take a ten man squad with flamer, combiflamer/lightningclaw and plasma cannon in a rhino. Maybe the lightningclaw is to much but I like the model (see my avatar) and want them to be able to take objectives by charging.

Dude..discussions like this show that you are a determined player and help make us all better players

I don't want to derail things either although it's a relevant debate. I can understand your interpretation of the ruling but RAW and RAI this still occurs within the usual sequence of firing by different weapons. Not just weapon type i.e. Lascannons and lasguns do not fire at the same time. Nor boltguns and stormbolters.

Actually, going by RAW, using the above quote about a unit firing multiple templates and that special tends to supersede general rules, I have to agree with hairojin. I've always played it that one should resolve one template at a time, but I really don't see any way around the fact that it literally spells out what you should do when a unit is fining multiple templates. Maybe this specific topic we could continue in an OR-thread?

I believe he meant Heavy Flamer + Flamer. They diminish each other.

Fair dinkum mate! In which case I'll plug me own argument on that from earlier (am passionate about dem flames, y' see )

this is where planning and positioning makes a difference. HF and flamers go at opposite ends of the squad, so their arcs don't merge and compete. If it takes only the HF to kill them in the first place, either you didn't have bigger fish to fry or you're using your tacs on the wrong target.

I'm referring to the fact that you have to remove closest models not based on your firing models but the firing unit. This means that its not as easy as simply placing HF/flamer at opposite ends, as your opponent can still say: "The model closest to the HF is just as close as the closest to the flamer, I can therefore choose myself which of these two models to remove as a casualty. Your heavy flamer just killed this guy, standing right in front of your flamer-marine." This means your opponent has a certain degree of freedom in removing casualties so that your following template weapons will hit as few models as possible. Regardless, models are removed from the front, so potential targets for following templates will continually diminish (aka die, aka burn :P).

Allocate Wounds

First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to

the firing unit, regardless of which model caused that Wound.

[ElectricPaladin]

A flamer and a heavy flamer makes a tac squad surprisingly hard to charge. 16 4/5 snap shots, d3 4/5 autohits, and d3 5/4 autohits is actually pretty hardcore. And combine those Assault 1 templates with 8 pistol shots and then I 5 S 5 attacks and you've got a decent close combat unit in a pinch.

[Shaezus]

@bystrom

 

On that last note on allocation - wow, you know what...I hadn't actually checked that. Just goes to show, the club rules lawyer doesn't always get it right! Quite big, because it means you can still use 6th ed shenanigans to sneak a weak model closest to the enemy warlord and have the heavy weapons at the rear but still able to target the warlord even though they are closer to his bodyguard.

 

The other thing - "If a unit is firing more than one shot with the template weapon type" - as I said before I can understand why people might interpret it that way but RAW there is nothing saying it means outside of the weapon-by-weapon stage. Indeed in the photo example the 3 orks are all firing the same weapon.

 

So what difference would it make? If you are right and both heavy flamer and flamer fire simultaneously then this is actually favourable to us as you can bunch them both together and not lose out on number of hits. Wound allocation would still be affected though, as say if we take the HF wounds first, we will be removing models from the front which would have been hit by the flamer.

 

So I think, however we interpret it, maximising casualties still means having the HF and flamer on opposite flanks of your squad.

 

Would post a photo to illustrate this but I use my phone and it's a very slow process.

[Firepower]

A flamer and a heavy flamer makes a tac squad surprisingly hard to charge. 16 4/5 snap shots, d3 4/5 autohits, and d3 5/4 autohits is actually pretty hardcore. 

 

Counterattack?  Pffft.  Who needs it? BUUUUUURN HERETIC!

[walpurgisnacht]

Zeal requires no explanation.... Or is that Zael.....