Do our flamers need a buff?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Personally I find them to be very underwhelming for the niche they’re in.

I feel at minimum they need to move to D6+1 shots, or 2D3 shots, but I think D6+2 shots would be perfectly reasonable and not OP.

for an option that has traditionally been used to cut through light infantry enmass a single hit seems extremely weak, especially considering how weak that 1 hit is.

[TCC]

D6+2 seems very reasonable 

[The Pounder]

Agreed. 
 

Also I think an “ignores cover” would help and would be more thematic.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, TCC said:

D6+2 seems very reasonable 

Ya most ‘anti-infantry’ weapons with flat damage are either taken in large numbers in a squad (bolters, etc.) or they have at least 3 shots, so a flamer seems like it should guarantee at least 3 hits.

a SWS w/ flamers doing 3-6 hits hits seems very underwhelming. An extreme feel bad moment as many called them in that gaming ethics question.

[Wassa]

What are "our flamers"?

Every flamer got buffed to 12". The Hellhound and Banewolf need updating.

Maybe Catachans will get some flamer buffs.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

11 minutes ago, Wassa said:

What are "our flamers"?

Every flamer got buffed to 12". The Hellhound and Banewolf need updating.

Maybe Catachans will get some flamer buffs.

Our flamers as in the imperial guard flamers.

 

[jarms48]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Our flamers as in the imperial guard flamers.

 

That's the issue though. Our flamers are SM flamers, CSM flamers, GSC flamers, Inquisition flamers, etc. Any change to ours changes theirs too. Though I completely agree that the flamer in general needs something, looking at other flamer variants there's tons of options:

- S5

- AP-1

- D6+2 shots

- Give them ignore light cover (though every type of flamer should have this)

- Or just make them cheaper, like 3 points instead of 5. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, jarms48 said:

 

That's the issue though. Our flamers are SM flamers, CSM flamers, GSC flamers, Inquisition flamers, etc. Any change to ours changes theirs too. Though I completely agree that the flamer in general needs something, looking at other flamer variants there's tons of options:

- S5

- AP-1

- D6+2 shots

- Give them ignore light cover (though every type of flamer should have this)

- Or just make them cheaper, like 3 points instead of 5. 

Would it make sense from a lore standpoint? Yes, but there really isn’t anything that forces GW to update any other imperial or GSC flamers.

 

S5 wouldnt be game breaking, but it wouldn’t solve the problem of a 1 or 2 meaning the weapon isn’t filling its role. Same for AP-1.

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[jarms48]

12 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

S5 wouldnt be game breaking, but it wouldn’t solve the problem of a 1 or 2 meaning the weapon isn’t filling its role. Same for AP-1.

 

The main reason I point these out is cause GW have already done just that:

- Sister Ministorum Flamer: S5

- Sister of Silence Witchseeker Flamer: AP-1

- Grey Knight Incinerator: S6 AP-1

- Black Templar Pyreblaster: AP-1

- Death Guard Plague Spewer: S5 AP-1 RR1 to Wound

- Thousand Son Warpflamer: AP-2

- Dark Eldar Liquifier Gun: AP-2

- Ad-Mech Cognis Flamer: D6+2 shots

- T’au Flamer: D6+2 shots

 

That's basically ever special flamer in the game. The rest are all D6 S4 AP0

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

53 minutes ago, jarms48 said:

 

The main reason I point these out is cause GW have already done just that:

- Sister Ministorum Flamer: S5

- Sister of Silence Witchseeker Flamer: AP-1

- Grey Knight Incinerator: S6 AP-1

- Black Templar Pyreblaster: AP-1

- Death Guard Plague Spewer: S5 AP-1 RR1 to Wound

- Thousand Son Warpflamer: AP-2

- Dark Eldar Liquifier Gun: AP-2

- Ad-Mech Cognis Flamer: D6+2 shots

- T’au Flamer: D6+2 shots

 

That's basically ever special flamer in the game. The rest are all D6 S4 AP0

not looking at my codex right now but isn't the heavy flamer already AP-2? that would put them both generally in the same place, which wouldn't make much sense.
S5 AP-1 makes the shots that hit more likely to wound, but doesnt do anything for increasing the anti-swarm capabilities.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[jarms48]

Heavy flamer is S5 AP-1

[Phubar]

What if they gaim ignore cover and they hit every model in 12" range in the targeted squad?

[Brother Nathan]

Flamers probably should have a similar rule to blast weapons... more guaranteed hits vs large squads...

[jarms48]

Could try either of those, but those would affect all flamers. Meaning the regular flamer still suffers many of the same issues. 

[Emperor Ming]

Flamers absolutely need a buff, they need blast and ignore cover at least

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Phubar said:

What if they gaim ignore cover and they hit every model in 12" range in the targeted squad?

That seems a little bit too good especially against any armies with massive squad sizes.

[OldWherewolf]

I've been tinkering with the idea that flamers should be a flat d6, but get +1 hit for every model in the targeted enemy unit within 1" of another  model in that unit.

Too clunky and subjective for a tournament, but funny as heck to say "i'm going to burn you and the guy next to you!"

[duz_]

5 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Flamers absolutely need a buff, they need blast and ignore cover at least

This would be my thoughts too 

[jarms48]

16 hours ago, Brainpsyk said:

I've been tinkering with the idea that flamers should be a flat d6, but get +1 hit for every model in the targeted enemy unit within 1" of another  model in that unit.

Too clunky and subjective for a tournament, but funny as heck to say "i'm going to burn you and the guy next to you!"

But flamers autohit, what would this achieve?

 

21 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Flamers absolutely need a buff, they need blast and ignore cover at least

Thinking about it, blast doesn't do much against MSU armies. It's just hurting horde armies more. 

[TCC]

Bring back the template - if people want to bunch up, then they pay for it. 

[OldWherewolf]

6 hours ago, jarms48 said:

But flamers autohit, what would this achieve?

 

Thinking about it, blast doesn't do much against MSU armies. It's just hurting horde armies more. 

Could hurt both, as even a 5-model squad were all models were within 1" of ever other model in the squad would mean d6+5 autohits. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Recently saw a fresh take on a buff for our flamers.

after striking a unit with a flamer, place a 40mm token/template over the center of the unit. Any infantry unit touching the token/template rolls D3 armor saves against a S3 AP- D1 profile.

the template is removed one turn after it is placed.

Or something similar.

it’s not a direct buff to the statline and it provides the weapon a second niche to fill, in area denial/moving units off of an objective. Make this a special rule for all flame weapons. Might make the hellhound a lot more sought after.

[greatcrusade08]

I think flamers should hit every model in a target unit once each.

[MoshJason]

12 minutes ago, greatcrusade08 said:

I think flamers should hit every model in a target unit once each.

That's fine until you hit a squad of Ork Boys 30 Strong with 4 flamers. Scion Command Squad with Flamers (60 pts) would be the best anti horde in the game -- easily wiping a 240 pt squad with one round of shooting, and able to hit almost anywhere on the board each turn.

[greatcrusade08]

40 minutes ago, MoshJason said:

That's fine until you hit a squad of Ork Boys 30 Strong with 4 flamers. Scion Command Squad with Flamers (60 pts) would be the best anti horde in the game -- easily wiping a 240 pt squad with one round of shooting, and able to hit almost anywhere on the board each turn.

Yup would be awesome.

im just joking of course, i honestly dont know how id fix flamers, maybe a minimum number of hits or give it a blast rule for hordes etc