15-power Flamers

[Raffa]

I can't agree with this at all.

I know Cael wants flamers to be used as combat weapons not just as genbashers hence their buffs across the board.

But 15(!) power for a powerbasher?? You have to be taking at least a calculated gamble getting a flamer and I thought 20 power adequately punished people who just bought it for the hell of it in case they ever could genbash. 15 is just like

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

Tacs can switch weapons and level really well with the flamer already. I thought they paid extra for weapons as they are able to switch? Sluggas already get all-round buffs from their flamer upgrade.

[HandSome SoddiNg]

What about Slugga'z burnas? they gene bash adequately fast as well. 65/15? what gives

[Torpid]

I totally agree Raffa, I think flamers have been OP ever since the change, they're so damn effective against any t1 LI, they bleed them tonnes and as a result of that AND being so effective at ninja-bashing (since they can fight t1 melee solo due to the flamer easily assuming the melee has no upgrades) there seems to be little reason to not get the flamer and that ignores the effects of experience.

I don't mind the burna change as much, orks don't get any other anti-garrison and the burnas aren't half as combat effective (still great thought - they wreck termagants like crazy, but tac flamers are a whole different world).

[Faultron]

I can't agree with this at all.

I know Cael wants flamers to be used as combat weapons not just as genbashers hence their buffs across the board.

But 15(!) power for a powerbasher?? You have to be taking at least a calculated gamble getting a flamer and I thought 20 power adequately punished people who just bought it for the hell of it in case they ever could genbash. 15 is just like

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

Tacs can switch weapons and level really well with the flamer already. I thought they paid extra for weapons as they are able to switch? Sluggas already get all-round buffs from their flamer upgrade.

yup and caeltos wondering why games doesnt last longer
and in my opinion flamer aoe should effect allied/own troops as well...

[Tex]

I feel like burnas are on the cusp of this level of OP or not, GM flamer is definitely in the "okay" department at 15 power, but I have always felt that the tac flamer at 15 power is definitely OP, because tacs can switch weapons, because they are so durable, and because a flamer/shotgun push can be brought to bear within the first few minutes of the game, effectively giving SM the option to push early against any hero, any faction, any map.

[Ace of Swords]

because a flamer/shotgun push can be brought to bear within the first few minutes of the game,

This doesn't hold up together, not even tiny bit.

It's still a total of 30 power, by that time if he delayed his ASM so much you'll have a complete dominance with a single setup team, and he won't be able to push you out of his own genfarm, without forgetting that the flamer effectively removes 1 model-dps at max range firefights.

Burnas on the other hand give +hp,+dps and 2 power melee models on sluggas, aswell as a fast bashing capacity + an anti-garrison ability.

Surely in the old meta game 15 power flamers would be OP same for burnas, and they kind are atm, but it's one of the few things that hold togheter SM as of now, if other adjustaments would be made, than they could atleast go up to 20 power.

[Caeltos]

Not touching it. I'm kind of happy where they are at the moment. Good price vs effiency

yup and caeltos wondering why games doesnt last longer

Wat.

and in my opinion flamer aoe should effect allied/own troops as well..

Horrible idea.

[Orkfaeller]

and in my opinion flamer aoe should effect allied/own troops as well..

Im trying to imagine like double or tripple guardsmen blob melting itself.

Or Ork Sluggas charging in roasting one another^^

[Faultron]

micro your squads lol, blobbing is bad thing in general.with Guardsmen is super easy since they ranged only, dont see any problem here.

the flame would affect only the other squad not the same flamer squad what you use...(and even you could put just 75-50% friendly fire)
flamer has even ground attack mode..

spells, grenades works on your own units alredy...

this is just more hardcore, it is not a bad idea at all, just change the things.
(i wanted to open a thread about this already and other things but i saw this here so i put my quick thoughts)

[Forestradio]

The fifteen power flamer makes getting in a garrison against tacs/sluggas/guardsmen very risky (too risky) IMO.

I've wiped INQ STORMS in about three seconds after a first engagement with a battlecry buffed tac flamer.

Increase the build time more, it's simply too easy to get a flamer out and punish early garrisons very very hard.

25 to 30 seconds build time should do it.

[Faultron]

Not touching it. I'm kind of happy where they are at the moment. Good price vs effiency

yup and caeltos wondering why games doesnt last longer

Wat.

Snowball Evaluation

[Caeltos]

Not touching it. I'm kind of happy where they are at the moment. Good price vs effiency

yup and caeltos wondering why games doesnt last longer

Wat.

Snowball Evaluation

I don't think you quite grasped what that thread was about.

[Batpimp]

and in my opinion flamer aoe should effect allied/own troops as well..

Horrible idea.[/quote]

Isnt it amazing what some people think about "balancing" the game LOL!

[Faultron]

this was not a balancing suggestion, i know it was missleading a bit cos i didnt spoke much about it, soz but atleast i did quote that it is just my quick thoughts about something i want to suggest in the future in separate thread)

[SirSid]

The problem is not with flamers , it's with the tacks .

They are just to easy to control in battel and offer to much utility. I could go on but Y ? it's been said many times on this forum.

Should they be nurfed ? ARrrgggg this is such a hard call for me. Personaly i would say yes'ish HOWEVER any nurf to tacks will have drastic effects on the whole SM army. very hard to change them more than they have already been changed and keep the SM army functioning.

Tacks can be dealt with in thare curent state, it's a pain in the ass and in some matchups unfair however posible. a buff to thare flamers just means that we will see more gen bashes from SM ( this is the last fucking thing we need but whatever ) just more bullshit we have to deal with when facing SM armys.

I don't think this change will make any 1 buy tack flamers for combat.

[Caeltos]

Removed some post, if you don't have anything useful to say, don't post.

[HandSome SoddiNg]

What about Burnas? Their cheaper than Tacs and has Faster built-time, They gain 20% Hp, Burn da house ability, doesn't lose their overall DPS unlike Tacs/SS/interceptors with 1 Flamer model attached .

Upon purchasing Burnas on one Sluggaz squad can Gene bash in 1st Engagement and quickly steal a node or destroy 2 generators before the Opposing team has time to defend . So, shouldn't Burnas have the same period of built-time like other 3 squads

[Torpid]

I think you misunderstand the macro-economic performance of different races in 1v1. Orks are very weak until their t1.5 has developed - sluggas aren't great without upgrades, nor are shootas, so orks early early game is meh. Sure once they get shootas and burnas, a painboy and something else they are much better in t1 but at that point weapons should be bashing gens. Besides orks are a pressure race anyway so they ought to be able to easily capitalise on a won engagement - hence why all their t1 units are so high damage and kill gens so fast, bar the loota/painboy.

Tacs on the other hand can solo any other squad in the game in early t1, and with a flamer they can take on two unupgraded LI ranged squads fairly easily. You would just send your hero to harass, your tacs to bash and cap everything else with the scouts, due to how strong tacs are early on they would have to move their army all the way over to their farm and then you would cap the entire map with scouts and lose no models on tacs because they're tacs, not to mention the cost of the flamer is inconsequent because in elite it's a VERY powerful weapon in its own right so it was too strong.

[Black Relic]

I for one dont think that flamers should have their price changed nor their build time.
But I can sympathize on how much a flamer can bring against Light Infantry.

Normally if I get the flamer i dont really get any other update on tacs, except for their sergeant, regardless of what race i am facing since kraken bolts work with the flamer. Plus since the Flamer is an aoe type of weapon it can really hurt even HI squad early to mid game if left unchecked. Plus I do use it as an assault weapon and is excellent when you are trying to close for melee on some squad that is backing away.

That being said the flamer might need a slight nerf in its damage.

[Tea Rex]

Why not half the damage they do to gens but increase normal gun fire by like 15%?

That way flamers are used more then just gen bashers

[saltychipmunk]

i can get behind that idea , i never really liked how flamers were pretty much exclusively used for gen bashing and that their anti infantry roll was kind of a joke.

though part of me thinks the main issue with flamers vs infantry is the loss of range ,
which limits them tactically , specifically it makes them more vulnerable to set up units and melee units.


sure you still have the two other bolters on the other two tacs , but the flamer changes up the ai so that tacs move in range which will cause them to walk out of cover and stuff.

[xerrol nanoha]

If the issue is flamers being under-used as combat weapons (which they kinda seem to be) one could pull a move out of the grey knight book and have all flamer type weapons deal some courage damage (similar to dow 1), like 20-25% of the purgation incinerator courage damage as a standard.

Why not half the damage they do to gens but increase normal gun fire by like 15%?

That way flamers are used more then just gen bashers

The alternative would be tweaks to the flamer damage type, reducing damage to cover and increasing damage normally to make the 'in cover' thing more ideal situation and less manditory for effective use. Were the weapon more generalist in that sense, I suspect it would be more appealing.

[Orkfaeller]

Flamers allready do courage damage.

Dont know about you guys, but I really dont think Flamers underperform in combat.

A Tac Squad with flamer eats 3 Guardsmen unit for breakfest.

[xerrol nanoha]

Flamers allready do courage damage.

Never heard/read/seen that anywhere although purgation incinerators suppress.
Does this mean that bile spewers and chem cannons also suppress?

[Torpid]

They are already perfectly competent combat weapons. And their role genuinely isn't to be a combat weapon but rather a garrison/gen/turret counter.

[Nuclear Arbitor]

i know GM and tac flamers do a little suppression damage; it was added a few patches back, 2.1 i believe. it works well with tacs because it lets them keep units scouts knockback suppressed. not as useful with GM.

[Dark Riku]

i never really liked how flamers were pretty much exclusively used for gen bashing and that their anti infantry roll was kind of a joke.

If this was retail I would agree. But I think Elite adressed this very nicely by increasing their range and reducing their power cost by 5.

[xerrol nanoha]

Of all the flamers which ones deal courage damage or have slowing effects?:

Tactical flamer,
Force Commander Terminator,
Terminator flamers,
Dreadnought heavy flamer,
land raider redeemer,
Sluggas,
deff dred burnas,
banewolf cannon,
Plague champ bile spewer,
GK strike incinerator,
GK terminator incinerators,
GK dreadnought inferno cannon

[Indrid]

Pretty much every ranged weapon deals courage damage, it's just whether that weapon alone is enough to cause suppression. Check the Codex or the Wiki for specifics.