PDA

View Full Version : IG heavy flamers! :(



Lacondog
02-06-2009, 20:15
Why can a normal human dude in an IG command squad carry a heavy flamer?!
Why is it that this simple guy can carry around, in his meager mortal hands, the same weapon my landrader redeemer can only mount two of? Not only does he carry it around like its nothing, he can also move 6 inches and shoot it also! (its and assault weapon) The landrader is limited by the new rules by only being able to fire one of it's mighty heavy flamers per turn if it moves. That's no more powerful that the IG trooper! I simply don't understand why.

Durath
02-06-2009, 20:18
Good point!

Lacondog
02-06-2009, 20:21
I know I didn't mention the power of the machine spirit that the LR gets. Since that's not a standard feature on ever vehicle I didn't think to mention it. I'm thinking more about how any single vehicle should be able to throw down more firepower that a guy with a gun.

CauCaSus
02-06-2009, 20:23
I agree! All assault weapons should be able to fire however far the vehicle has moved!

*models 16 meltaguns on a rhino*

Lord Damocles
02-06-2009, 20:23
The Redeemer doesn't mount a pair of Heavy Flamers.
The Redeemer's Flamestorm Cannons are considerably larger than a standerd Guard pattern Heavy Flamer.

Adyger
02-06-2009, 20:24
You also didn't mention that you redeemer variant is more powerful--1 higher strength and one lower (bette0r) AP makes the redeemer flamer much better!

eldaran
02-06-2009, 20:24
1. the redeemer's got a better flamer
2. it can fire both moving the same distance, and one moving at 12".

I don't see a problem here. Would you want an AV 14/14/14 vehicle armed with S6 AP3 template weapons able to do the above (as well as carry a twin-linked asscannon) costing the same as an imperial guard veteran carrying a heavy flamer?

EDIT: beaten to it...

Lacondog
02-06-2009, 20:30
You also didn't mention that you redeemer variant is more powerful--1 higher strength and one lower (bette0r) AP makes the redeemer flamer much better!

Wow, do you ever realize you've been playing a vehicle wrong the whole time? After your post I looked at it again and i feel totally put in my place. I've been using the heavy flamer stats for the redeemer this whole time!
Thanks for help!

Xaskus
02-06-2009, 20:35
I'm pretty sure the Redeemer's Flamers have higher STR and AP than a Heavy Flamer.

JHZ
02-06-2009, 21:06
So heavy flamers on Sisters, Marines, S6 AP4 ignore inv. save flamers on Grey Knights, etc. are ok, but the moment Mr. Muscle in olive drab picks one up, it's a crime against nature? Or just Space Marines and their brand new toy, that against all odds turns out not to be such an awesome thing after all?

Besides, Pvt. Parts is able to fire as many heavy flamer shots as a moving tank (lets say Leman Russ with 3 heavy flamers): one. And if you're pissed about Assault weapons getting shafted on tanks, Marines have very little to complain about. I'm sure Eldar, Tau, etc. are far more affected by the rules. What's that, Mr. Hammerhead and your twin S5 Assault 3 burst cannons, your friend, Mr. Heavy Drone gets to move around and shoot both of its puppies like there's no tomorrow, but you can't, unless you're stationary or your main cannon is intact? What's that, Mr. Wave Serpent? You're ticked that a panty waist Eldar can run around with a Shriken Cannon (Dark Reaper Exarch and Death Jester) and spray the enemy with CDs, but you can't because the Assault 3 cannon is S6? But hey, if you take twin-linked missile launchers, you can lob off S4 plasma rockets, which by merely changing the charge from S8 krak to plasma enables you to fire them as much as you like.

MrMojoZ
02-06-2009, 21:15
Good point!

Actually it wasn't. You may want to consider not agreeing with every complaint about the IG at first glance. :D

only joking...
02-06-2009, 21:27
Yeah the complainings getting on my nerves too!

Vepr
02-06-2009, 21:45
I think this is a great idea. I invite any of my opponents to feel free and use heavy flamer stats for their redeemers. :D

I think this is very sporting of you Lacondog. :p

uggy
02-06-2009, 21:50
I thought"stuff the rules" and made a hvy flamer wielding pretorian guardsman years ago,it is a nice figure so none of my regular opponents whinged ....
A 2nd world war era flame thrower,capable of immolating a tank is about the same size as a large assault rifle with a tank the size of a big pedal bin,these were easily man portable,by guys just like your grandad ,so im sure an I.G. trooper fed on stimulating drugs and indoctrination that they were doing the will of their deity could manage it!Have fun guys!

Helicon_One
02-06-2009, 22:39
Answer: because the heavy flamer is Assault 1

Green Shoes
02-06-2009, 22:45
Haven't Catachans been able to use Heavy Flamers for the longest time (at least as long as their codex lasted...)? So why complain now?

Plus, the biggest balancing factor to the HF-toting Guardsmen (if it even needs a balance :eyebrows:) is: T3 5+.

Bunnahabhain
02-06-2009, 22:53
Old Codex guard allowed Jungle Fighter units to have a heavy flamer. Yes it did work out rather expensive, and wasn't one of the better doctrines, but you could do it.

If you want a real WTF thing, then how about being able to throw demo charges, but not grenades...

Ronin_eX
02-06-2009, 22:58
Although a misguided criticism the hypothetical it poses has merrit.

A hypothetical vehicle that mounts several heavy flamers (if one exists currently I can't remember) will only be able to fire off as many as a single infantryman can (whether Marine, SoB or IG). But then I'm sure everyone already knows how unintuitive the vehicle rules are so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

But yes, the Redeemer is packing much more heat. *pun certainly intended*

Grimtuff
02-06-2009, 23:04
So heavy flamers on Sisters, Marines, S6 AP4 ignore inv. save flamers on Grey Knights, etc.


The weapon is all those cases is S5 ;)

Rirekon
02-06-2009, 23:27
You can throw grenades - it's automatic when assaulting or being assaulted :p

Vaktathi
02-06-2009, 23:32
Why can a normal human dude in an IG command squad carry a heavy flamer?!
Why is it that this simple guy can carry around, in his meager mortal hands, the same weapon my landrader redeemer can only mount two of? Because they aren't the same weapon?

the LRR is S6 AP3, the HF is only S5 AP4.

These weapons don't require super human strength to wield and use, they have no recoil, rather it's a matter of how much fuel and ammo can be carried. Given that a command squads heavy flamer may fire once, perhaps twice, probably no more than 3 times during the course of a game, that's probably all the ammo it's carrying for it.


Not only does he carry it around like its nothing, he can also move 6 inches and shoot it also! (its and assault weapon) The landrader is limited by the new rules by only being able to fire one of it's mighty heavy flamers per turn if it moves. That's no more powerful that the IG trooper! I simply don't understand why.Because the vehicle weapons rules are silly, there is no reason other than Alessio didn't like the fact that a chimera could move and still kill his Banshee's out in the open.

Lyinar
02-06-2009, 23:58
The Grey Knight Incinerator IS an S6AP4 weapon... The person who mentioned it didn't quite use enough commas, but they did intend it to be mentioned separately.

And again, Guardsmen have been able to carry Heavy Flamers for quite some time now, at least two whole editions of the game.

Lord Damocles
03-06-2009, 10:03
The Grey Knight Incinerator IS an S6AP4 weapon... The person who mentioned it didn't quite use enough commas, but they did intend it to be mentioned separately.
The Grey Knight Incinerator is S5 AP4.

Hellebore
03-06-2009, 10:14
The model does look a little ridiculous with it, it's huge.

I do think that a cadian carrying a heavy flamer should have more trouble with it than a terminator. Two handed you might say, but he still comes with a close combat weapon. ;)

Hellebore

Kurisu313
03-06-2009, 11:26
The model does look a little ridiculous with it, it's huge.


When I got my new plastic catachan command set, I had to remodel the heavy flamer because it looked ridiculous - a weapon being wielded like a flamer but with a much larger nozzle.

I just rearranged so the gun is under the guys arms instead of being carried in them, like the old metal catachan heavy flamers. Looks much better

defunct
03-06-2009, 12:24
Because they can, maybe they've been specially picked for the job 'cause they've got the muscle?

Anyway, just look at an Escher carrying a Plasma Cannon! Or "Heavy Plasma Gun" whatever. :)

Earthbeard
03-06-2009, 12:31
It's not so much he carries it around, it's why carry it around, it makes you look like a bloody idiot.

One of the daftest looks I've ever seen is that weapon.

Durath
03-06-2009, 22:47
Although a misguided criticism the hypothetical it poses has merrit.

A hypothetical vehicle that mounts several heavy flamers (if one exists currently I can't remember) will only be able to fire off as many as a single infantryman can (whether Marine, SoB or IG). But then I'm sure everyone already knows how unintuitive the vehicle rules are so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

But yes, the Redeemer is packing much more heat. *pun certainly intended*

Exactly.

Also, "Heavy" Flamers have always been portrayed as "Heavy Weapons". I.E. Move and fire, or mounted on vehicles.

The only other Heavy Flamer Infantry I've found are Space Marines Terminators (including Chaos). Terminators are have access to heavier weapons as they "relentless" due to their increased support from the armor.

So, yes, the OP was wrong on his account of the Redeemer's Flamer, but his point stands correct.

Why are IG given Assault - 1, "Heavy" Flamers?

Vaktathi
03-06-2009, 22:51
Why are IG given Assault - 1, "Heavy" Flamers?

Personally, I think it was a typo that made through to press.

I doubt it, Heavy Flamers have always been assault 1 since 3rd ed AFAIK. A "heavy" infantry carried template weapon would never, ever get a chance to be fired, especially in an Imperial Guard unit (anything close enough to flame would be close enough to assault).

Culven
03-06-2009, 23:07
Why are IG given Assault - 1, "Heavy" Flamers?
Probably because all Heavy Flamers are Assault 1.

Something else that those who are anti-IG Heavy Flamer may want to consider is that for the man-portable version, only models with BS4 can carry them. The fact that they give up their BS and range should help offset any perceived advantages gained from the weapon.

Durath
03-06-2009, 23:07
I doubt it, Heavy Flamers have always been assault 1 since 3rd ed AFAIK. A "heavy" infantry carried template weapon would never, ever get a chance to be fired, especially in an Imperial Guard unit (anything close enough to flame would be close enough to assault).

True enough.

But perhaps this was because the Terminator Heavy Flamer in 3rd Ed. was made Assault to skirt the move and fire condition of the "Heavy" nature of a "Heavy 1". Remember, there was no "relentless" rule in 3rd ed. (which caused no end of arguments on how to use Terminators). Assault Cannons were given the same treatment in that regard.

Then someone at GW typoed it in the IG book, and it's carried on since?

From a "fluff" stand point, I just don't think it makes sense that an IG infantry unit treats the Heavy Flamer the same as a Terminator squad. There's no way someone is firing something that big while running into close quarter combat.

Durath
03-06-2009, 23:09
Probably because all Heavy Flamers are Assault 1.

Something else that those who are anti-IG Heavy Flamer may want to consider is that for the man-portable version, only models with BS4 can carry them. The fact that they give up their BS and range should help offset any perceived advantages gained from the weapon.


Not sure I follow... my IG codex has a BS3 Infantry unit with a 20 point upgrade to a Heavy Flamer.

Bloodknight
03-06-2009, 23:12
Why are IG given Assault - 1, "Heavy" Flamers?

For the same reasons Sisters and everybody elsehave them. HF have been move-and-fire (Assault 1) since 3rd edition...in 2nd they weren't, but the template was much larger.


Remember, there was no "relentless" rule in 3rd ed. (which caused no end of arguments on how to use Terminators

Yeah, but Terminator armour has always allowed heavy weapons to be fired on the move as part of their rules since 3rd edition. Doesn't change the fact that Termies also had Assault 1 Heavy Flamers from the start. Assault cannons were Heavy 3.



Not sure I follow... my IG codex has a BS3 Infantry unit with a 20 point upgrade to a Heavy Flamer.

Nitpicking. The only IG unit that you are likely to see with a HF is Veterans. Nobody in his right mind wants to put his command squads in that kind of danger, and the HF on a Platoon command squad costs 60% of the squad itself.

Bunnahabhain
03-06-2009, 23:18
And they were not move and fire back in 2nd ed. I don't have Rogue trader books to check that one too, but for at least 4 editions, you've been able to move, fire, and assault after firing them.


@durath- you might want to check your facts before you post to this thread, you're 0 for 2 so far.

Durath
03-06-2009, 23:21
For the same reasons Sisters and everybody elsehave them. HF have been move-and-fire (Assault 1) since 3rd edition...in 2nd they weren't, but the template was much larger.

Sisters have Heavy Flamer Infantry? I looked, not seeing it. Which unit?


Yeah, but Terminator armour has always allowed heavy weapons to be fired on the move as part of their rules. Doesn't change the fact that Termies also had Assault 1 Heavy Flamers from the start. Assault cannons were Heavy 3.

Relentless covers more than heavy weapons. It covers everything. The only 3rd ed. rules didn't, which led to arguments about Combi-Bolters on Chaos Terms.

As far as the Heavy 3 on Assault Cannons goes, this actually does sound right, but I if I remember, wasn't there some debate about being able to assault after firing ACs in 3rd? Yes, you could MOVE, but people would claim you couldn't assault. Then when the 4th ed book came out it was changed to Assault 4 to clear this up (still before relentless).

Bloodknight
03-06-2009, 23:22
Bunna is right, it wasn't move or fire in 2nd (except that you couldn't shoot it and assault because charge moves were before the shooting phase in 2nd ;)). I probably confused that with Flamers in GoMo or something like that. Don't nail me on it.

Culven
03-06-2009, 23:23
Not sure I follow... my IG codex has a BS3 Infantry unit with a 20 point upgrade to a Heavy Flamer.
The only place I see that is in the Platoon Command Squad. If this is the unit to which you are refering, then you are correct and I was mistaken. I was thinking that the Platoon Command Squad included Veteran Guardsmen with BS4. I never noticed they are regular Guardsmen with BS3. Even then, for the most part, one is going to be giving a Heavy Flamer to a BS4 model.

Durath
03-06-2009, 23:25
The only place I see that is in the Platoon Command Squad. If this is the unit to which you are refering, then you are correct and I was mistaken. I was thinking that the Platoon Command Squad included Veteran Guardsmen with BS4. I never noticed they are regular Guardsmen with BS3. Even then, for the most part, one is going to be giving a Heavy Flamer to a BS4 model.

Yep, that's where I saw it.

Durath
03-06-2009, 23:27
@durath- you might want to check your facts before you post to this thread, you're 0 for 2 so far.

Just having a discussion friend. If I was doing a research paper, I'd make sure to 'check the facts'.

For my part, I'll say this isn't a game breaking thing, so I'm not all that concerned about it. But I do see it as an inconsistancy in the rules.

P.S. I'm at least 1 for 3.

Culven
03-06-2009, 23:30
Sisters have Heavy Flamer Infantry? I looked, not seeing it. Which unit?
I believe they can have them in Sisters Battle Squads and their version of Devastator Squads (Heavy Support choice). I don't have the codex to hand, so I am probably mistaken on those. :p

primarch16
03-06-2009, 23:31
Because its badass.

Bloodknight
03-06-2009, 23:33
The only 3rd ed. rules didn't, which led to arguments about Combi-Bolters on Chaos Terms.
Rejoice. CSM Termies are still not relentless, and the same old argument is still there...

As for Sisters: Basic Sisters and Celestias (Elite sisters) can take a HF. The Heavy Support Sisters can't. They only get heavy bolters and multimeltas.


Not to **** you off, but Assault Cannons are Heavy 4 in the current Space Marine Codex.

spetswalshe
03-06-2009, 23:33
Has anyone else noticed that running while firing a flamethrower straight ahead might not be a terribly good idea? Especially if the wind is against you.

Apart from that, I see little reason why a heavier version of the flamer shouldn't be used. Assaulting doesn't nessecarily mean running full tilt, does it? If it does, it doesn't appear to be that much more encumbering than the Cadian flamer. And we can always assume the model jogs his way there, fires, then jogs forward while the rest of the squad fight a brutal close combat action, with his attack just being Sarge taking up the slack? Or controlled bursts from a bit of a distance. Even just jogging forward with the flamer slung and firing a pistol? Close combat could very well be facilitated by simply dropping the flamer and pushing a quick-release on the inevitable enormous fuel backpack.

Or maybe it's just a game balance thing that has no real basis in fluff?

Culven
03-06-2009, 23:40
Actually, the movement of Infantry doesn't represent a run. Jogging, maybe, but also mixed with cautious advancement. So, the overall speed of advancement is somewhere probably about a walking speed. This should be a safe speed for firing. One could even imagine that the flamer-armed model jogs up, stops, fires, and then runs into the fray.

Durath
03-06-2009, 23:45
Bunna is right, it wasn't move or fire in 2nd (except that you couldn't shoot it and assault because charge moves were before the shooting phase in 2nd ). I probably confused that with Flamers in GoMo or something like that. Don't nail me on it.

Fair enough, I'm half-into this disscussion so don't nail me either.


Rejoice. CSM Termies are still not relentless, and the same old argument is still there...

While not being relentless, the Terminator Armor entry in the CSM codex is very specific about what you can do with regard to rapid fire and heavy weapons and assaults (i.e. they function as being relentless)


As for Sisters: Basic Sisters and Celestias can take a HF.

Oh. Ok. That doesn't make sense either...


Not to **** you off, but Assault Cannons are Heavy 4 in the current Space Marine Codex.

Wow, so they are. Heavy "Assault Cannons" and Assault "Heavy Flamers". Perfect rules writting GW... perfect...
__________________

Lyinar
03-06-2009, 23:50
The "HEAVY" Flamer is called that because it does more damage and has better AP than a normal Flamer. Deal with it.

Durath
03-06-2009, 23:53
Actually, the movement of Infantry doesn't represent a run. Jogging, maybe, but also mixed with cautious advancement. So, the overall speed of advancement is somewhere probably about a walking speed. This should be a safe speed for firing. One could even imagine that the flamer-armed model jogs up, stops, fires, and then runs into the fray.

You're fluff definition is correct for standard movement, but I don't think this is how they intend it as charging.

From the main rule book, page 33:

In an assault, troops storm forward, screaming their battle cries, eager to strike at their foes with knives, claws, bayonets or gun butts in
a desperate close combat

In game terms, a charge is doubling the basic movement rate, so it would be more than a brisk walk.

Durath
03-06-2009, 23:54
The "HEAVY" Flamer is called that because it does more damage and has better AP than a normal Flamer. Deal with it.

Ok, then why is a "HEAVY" Bolter Heavy 3? It does more damage and has a better AP than a regular bolter. Is it too much to desire consistency?

Culven
04-06-2009, 00:12
Is it too much to desire consistency?
From GW? Of course it is. My favorite is "wound". :p I have just learned to accept that consistancy and clarify are not possible for GW (along with playtesting, balance, expedient FAQs. . .). Also, adjectives are not rules (remember the old Space Marine Scouts who didn't have the Scouts rule?) and the fluff and rules have nothing to do with one another.

Durath
04-06-2009, 00:33
From GW? Of course it is. My favorite is "wound". :p I have just learned to accept that consistancy and clarify are not possible for GW (along with playtesting, balance, expedient FAQs. . .). Also, adjectives are not rules (remember the old Space Marine Scouts who didn't have the Scouts rule?) and the fluff and rules have nothing to do with one another.

Note I didn't say "expect". I've played this game far too long to expect GW to shape up. I do long for a 40k edition that is free of the problems you mention.

And as such, in the competative tournament world, RAW dictates some silly things. This is sadly why I only rarely play competatively these days.

As far as fluff goes, in a friendly game, using RAW isn't feasible in my experience because it is so full of contradictions and omissions as you point out. However, I've found that if you and your opponent objectively read a particular unit's portrayed description in their write up you can sort of derive the intent of a rule if there is inconsistency. This does require a true "friendly" opponent though

It's sad too, because the 40k license is a virtual orchid of cool content which, had it been given justice, would dominate the gaming circles (it comes close to it fluff alone).

So, this Heavy Flamer thing is just another example of an unbuffed game imho. It would shine so much brighter if GW would just polish things like this up. I vote they change the name to "Assault Flamer", and let Marines have them too.

Arakanis
04-06-2009, 01:21
What about this? "HEAVY" flamers are Assault 1
and "ASSAULT" cannons are Heavy 4

The only thing I have to say about that is "suck it up cupcake"

You wanna know something ridiculous? A Predator Annihilator has a twin-linked lascannon and two regular lascannons and yet a space marine can carry a lascannon that is just as effective. And you can just hand those babies out. Devastators with 4 lascannons are even more effective than a TANK with four lascannons. Because even though they can't move and fire, they're harder to kill, do more damage and one of them will use a targeting signum to make them an even better shot (Something that a marine sergeant can carry but can't be mounted on a tank?)

It doesn't always make sense. It's a game. Get used to it. I do agree though, that vehicle rules need an overhaul, especially this "Defensive strength 4" garbage. Even so, I and everyone I know just works around it.

Bookwrak
04-06-2009, 02:16
Ok, then why is a "HEAVY" Bolter Heavy 3? It does more damage and has a better AP than a regular bolter. Is it too much to desire consistency?

Good lord, in all my years on Warseer this has got to be the most pointless whine I have ever seen.:wtf: It's a name.

azimaith
04-06-2009, 05:09
The reason why your redeemer or any other imperial vehicle with heavy flamers can't fire more than one is because its righteous machine spirit as actually a rather fussy primmadonna, thus the techpriests and brother techmarines must keep its hull mostly stocked with cheetos, bean dip, and champagne or it refuses to function. To make this worse the other marines in the land raider are required to attend to the finicky tanks constant needs including boiler massages every 3 minutes and a two cabana boys with palm tree leaf fans. This means that there is only one marine available to run the guns thus he must run between gun stations lest the warmachine be forced to take action of its own, which would thusly anger the land raiders rich father, the Machine God.

I thought everyone knew this.

Kriegfreak
04-06-2009, 05:31
The reason why your redeemer or any other imperial vehicle with heavy flamers can't fire more than one is because its righteous machine spirit as actually a rather fussy primmadonna, thus the techpriests and brother techmarines must keep its hull mostly stocked with cheetos, bean dip, and champagne or it refuses to function. To make this worse the other marines in the land raider are required to attend to the finicky tanks constant needs including boiler massages every 3 minutes and a two cabana boys with palm tree leaf fans. This means that there is only one marine available to run the guns thus he must run between gun stations lest the warmachine be forced to take action of its own, which would thusly anger the land raiders rich father, the Machine God.

I thought everyone knew this.

You beat me to it.

DarkReaver
04-06-2009, 05:43
Even this made me facepalm. Just to make some people happy how about we all agree to rename the heavy flamer and assault cannon. How about:

Heavy Flamer = Assault Flamer
&
Assault Cannon = Heavy Cannon

Maybe people would stop bringing these things up if we did this :D

IrishDelinquent
04-06-2009, 05:53
Sisters have Heavy Flamer Infantry? I looked, not seeing it. Which unit?

The Celestians (Codex: Witch Hunters, page 29), and the Battle Sisters squad (Codex: Witch Hunters, page 34) can both take Heavy Flamers. It makes sense that the Sisters of Battle can take Heavy Flamers, as they are trained from a young age, and wear power armor (which, logically, would allow for the sisters to fire their weapons with more stability than regular guardsmen).


Ok, then why is a "HEAVY" Bolter Heavy 3? It does more damage and has a better AP than a regular bolter. Is it too much to desire consistency?

The Heavy Bolter is a heavy weapon, because of the size of the gun, and the weight of the ammunition required to operate the weapon. The Heavy Flamer would be little more than a flamer with a hotter flame.


The only thing I have to say about that is "suck it up cupcake"

Took the words right out of my mouth. This whole thing seems like more unnecessary complaining about the guard. If you don't like how the game is played, then get out of the sandbox.

Bookwrak
04-06-2009, 06:23
Actually, it's not even how the game is played, it's a one of the weapons is named. The really funny part is that GW IS being completely consistent about things! What's the beefed up version of a bolter called? a Heavy bolter! What's the beefed up version of a flamer called? a Heavy flamer! Of course, that does make me wonder where I can find a regular stubber, since I've already got plenty of Heavy ones...

azimaith
04-06-2009, 06:36
Man I just found out GW is even less consistent! My Rokkit launchers don't launch roks at all! Lame!

Durath
04-06-2009, 07:42
Man I just found out GW is even less consistent! My Rokkit launchers don't launch roks at all! Lame!

You obviously aren't a true Ork player. If you were, you'd know that the Meks make the warheads out of red painted rocks and put a huge firecracker at the end.

Ronin_eX
04-06-2009, 08:05
Hmm, still need to check your examples I'm afraid. The 'heavy' in Heavy Flamer has never referred to its in-game stats. You have been able to move and fire it through most editions I can remember them.

In the current edition it is certainly assault. Look up Space Marine Sternguard, they have a Heavy Flamer option, no relentless and it is still an Assault weapon just as it is for the IG.

Your point about the silliness of the vehicle rules is good but you keep on bringing non-existent examples into play that only weaken the point you seemed to be trying to make.

The IG are getting no special treatment here, the vehicle rules are just festering *****. ;)

Griefbringer
04-06-2009, 08:12
As for the Heavy Flamer and Assault Cannon, back when they were first introduced in RT era days, such weapon rules as "heavy" or "assault" did not exist.

Voleron
04-06-2009, 08:30
Of course, that does make me wonder where I can find a regular stubber, since I've already got plenty of Heavy ones...
Necromunda or Inquisitor. Both should have Stubbers or Stub Pistols of some description.

Bassik
04-06-2009, 08:36
Oh no, another "IG are unfair!" thread!
Let's just hope a new army comes out soon, so people can complain about those instead.

Seriously.
I have followed this trend since Eldar.
The only times people where right was usually because of one build, ONE BUILD! in an army.
And even then, it was not that hard to overcome.

Lord Solar Plexus
04-06-2009, 08:44
Oh no, another "IG are unfair!" thread!


You and others seem to be doing Lacondog a huge disservice. As far as I can see, he was just wondering what the explanation could be for a perceived inconcistency (a man-carried weapon being as effective as the same tank-borne gun), not complaining about anything being OP.


From GW? Of course it is. My favorite is "wound". :p

The whole sequence is skewed - if a bullet wounds someone, than how can the armour stop it afterwards? Armour saves should be taken before 'to wound' rolls.


Of course, that does make me wonder where I can find a regular stubber, since I've already got plenty of Heavy ones...

I hazard the guess that the only factory world making stub pistols has been overrun, eaten or exterminated by some party or the other. Of course only the Imperium could be stupid enough to have only a single factory world producing the things but hey.

Bunnahabhain
04-06-2009, 09:12
Of course, that does make me wonder where I can find a regular stubber, since I've already got plenty of Heavy ones...

2nd ed ,as mentioned above.
Also Necromunda, and assorted converted guard armies, with stub guns or autoguns/pistols replacing the lasguns/laspistols.

SanguinaryDan
04-06-2009, 13:20
These weapons don't require super human strength to wield and use, they have no recoil, rather it's a matter of how much fuel and ammo can be carried.

Sorry? :wtf: No recoil? Ejecting a stream of liquid promethium with enough velocity to act like anything other than a garden hose is going to have a goodly amount of recoil. Nothing like a fire hose, but still substantial.

Not that I disagree with your basic point, it's not beyond the strength of a normal human, just that anything that pushes something is going to have recoil. Don't want to mislead the children after all.;)

Marneus Calgar
04-06-2009, 14:09
The whole sequence is skewed - if a bullet wounds someone, than how can the armour stop it afterwards? Armour saves should be taken before 'to wound' rolls.




Correct, but for ease of play it's better for a player to roll to hit and wound, and then transfer the dice to his opponent.

Lord Solar Plexus
04-06-2009, 14:13
Correct, but for ease of play it's better for a player to roll to hit and wound, and then transfer the dice to his opponent.

Heh, my tables are usually strewn with dice everywhere. We have even integrated a new dice collecting phase between the shooting and assault phases.

Also, what kind of opponent would that be who hasn't brought his own dice in the first place! :) :eek:

Bookwrak
04-06-2009, 14:18
Correct, but for ease of play it's better for a player to roll to hit and wound, and then transfer the dice to his opponent.

The results are mathematically the same, but armor save last is a better system because then it's the defending who gets one last chance to save the models.

It's like how when an ork or IG player decides to give marines a try for a game, and declares how nice it feels to actually get a chance to roll saves.:evilgrin:

JHZ
04-06-2009, 15:05
Why hasn't anyone cried for the injustice in Deathwatch heavy bolters, which are Heavy 3 / Assault 3? Why are those glory hogs able to move and fire their heavy bolters, while my dear tanks can barely do anything?


Has anyone else noticed that running while firing a flamethrower straight ahead might not be a terribly good idea? Especially if the wind is against you.
It's not the same as having a wee, you know. The flame shoots out with far more pressure than what Hollywood movies led to believe (damn work safety laws...). So unless you can run faster than a high pressure stream of gas/liquid, then there's no hope of the flame hitting you. Beside, the flame has the same kinetic energy as you do. As in, if you toss a ball at 50mph while moving 2mph, the ball has the speed of 52mph relative to the ground and 50mph relative to you, meaning it's the same if you move or not. Same with the liquid. So your movement gives it the same boost, so technically the flame should shoot out as far whether your moving or not.


Man I just found out GW is even less consistent! My Rokkit launchers don't launch roks at all! Lame!
Nor does it really "rokk it" either.


Why are IG given Assault - 1, "Heavy" Flamers?
I think it's been stated a few times already, but I just want to know where I can find a Heavy 1 Heavy Flamer then? I've never seen any other flamer than Assault.

Besides, now that IG (command squads and vets), SoB (celestians and battle squads), CSM (terminators and Huron's claw) and SM (Vulkan's gauntlet, sterguard and terminators) heavy flamers are out of the way, shall we look at other armies? GK Incenerators (yes, S5, sorry, I mixed it with the psycannon in my head) and Eldar Fire Dragon Exarchs Dragon's Breath Flamer are also Assault 1.


Necromunda or Inquisitor. Both should have Stubbers or Stub Pistols of some description.
In one BL novel there was a thing called Autostubber, which sounded like a minigun (or a microgun), though I've seen some place describe it as a carbine version of a stubber or something.


The whole sequence is skewed - if a bullet wounds someone, than how can the armour stop it afterwards? Armour saves should be taken before 'to wound' rolls.
The end result would be the same, but I guess it's the old "Jesus saves, the rest take full damage" where saving throws are saved for last. Besides, it only means that the armour stops bullets that could have been lethal. The shots that didn't wound, could have just nicked the target or glance off of the armour.


I hazard the guess that the only factory world making stub pistols has been overrun, eaten or exterminated by some party or the other. Of course only the Imperium could be stupid enough to have only a single factory world producing the things but hey.
I guess it's for the same reason they don't hand revolvers to soldiers: there are better guns around. Stub weapons are crude, basic weapons in a world of caseless assault rifles, 3rd world produced laser rifles and automatic rocket launchers.

Why bother with weapons that need much more care and ammo supplied, when a laser rifle has next to no moving parts and can recharge its batteries from any source?

Besides, I believe the old IG codex did mention stub guns. In the page where there were all the medals and the pictures of a guardman and a kasrkin, I think the text under the guardsman mentioned a holstered stub gun, which wasn't standard issue and most likely the soldier had received it elsewhere.

Bunnahabhain
04-06-2009, 15:07
Heh, my tables are usually strewn with dice everywhere. We have even integrated a new dice collecting phase between the shooting and assault phases.

Also, what kind of opponent would that be who hasn't brought his own dice in the first place! :) :eek:

Very true. I normally just use the same set as my opponent through ( either mine or theirs), as it saves getting them mixed up, and I don't know anybody that uptight enough about other people touching their dice.

Griefbringer
04-06-2009, 16:32
Not that I disagree with your basic point, it's not beyond the strength of a normal human, just that anything that pushes something is going to have recoil. Don't want to mislead the children after all.;)

That last sentence caused me to have a very disturbing vision of Little Timmy going out to the playground to display his brand new flamethrower to the other kids. However, when he tries to blast the rose bushes into cinders, the recoil takes him by surprise and knocks him flat on his back, with the flames shooting high on the sky instead. The other kids laugh at Little Timmy - until they remember that he still has a flamethrower. :cool:

Lyinar
04-06-2009, 16:48
If you want stubbers and stub pistols, have a look at Dark Heresy. You get to play an Inquisitorial operative, and because the system is at a different scale (i.e., hand-held weapons usually do 1d10+something damage with varying degrees of armour penetrating capabilities against hitpoints with damage reduction for toughness and armour, instead of a Strength value between 1 and 10 that gets measured against a Toughness value between 1 and 10, and an AP value against which some armours are useless and some are just as good as against any other weapon that doesn't exceed their save level), stubbers and stub pistols don't have stats that are essentially identical to lasguns and laspistols.

In 40k, quite literally, stubbers, autoguns, and lasguns are ALL "24-inch S3AP- Rapid Fire". Thus, only Lasguns are mentioned because everything else can be "counts as".

Corrode
04-06-2009, 17:12
Heh, my tables are usually strewn with dice everywhere. We have even integrated a new dice collecting phase between the shooting and assault phases.

Also, what kind of opponent would that be who hasn't brought his own dice in the first place! :) :eek:

You clearly haven't seen a large mob of Boyz charging - it doesn't matter whose dice they are, when that happens I'm going to be using them all!

JHZ
04-06-2009, 17:45
In 40k, quite literally, stubbers, autoguns, and lasguns are ALL "24-inch S3AP- Rapid Fire". Thus, only Lasguns are mentioned because everything else can be "counts as".
Yup, until some wiseguy decides to start an argument over why my lasguns don't look like lasguns and that they should look like lasguns because the rules say that I need to have lasguns and that I'm cheating and that he might as well say all of his bolters count as lascannons, etc. etc.

Durath
04-06-2009, 18:05
Yup, until some wiseguy decides to start an argument over why my lasguns don't look like lasguns and that they should look like lasguns because the rules say that I need to have lasguns and that I'm cheating and that he might as well say all of his bolters count as lascannons, etc. etc.

Can we please stop being so defensive?

This is a really minor point the OP made. It's not game breaking, no one is accusing anyone of cheating, and only constitutes an inconsistency in language and perhaps a minor design flaw of the 3rd edition Codecies and on.

This constant IG backlash against anything slightly negative is really getting old.

Lyinar
04-06-2009, 18:45
@Durath... JHZ's post was a commentary on players who can't understand "counts as", and unfortunately, there are those kind of folk out there. It wasn't anything to do with "IG backlash" or "defensiveness".

JHZ
04-06-2009, 18:52
@Durath... JHZ's post was a commentary on players who can't understand "counts as", and unfortunately, there are those kind of folk out there. It wasn't anything to do with "IG backlash" or "defensiveness".
Yeah, about right. Reminds me how everyone is always whining how Chaos is nothing but spikes and tentacles, but if you make a Chaos army without them, it's not a Chaos army and you're just being cheap and lazy with your modelling.

And by the way, all my Guardsmen do have autoguns, made from 3rd party metals, to name just a few things "wrong" with the army.

Balog
05-06-2009, 01:14
Hey guys, I just saw those lazy jerks at the Oxford English Dictionary have decided you "park" on a "driveway" and "drive" on a "parkway!" What terrible quality control....


Seriously, I have no idea if the "GW is so terrible" argument is valid, but bashing on them for semantics just makes the people doing it look silly.

I should note this is not directed at the OP, which seems to have been a legitimate question based on a slight misreading.

spetswalshe
05-06-2009, 02:27
It's not the same as having a wee, you know.

Succinctly put and with an analogy I can get to grips with. It's amazing that you divined from my short post that the only experience I have had that's remotely similar to using a flamethrower while moving, was urinating while at top running speed. I suppose, when you've got a big explosive barrel strapped to your back and you're running toward an enemy trench, you'd probably be able to compare the two first-hand.

Durath
05-06-2009, 07:30
Hey guys, I just saw those lazy jerks at the Oxford English Dictionary have decided you "park" on a "driveway" and "drive" on a "parkway!" What terrible quality control....


Seriously, I have no idea if the "GW is so terrible" argument is valid, but bashing on them for semantics just makes the people doing it look silly.

I should note this is not directed at the OP, which seems to have been a legitimate question based on a slight misreading.

What a poor use of George Carlin's comedic genius. Do you realize, you are using his satirical criticism of the English language's constant etymologically contradictions and autoantonyms as an example to "forgive" an established company of making the same mistake in a product of their own design?

In case you missed the point, Carlin was LAUGHING at us for using these terms. His underlying tone was telling the english speaking masses "Hey, you are all confused cavemen for using these words". It sounds funny because of how he said it, but his meaning was quite clear... he meant to call us all uneducated baffoons.

In fact, if anything, you've only convicted GW of being "so terrible". They had a choice in making their weapons function like their name suggests. Yet, they did the reverse.

And if they can't apply their own defintions to the weapons they've given the proper name to (go look up pg. 29 of the Main Rulebook, 1st paragraph), then how, as designers, could they ever be expected to make the actual rules work in a logical and balanced manner?

Indeed, I might look silly for bashing GW for using contradictory rules for a given proper named wargear item, but for defending them... well, lets just say it's a shame George Carlin isn't with us anymore to go over how that looks.

JHZ
05-06-2009, 10:29
Succinctly put and with an analogy I can get to grips with. It's amazing that you divined from my short post that the only experience I have had that's remotely similar to using a flamethrower while moving, was urinating while at top running speed. I suppose, when you've got a big explosive barrel strapped to your back and you're running toward an enemy trench, you'd probably be able to compare the two first-hand.
Am I to assume you've used a military grade flame thrower? As for myself, no, I'm afraid we didn't have any in the army. Only dangerous thing I've ever carried on my back was a bunch of high explosives.

But here's a video of some real life military flamers used on the move:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX8McyNa6jk&feature=related

Treadhead_1st
05-06-2009, 12:19
It's called a heavy flamer because it packs more punch than a regular Flamer.

If it were made Heavy then it would be useless. Heavy Bolters are Heavy because the regular bolter is Rapid Fire (difficult to use whilst moving, due to weight and having to aim). A Flamer is fairly indiscriminate and doesn't need to be aimed as closely as a rifle does (can see where the flame is going and re-direct).

Complaining that having a Heavy Flamer as an Assault Weapon in an inconsistency of writing is, IMO, a purile rant for the sake of it. No-one I've met in person has had an issue grasping the concept that it's an Assault weapon, nor any problem with the nomenclature. It's not an inconsistency - it follows the usual pattern of naming weapons by scale (boltpistol-boltgun-heavy bolter = handflamer-flamer-heavy flamer).

Not all vehicles have such limited range on the HF either. The Immolator mounts a twin-linked Flamer that can be fired if it moves 12", and the Hellhound (with essentially a "super-flamer") shoots the back end of the template out to a 12" range whilst moving 12" as well.

If Tanks and so forth had the ability to fire the HF when moving further than 6" (as a main weapon you can move+fire it if you wish - ok they're not Defensive any more but that's a limitation of the Vehicle rules not the weapons) then you'd be taking away from the uniqueness, and point, of the aforementioned "special" vehicles.

The Heavy Flamer, across all armies it appears in, is Assault - it's not unique to the Guard. The Land Raider can already fire more than 1 template thanks to the Machine Spirit - it can roll 6" and put down 2 templates (admitedly the enemy has to be obliging to help you hit anything like this, but it's possible). 2 very, very powerful templates as it happens.

spetswalshe
05-06-2009, 14:28
Am I to assume you've used a military grade flame thrower?

You appear to have misread my comment as sarcasm. I was actually commending you for resolving the issue :)

I was, however, under the impression that flamethrowers aren't a legal weapon for military actions anymore?

JHZ
05-06-2009, 18:45
You appear to have misread my comment as sarcasm. I was actually commending you for resolving the issue :)
Well all right then. I blame it all on the internets, your honor, it has twisted my fragile little mind.


I was, however, under the impression that flamethrowers aren't a legal weapon for military actions anymore?
Well, legal and legal. Like gasses, cluster bombs and anti-personnel mines, they're sure to get taken out once you start to lose the war. Besides, who needs them, when I can take out a rocket launcher and shoot a WP charge up one's foxhole?