Salamander Firedrakes - Super Cost Effective or Bugged ?

[TShirtFlashlight]

For 425 Requisition, you get :

20 man with 2 HP each unit , compared to standard Terminators which have only 10 man with 3 HP each.
Terminator level armor
80 attacks total with Terror trait
Very cheap compared to other anti infantry Terminators - 425 req vs 700++ req ?

Is this unit working as intended or there is a bug with the unit size ? If it is working , please add the Assault trait because Heavy Flamer should ignore cover right ?

[Kerensky]

I'd definitely call them cost effective. That Heavy Flamer seems attractive, but is a really limited used weapon. Requires point blank range, doesn't ignore cover bonuses (because it's not assault), and carries zero armor penetration making it only really effective against swarms of low end Ork infantry and the lightest of Ork vehicles.

Being such a special lore unit (these guys are unique to the Salamander Chapter) we really wanted to make them a step and above the rest.

Being Terminators, their squad size might need a reduction to size 15 and their price might go up... but we'll see. Might be nice to enjoy an OP infantry unit for a change seeing as how much players have struggled to utilize this unit class since 1.0 release.

[TShirtFlashlight]

Yes , infantry units are better this time around. Space Marine Devastators could use more Anti Vehicle options though (Lascannon, Missile Launcher etc). Melta gun with Initiative 1 is asking to get shot to pieces when not in urban terrain.

I guess this is one of the rare case where something that is too good to be true is actually true. I better finish the campaign quick before update 1.04 arrives.

[Kerensky]

Probably the only thing that would change, if it does, is their formation size will go from 20 to 15. When I throw them into the editor's built in combat simulator, they perform as I expected. In open terrain, they absolutely annihilate units like Gretchin and other Ork light infantry. When those same Gretchin are in good cover, they take 50% less casualties (50% evasion afforded through Settlement terrain) because the heavy flamer is not an assault weapon. Firedrakes burn down light vehicles pretty well too, but any medium or large Ork vehicle with a decent defense rating laughs at their heavy flamers.

Against the Ork Mega Armored Nobz? Even at formation size 20, firedrakes have a tough fight against these top end Ork infantry units. In fact if the Ork Mega Armored Nobz are in good cover and the Firedrakes are not, it's a pretty much even fight, which always gives the big picture advantage to the Orks because you NEVER want to trade 1:1 when fighting Orks, they are always too numerous!

This is a very specialized unit with a very strong, but very limited role. Open ground fighting against huge swarms of enemy infantry units. It does this extremely well (probably better than anyone in the entire game at their current price!), but there's not a whole lot else this unit can do with it's only 1 single weapon and no armor penetration rating on that weapon.

[nexusno2000]

Why would terminators armed with heavy flamers NOT be very effective in an assault role? It seems to me like something I'd deploy to wipe out entrenched entrenched greenskins.

[Kerensky]

Weapon is too bulky. Standard flamer is the assault type weapon.

[Curator]

Fact, that flamer weapon IS NOT ignores cover - is very confusing.

[TShirtFlashlight]

Any chance of giving Firedrakes the Assault trait in the future? With the some nerfs to compensate.

The Centurions with Heavy Flamers squad gets the Assault trait so why not the same for Firedrakes?

[Galdred]

Indeed, having some flamer weapons ignore cover and other not is uselessly confusing. I always assumed the firedrake flamer ignored cover...

[Kerensky]

Any chance of giving Firedrakes the Assault trait in the future? With the some nerfs to compensate.

The Centurions with Heavy Flamers squad gets the Assault trait so why not the same for Firedrakes?

This assault trait still does not affect their (Centurion) Heavy Flamers. It only affects their Assault Drills. Giving Assault trait to units doesn't mean all of their weapons ignore cover.

If I gave Firedrakes Assault trait... it actually wouldn't do anything. It would be like giving basic Steel Legion with their Lasgun the assault trait. It has no effect.

[Galdred]

Was there not an ignor cover trait ( siege?) at some point in beta? That would be a good use case.

[Kerensky]

Was there not an ignor cover trait ( siege?) at some point in beta? That would be a good use case.

Trait review for 'siege' and a few other traits such as 'flyer' are still pending review. That's really the only thing I can say about them at this time, sorry!

[Xadie]

If I gave Firedrakes Assault trait... it actually wouldn't do anything. It would be like giving basic Steel Legion with their Lasgun the assault trait. It has no effect.

Just to be a smart ass here: it will allow for target retaliation with it's range 0 weapons should it have one. ^_^

[Kerensky]

Right. Giving them (firedrakes) assault when they don't have an assault weapon just makes units they attack (1-1 range require adjacency) who do have an assault weapon (pretty much all Ork infantry) use their melee assault weapons. Whereas a 1-1 weapon with no assault trait will not be subject to this enemy melee retaliation.

These are unit quirks, not bugs or errors. With a massive list of 300+ units, some of these guys are going to have some pretty interesting quirks to make them stand out. Same reason the Demolisher Cannon is the only 2-2 weapon in the game with stats a little bit inflated over what the rough TT conversion says it might be. As opposed to just another 1-2 weapon like so many countless others.

[TShirtFlashlight]

Giving Assault trait to units doesn't mean all of their weapons ignore cover.

And I thought Assault Marines Bolt Pistol counts as an Assault attack. So Assault trait only works for weapons with 0 range .. shouldn't the Assault trait be listed under that weapon stats (Chainsword,Assault Drill etc) instead of beside the unit stats to prevent confusion ?

Giving them (firedrakes) assault when they don't have an assault weapon just makes units they attack (1-1 range require adjacency) who do have an assault weapon (pretty much all Ork infantry) use their melee assault weapons. Whereas a 1-1 weapon with no assault trait will not be subject to this enemy melee retaliation.

I wouldn't worry much about melee retaliation from Ork light infantry since it is 20 - 30 Weapon Strength against Firedrake's 68 Armor. Ork heavy infantry melee attacks will hurt , but then again I am picking the wrong targets if I use Firedrakes against Nobz or Warbosses. So the tradeoff for having the Assault trait and weapon for Firedrakes is reasonable as long as they are used correctly.

[xxaosicxx]

I know we shouldn't be comparing TT to this game...

BUT...

Flamers really should ignore cover. Really. They should. Heavy flamers even more so than regular ones!

[Xadie]

Was there not an ignor cover trait ( siege?) at some point in beta? That would be a good use case.

there is a siege trait that supposedly halves the cover bonus of the target, but i'm not sure the trait actually works. Maybe someone should run some tests on it?

[nexusno2000]

Weapon is too bulky. Standard flamer is the assault type weapon.

Nope. The heavy flamer is an Assault weapon. Just a lot meaner than the standard Flamer.

(a HFLamer i no more bulky for a Termie than a normal flamer is to a normal unit)

[Kerensky]

So units like the Tauros Scout vehicle and several variants of the Land Speeder should be assault units? I have a hard time wrapping my head around that... These lightly armored units actually depending on being able to fire at infantry and not be subject to retaliatory assault too. It may not be that way in TT with retaliatory actions, but as repeatedly stated, we could not and would not make a 1:1 translation of TT rules.

[Galdred]

I think these units would just need a trait to ignore cover (improved siege or whatever).