# Sentinel Heavy Flamers



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Flamers have a certain reputation for being incredibly trusty weapons -- even in the hands of a raw Imperial Guard conscript. They wound MEQs on rolls of 4+, auto hit, and are Assault 1. Their range roughly 8'', so that is, in my opinion, the only feature lacking of these fiery weapons.

However on the the far stronger Sentinel chassis can be mounted the fearsome Heavy Flamer. Wounding MEQs on a fantastic 3+, auto-hitting, with an AP of 4, they cost 5 points -- a third of the cost of the more popular Multilaser.

Comparison:

*Heavy Flamer: *
Refer to p. 63 of Codex: Imperial Guard, or from where such information is available.

*Multilaser:*
Refer to p. 63 of Codex: Imperial Guard, or from where such information is available. 

So, as we can see, the Heavy Flamer outclasses the Multilaser except in range and strength, and all for a third of the price. It also has the potential to hit more than 3 models, and whatever number of models will be hit automatically. 

The AP of 4 means that medium infantry such as Kasrkin, Firewarriors and SM Scouts will be utterly devastated by this weapon.

I'm sure all reasonable and flexible commanders can see the worth of this weapon. I personally favour the H.Flamer above the Multilaser due to the very reasons I have noted. It is _especially_ useful in IG Drop Troops.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

I'm not entirely sure on this, but I don't think you can post the stat lines of weapons as it's copyright infringement. Though I could be wrong.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Well bugger me. That screws my entire thread up.

-Edit

BloodAngelZeros, please leave your opinion all the same.


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

Yeah, I had a post that I mentioned both the S and AP of a weapon and somebody said I couldn't post stats of weapons


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Assuming that people know the stats of the weapons, let's carry on.

First up it's a mistake to think of the flamer as costing a third of what the multilaser costs. Look at what a sentinel costs with a flamer and what it costs with a multi laser. You can't get three times as many flamer sentinels as you can get multilaser sentinels, though they are quite a bit cheaper. Note that actually the flamer is half the cost of the laser, not a third.

The flamer sentinel can do a load of damage in a single shot, but it's difficult to get that shot. The laser sentinel probably isn't that great in a single shot but is much easier to fire and more adaptable. By this I mean that it is a good weapon against a bigger variety of targets and will have a reasonable effect against light infantry, heavy infantry, vehicles and MCs. Clearly, a flamer isn't a great option against a MC, and by the time you get to fire it at a transport vehicle it's probably already too late.

I think that there's probably a place for all of the sentinel armaments and which you end up going for depends on how you like to play and what's in the rest of your army. Flamer sentinels dictate your tactics to a degree as you are going to want to get them to fire. Multi lasers can pretty much fill in as required. Autocannon and lascannon sentinels are both more specialised to longer ranges and harder targets, but that's perfectly reasonable.

The new outflank rule does make flamer sentinels a bit more able to get their shots off, so it improves them. I'd consider giving them a HK missile as well as the flamer, so that they could line up some side armour shots on enemy vehicles as well. You would then have a pretty versatile little walker.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Sorry. Human error. Thought the Multi-laser was 15pts.

Of course I don't suggest firing Heavy Flamers at vehicles of any kind. Heavy Flamers are though undoubtedly a fantastic choice for killing medium infantry and Horde armies.

While you do have a point that Sentinels in general can be considered casualties if they are caught out in the open, then applies to all walkers, no matter what their armament. Sentinels also rarely are beaded for target superiority, this being taken by infantry and heavier vehicles. Secondly nearly all anti-tank weapons have a tactical reach farther than a Multi-laser, Auto Cannon and Lascannon. My point being is the range of the H.Flamer is largely inconsequential. 

Your comment on M.Lasers having a more effective tactical range is one of its glaringly obvious pros. 

However I must disagree. I find the M.Laser to be quite the paradox in its usefulness. The Str will automatically kill T3 models on impact. However these shots first have to connect, which, for me, calls into question its reliability being fired by a BS 3 operator. Secondly the Str of the weapon is still tactically too inefficient to dent even light armoured vehicles (unless from behind). The AP is near-useless, as rule of thumb, models with a 6+ Sv also have T3. The number of shots is also inefficient for its comparative power. A paradox I'm sure you'll agree, as the M.Laser is too powerful to be used against infantry with fruition, and too weak to be used against vehicles. 

My argument is that the H.Flamer is more reliable.

Also lets feature sound tactical use of H.Flamer Sentinels, with support that reflects such tactics.

About the Hunter-Killer option... nifty.


----------



## Cato Sicarius (Feb 21, 2008)

Of course it's more reliable, but it's less flexible. See, it can only take out infantry and Rhinos and such. The Multilaser has a possibility of taking out slightly heavier vehicles, and at a longer range. That's why it costs more points (I think it does). I would think that Autocannons are better.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

KellysGrenadier said:


> My point being is the range of the H.Flamer is largely inconsequential.


Well no, I really don't agree with this.

The range of the flamer is a huge issue. The sentinel only moves 6" so if you want to hit many targets with it then you want to start your turn with the enemy within 10-12". You also need for them to be the _right_ enemy. Howling banshees please, not a wraithlord. If you can get the flamer sentinel to a place where it hits a whole squad of banshees then it's going to destroy them, but you really can't count on that happening. I therefore think a flamer sentinel is unreliable because it will occasionally do great stuff but often do nothing. This contrasts with the multilaser sentinel that will almost always be able to fire, but at much less effect.

Clearly, your opponent knows about your flamer sentinel and so he can do stuff about it. If he sees it waiting to flame his banshees after they kill one of your squads (flaming units that are bunched up after combat is pretty effective) then he will try to kill the sentinel before you can do that. Anything that's a threat but easy to kill and gives away a kill point is going to be a target.

Flamer and multilaser sentinels are totally different types of vehicle. The laser is slow and steady, the flamer is all or nothing. It's therefore difficult to judge them against each other. Both have their uses.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

We'll have to agree to disagree then. 

I stand by the point that any Sentinel in range of the enemy can be counted as a casualty due to their light armour. Remember the idiom 'if the enemy are in range, then so are you'. No matter what armament you equip the Sentinel with, it will still need to have a clear field of vision to fire, which means the relatively fragile armour is suspect to being fired back at, no matter if you're 48'' away, or roughly 8''.

Also using any weaponry in general against suitable targets goes without saying. My point is that the M.Laser is too weak to knock out even light vehicles, but too strong to take out infantry. The only use I can see for the M.Laser is to take out MEQs (that will more than likely save on their armour Sv) or other walkers.

And I think you are half-correct in saying the H.Flamer is an all-or-nothing weapon. While I will admit that using such a weapon without support is very risky (and unwise), with sufficient cover and support, the H.Flamer is more reliable.

Anyway I didn't ask for people to question my opinion, but plainly for opinions.


----------



## Cato Sicarius (Feb 21, 2008)

KellysGrenadier said:


> Remember the idiom 'if the enemy are in range, then so are you'.


Not necessarily. A Railgun can be in range of you, but most of the time your not in range of it. But I'm just tired and cranky so forgive me for this post.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Heavy flamers are great weapons when deployed right..... And with sentinels being walkers they can run into difficult terrain pretty quickly, stay in cover until something either goes into the same terrain which the heavy flamer negates their cover save, or fire from the cover when the enmey is near.....It is not an all or nothing weapon but more of a specialised weapon that requires a bit more thought than other sentinel weapons.... And not just sentinels... terminators and baals are great with them too


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

If I remember correctly, I think Forgeworld do some sort of drop pod for the sentinel, would solve the flamer range issue!


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

I like the flamer sent. Used it a lot with drop troops.

Drop in kill stuff. the foe would have to kill it or it would flame again and charge. So they would kill it wasting fire on it over something else...also has a chance to explode....doing more dmg.

taken out 2 squads of fire warriors in one turn with one.
flamed and hit a bit of both squads. they in turn shot back blowing it up causing massive dmg. both squads failed moral check.

Though i have been swaping them out for remnants with a flamer. 
5 troopers and a flamer. Slightly more durable and they can contest corners or markers as they are troops. also benifit more from cover and are not seen as threatening.
All for a similar point cost. 
also 4 las guns for no good reason who knows they may kill something at range.


----------

