Heavy Bolters are often neglected in many IG and SM (and variant) lists for a simple reason: they really don't do that much for their points compared to similarly costed weapons.

For example, how many IG players will upgrade a CSS, Vet Squad or HWT to carry the Heavy Bolter over an Autocannon? Not many since the Autocannon outshines the Heavy Bolter in both range and strength.

Sure you get 1 additional shot with the Heavy Bolter, but that really doesn't make up for what you sacrifice to take them over an Autocannon. Even at high volume (assuming both at range) 9x S5 AP4 shots =/= 6x S7 AP4 shots for most applications (like anti-infantry as well as anti-armor).

So my question is this: what reasonable update would put the Heavy Bolter on equal footing with the Autocannon?

My suggestion would be to either make the Heavy Bolter a rending weapon, or increase its output to heavy 4, keeping the points and other stats the same.

What are your thoughts?

I think it should be Heavy 4. To be honest, I never take Heavy Bolters in my Tac squads; the Missile Launcher is much better, in my opinion.

I like the Heavy 4. What about pinning? When i think of a heavy machine gun, i think of a barrage of bullets coming at you and forcing you to hit the dirt to avoid being hit.

Pinning. Heavy 4. That alone makes it a more dynamic weapon, giving it a purpose other than what the Autocannon already does (better).

Heavy 4 pinning would make it more anti-infantry which would further seperate it from the Autocannon...
Good idea...

This is a fantastic idea. But should there be a distinction between vehicle mounted ones and infantry carried ones? Armor such as the Predators variants have their heavy bolter sponsons and people normally take these and there are a lot of them. Would this have the potential to make infantry outside of transports even more of a disadvantage?

Pinning, Heavy 4 is an excellent idea. I could actually see a Devastator squad equipped with those tearing hordes up.

Ever since playing Dawn of War 2, I've felt that the heavy bolter lacked a little something in its 40k implementation-- it simply isn't a particularly frightening weapon in many situations. I think a Heavy 4 Pinning heavy bolter would be far more impressive than the weapon is in its current form. However, it would have to come at the price of cost rebalances, as several current units would become quite frightening were heavy bolters buffed to this level-- see psybacks, dual HB landspeeders, etc.

Hmmm yeah I can totally see that.

Heavy 4, pinning is also now my vote.

Baal Pred with 4 rending shots and 8 pinning shots while moving around. This would make me very happy

Well, part of the problem could be solved by raising defensive weapon threshold to S5 so side sponsons are more of a factor. However I agree that making them at least pinning would be cool.

Surtur wrote:Well, part of the problem could be solved by raising defensive weapon threshold to S5 so side sponsons are more of a factor. However I agree that making them at least pinning would be cool.

No, no, no, no, NEVER!

As much as my IG player mind set would love that, that would make Mech lists reach a new thresh hold of power, whilst foot lists don't benifit in the slightest!


I love the idea of Heavy 4 pinning hvy bolters, my Havoks would screech in delight as the Ork Mob is being mowed down

So what do the ork players think of all this? lol

Sam__theRelentless wrote:So what do the ork players think of all this? lol

One extra wound isnt bad and ork mobs are usually fearless

Heavy 4 pinning is a great idea methinks. Although now I would always take heavy bolters on my valks/vendettas now!

Heavy 4, pinning would be very good... I'd use cheaper russes in my army, and think about this: Punisher with 3 Heavy bolters and a heavy stubber... Thats over 30 shots per tank!

I think that Heavy bolters could be used as Heavy 2, Pinning AP3 or Heavy 4, pinning... Depending on the choice.

Problem with a heavy 4 HB is that you will have to upgrade the AC too.

AC ar described as having a massive ROF and they are heavy 4.
is a HB really as fast as an AC?

Ogard wrote:Problem with a heavy 4 HB is that you will have to upgrade the AC too.

AC ar described as having a massive ROF and they are heavy 4.
is a HB really as fast as an AC?

No, then yes.

The autocannon is a very good choice these days, with good RoF, high strength and range. It's even better in the mech environment, whereas the Heavy Bolter appears to be lacking these days.
As for RoF, the Heavy Bolter is basically a Space Marine Heavy Machine gun (imagining the Bolter as a Machine Gun) for a simple analogy. HB's should have a superior RoF than autocannons IMHO.


I like this idea however and the unison that people are expressing in this thread. I think Heavy 4 is a suitable improvement, without pinning or a points increase (except for Dakka preds and similar possibly) it could make it a reasonable choice again.

How about making Heavy bolters a Rapid fire weapon? It would give infantry a mobile big gun. Plus double shots at closer ranges. 4 shots at 36" or 8 shots at 12" or 18". Alternatively keep it at 3 base and 6 during rapid fire.

The idea of a leman russ with three of these Heavy 4 Pinning heavy bolters and any number of its various weapons is disturbingly frightening.

You people really need to think outside of the Space Marine box.

Also, heavy bolters are not AP3. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Just Dave wrote:

Ogard wrote:Problem with a heavy 4 HB is that you will have to upgrade the AC too.

AC ar described as having a massive ROF and they are heavy 4.
is a HB really as fast as an AC?

No, then yes.

The autocannon is a very good choice these days, with good RoF, high strength and range. It's even better in the mech environment, whereas the Heavy Bolter appears to be lacking these days.
As for RoF, the Heavy Bolter is basically a Space Marine Heavy Machine gun (imagining the Bolter as a Machine Gun) for a simple analogy. HB's should have a superior RoF than autocannons IMHO.


I like this idea however and the unison that people are expressing in this thread. I think Heavy 4 is a suitable improvement, without pinning or a points increase (except for Dakka preds and similar possibly) it could make it a reasonable choice again.

The AC he's referring to is the assault cannon, not the autocannon.

I will have to disagree. A heavy machine gun Vs a rotating barrel weapon.

I think the AC was designed to be like the "minigun" of 40k and i just dont think that a normal 1 barrel HB can deliver the same ROF.

I do agree however that maybe something needs to be done to make it more appealing. It is after all 1 of the more Iconic weapons of 40k


Oh saw it afterwards. i ment the Assault cannon. ninjad.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:The AC he's referring to is the assault cannon, not the autocannon.

Whoooops.

Heavy 4 would make it a tad too good, imho. That would make it a Scatter Laser with -1 strength, and for something like that the Heavy Bolter should have a signifiant cost increase.

I think the current lack of use of that weapon result more from a trend toward mech, as well as deep-striking, than from a stat issue.

So you want an extra shot and pinning for free on a weapon that already wound's my guys on a 2+ and ignores their armor save.

How about no?

DarknessEternal wrote:So you want an extra shot and pinning for free on a weapon that already wound's my guys on a 2+ and ignores their armor save.

How about no?

You should consider new tactics against it then... Do you have Tau, Orks or IG?

What he's saying is still substantially right.

Heavy bolters aren't weak. They're just of questionable use against mech armies, and most armies these days are mech. You can't really fix that without breaking the fluff and the game balance itself.

Melissia wrote:What he's saying is still substantially right.

Heavy bolters aren't weak.

Exactly. Heavy bolters are good at what they are good at. That what they're good at is frequently irrelevant is reflected in the points cost of heavy bolters being very cheap or even free.

If the heavy bolter got pinning, then the assault cannon would have to, as well as most of the machine gun style weapons in the game (it's called "suppressing fire", machine guns tend to be good at it :b). Of course if the HB was brought up to heavy 4, the AC would have to be brought up as well.

No, I think it represents the fluff fine as is, and fulfills it's role well enough. (Not that I couldn't see it be pinning, but it would fundamentally change every machine gun style gun in the game.)

CrazyThang wrote:If the heavy bolter got pinning, then the assault cannon would have to, as well as most of the machine gun style weapons in the game (it's called "suppressing fire", machine guns tend to be good at it :b). Of course if the HB was brought up to heavy 4, the AC would have to be brought up as well.

No, I think it represents the fluff fine as is, and fulfills it's role well enough. (Not that I couldn't see it be pinning, but it would fundamentally change every machine gun style gun in the game.)

Yes, I totally agree with you.

Why not give it "suppression fire": every "six" rolled to hit allows you to take another shot

I'd bump it up to heavy4 as well.

I don't think there is any solid reason to change heavy bolters. I don't use them much with my SM, except for scouts, but I use them frequently in my IG army. They're good for the amount they cost. Some of the suggested changes would really need to up the cost.

Since the heavy bolter is really only flawed in infantry squads, I think any fix should focus on that aspect. While sponsons may be overprices for some stuff, they're not bad, just not worth taking.

The problem for infantry isn't the point cost, it's opportunity cost. Even at heavy 4, aside from the domino effect on vehicles and other high volume fire, how good, really is S5 shooting?

Rather than try to make the HB compete head on with other heavy weapons that can take out armor, is to give it something truly different: an assault firing mode. Simply make the HB Heavy 3 36" or Assault 3 18" range. That's elegant and gives the weapon a purpose in IG platoons and tactical squads.

Heavy Bolters are perfectly fine as-is IMO. Buffing them in the units that *could* use a buff (IE: Space Marines with Heavy Bolters) would cause a huge imbalance in other areas (GK and IG, mostly).

It's OK for there to be a weapon that just isn't so hot in a man-portable, crew-served format.



If you want to see Heavy Bolters tearing things up, play DeathWatch. They're incredibly OP in that game.

Polonius wrote:make the HB Heavy 3 36" or Assault 3 18" range. That's elegant and gives the weapon a purpose in IG platoons and tactical squads.

I like this.

CT GAMER wrote:Why not give it "suppression fire": every "six" rolled to hit allows you to take another shot

I'd bump it up to heavy4 as well.

The problem with"exploding dice" though, is that in a wargame involving point costs and such, it would be hard to balance just how many points something like that is worth. For example, let's go with HBs as Heavy 4 since you mentioned that as well. BS4 needs 3, 4, 5, 6 to hit. 1/4th of all the hits will be an extra shot. Now, that extra shot has to hit. What if it rolls a 6 to hit? I know, I know. It's unlikely and starts to get into the realm of crazy luck, but how do you point something that can potentially hit more times than any weapon in the game because you got lucky? I figure it would really overprice the HB. Besides, how would the fluff justify it? "A marine who sees his heavy bolter impact an enemy will often fire more shots in his excitement, but if he misses, he is likely to become sad and stop firing." I mean, I guess there are weapons that fire d6 shots, but I don't know, exploding dice have always bothered me -.-

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, maybe you would explain it more to mean those extra shots can occur only once. But that's all my two cents.

Edit: I too like Polonius' idea.

Polonius wrote:The problem for infantry isn't the point cost, it's opportunity cost. Even at heavy 4, aside from the domino effect on vehicles and other high volume fire, how good, really is S5 shooting?

Very good, unless you're shooting at vehicles.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:The problem for infantry isn't the point cost, it's opportunity cost. Even at heavy 4, aside from the domino effect on vehicles and other high volume fire, how good, really is S5 shooting?

Very good, unless you're shooting at vehicles.

True, my Eldar are very sad when a few heavy bolters make an appearance.

CrazyThang wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:The problem for infantry isn't the point cost, it's opportunity cost. Even at heavy 4, aside from the domino effect on vehicles and other high volume fire, how good, really is S5 shooting?

Very good, unless you're shooting at vehicles.

True, my Eldar are very sad when a few heavy bolters make an appearance.

Really?

I mean, for a weapon that's designed to mow down light infantry, it's not even that good at it. At BS3, it takes 2.4 shots to do a wound to T3 4+ save units out of cover, and twice that in cover. Even a fully loaded long fang squad with heavy bolters won't wipe out such a squad out of cover. And wouldn't you rather face five HBs than five MLs?

If any change is nessisary I would give them a on the move fire mode. Fire it from the hip with less accuracy(less shots)

Str5 AP4 Heavy 3 or Assault 2

It would make them completely different from autocannons, more inline with DE splinter cannons(Heavy6 or Assault4) while not making them any more powerful on vehicles.

IMHO they are fine on vehicles. Especilly the twinlinked ones on razorbacks. TL Heavy 4 razorbacks would be too strong.

Polonius wrote:

CrazyThang wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:The problem for infantry isn't the point cost, it's opportunity cost. Even at heavy 4, aside from the domino effect on vehicles and other high volume fire, how good, really is S5 shooting?

Very good, unless you're shooting at vehicles.

True, my Eldar are very sad when a few heavy bolters make an appearance.

Really?

I mean, for a weapon that's designed to mow down light infantry, it's not even that good at it. At BS3, it takes 2.4 shots to do a wound to T3 4+ save units out of cover, and twice that in cover. Even a fully loaded long fang squad with heavy bolters won't wipe out such a squad out of cover. And wouldn't you rather face five HBs than five MLs?

My experience with them has largely been SM, so bs4. Not counting all the other weapons in the SM squad, I'm looking at (usually) 2 dead eldar from the HB alone (unless it's scorps, spiders, or reapers I suppose). Pretty good, since most eldar squads max out at 10 and we haven't counted the standard bolters and the possible other special weapon yet. Eldar cannot soak the losses like IG.

But how often do you ever see heavy bolters in tactical squads? I mean, for five points more you can get a plasma cannon, which will kill just as many marines out of cover on average. Why save five points for a lot less functionality.

Making Heavy bolters able to fire on the move makes them a good choice for units that want to move, while still allowing them to use a heavy weapon.

At my FLGS, I tend to see a lot of HBs in various SM squads (usually tactical). So apparently mmmv.

They're free, after all, so if you have your anti-tank elsewhere having your tac squads focus on anti-infantry isn't so bad.

And as amusing as it is, heavy bolters firing on the move just wouldn't work. They'd just become a no-brainer choice for assault units.

Polonius wrote:But how often do you ever see heavy bolters in tactical squads? I mean, for five points more you can get a plasma cannon, which will kill just as many marines out of cover on average. Why save five points for a lot less functionality.

Making Heavy bolters able to fire on the move makes them a good choice for units that want to move, while still allowing them to use a heavy weapon.

which is why I reccomend (heavy3 or assault2). Assault2 and you get a bolter that can always fire twice at +1 strength and massively increased range. Would make them a lot more useful for troops.

Melissia wrote:They're free, after all, so if you have your anti-tank elsewhere having your tac squads focus on anti-infantry isn't so bad.

And as amusing as it is, heavy bolters firing on the move just wouldn't work. They'd just become a no-brainer choice for assault units.

Which would be relevant if any assault units could take heavy bolters. Tactical squads and blob platoons would take them if you plan on using them to play more aggressively, but why is that a bad thing? Sisters would almost always be better off with a heavy flamer, and Chaos Marines would just take a second special weapon.

Exergy wrote:

Polonius wrote:But how often do you ever see heavy bolters in tactical squads? I mean, for five points more you can get a plasma cannon, which will kill just as many marines out of cover on average. Why save five points for a lot less functionality.

Making Heavy bolters able to fire on the move makes them a good choice for units that want to move, while still allowing them to use a heavy weapon.

which is why I reccomend (heavy3 or assault2). Assault2 and you get a bolter that can always fire twice at +1 strength and massively increased range. Would make them a lot more useful for troops.

This actually kills the hope I had for this. I don't know why I didn't see it, but better bolters for your tacs for free? No thanks.

Polonius wrote:

Melissia wrote:They're free, after all, so if you have your anti-tank elsewhere having your tac squads focus on anti-infantry isn't so bad.

And as amusing as it is, heavy bolters firing on the move just wouldn't work. They'd just become a no-brainer choice for assault units.

Which would be relevant if any assault units could take heavy bolters. Tactical squads and blob platoons would take them if you plan on using them to play more aggressively, but why is that a bad thing? Sisters would almost always be better off with a heavy flamer, and Chaos Marines would just take a second special weapon.

Sisters can't HAVE a heavy bolter in their basic squads.

Polonius wrote:But how often do you ever see heavy bolters in tactical squads? I mean, for five points more you can get a plasma cannon, which will kill just as many marines out of cover on average. Why save five points for a lot less functionality.

Making Heavy bolters able to fire on the move makes them a good choice for units that want to move, while still allowing them to use a heavy weapon.

If an ork can run around shooting a big shoota on the move I don't see why a space marine couldnt do same with a h. bolter tbh...

What if you allowed heavy weapons like heavy bolters to fire on the move but at half-range and bs2?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrazyThang wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Why not give it "suppression fire": every "six" rolled to hit allows you to take another shot

I'd bump it up to heavy4 as well.

The problem with"exploding dice" though, is that in a wargame involving point costs and such, it would be hard to balance just how many points something like that is worth. For example, let's go with HBs as Heavy 4 since you mentioned that as well. BS4 needs 3, 4, 5, 6 to hit. 1/4th of all the hits will be an extra shot. Now, that extra shot has to hit. What if it rolls a 6 to hit? I know, I know. It's unlikely and starts to get into the realm of crazy luck, but how do you point something that can potentially hit more times than any weapon in the game because you got lucky? I figure it would really overprice the HB. Besides, how would the fluff justify it? "A marine who sees his heavy bolter impact an enemy will often fire more shots in his excitement, but if he misses, he is likely to become sad and stop firing." I mean, I guess there are weapons that fire d6 shots, but I don't know, exploding dice have always bothered me -.-

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, maybe you would explain it more to mean those extra shots can occur only once. But that's all my two cents.

Edit: I too like Polonius' idea.

No you read it right. I like a little randomness.

Given that a punisher can shoot twenty times I didn't think that a heavy bolter potentially getting a few extra shots is all that insane really...

I know nothing of punishers. Hmmm.

I'm guessing the stats are nowhere near heavy bolter stats though.

CT GAMER wrote:If an ork can run around shooting a big shoota on the move I don't see why a space marine couldnt do same with a h. bolter tbh...

Because Marines like to aim.

For an Ork, it doesn't matter if he shoots on the move because he's not aiming to begin with.

Making the HB Pinning and Heavy 4 would make them...very powerful. Far more than they should be without universally recosting them. One needs to keep in perspective the number of platforms these weapons are on. Don't just think of SM tac squads with one heavy weapon, think those ridiculous Baal preds or Leman Russ tanks mounting 3 of them, Vendettas able to get two for 10pts, etc.

The HB's problem isn't its ROF, it's the fact that against heavy infantry, it's not exactly effective as GW went out of their way to ensure that in the switchover from 2E to 3E, and with the prevalence of widespread 4+ cover saves it's effectiveness against lighter infantry, especially horde infantry, is almost never optimal.

CrazyThang wrote:I know nothing of punishers. Hmmm.

I'm guessing the stats are nowhere near heavy bolter stats though.

R24", S5 AP- Heavy 20.

It can get pretty nasty in the right situation, but it's overpriced and too short ranged for what it does.

I love how this thread boomed with so many different ideas and discussions. I Think the HB has to remain Heavy, no matter what.

Melissia wrote:

CrazyThang wrote:I know nothing of punishers. Hmmm.

I'm guessing the stats are nowhere near heavy bolter stats though.

R24", S5 AP- Heavy 20.

It can get pretty nasty in the right situation, but it's overpriced and too short ranged for what it does.

Not sure I totally agree wih that assessment. With a threat range of 25-30" it rarely doesnt have targets since 40K is so focused on getting up close personal alot of the time.

What it does is punish any lightly armoured hordes that dare to try to engage your army or objectives you hold...

So does the normal LRBT, and it does it for thirty points cheaper.

Melissia wrote:So does the normal LRBT, and it does it for thirty points cheaper.

And one bad scatter roll and you've got nothing to show for it.

Twenty shots means you pretty much always gonna get some hits and wounds...

CT GAMER wrote:

Melissia wrote:So does the normal LRBT, and it does it for thirty points cheaper.

And one bad scatter roll and you've got nothing to show for it.

Twenty shots means you pretty much always gonna get some hits and wounds...

The BC however is also much more of a threat to heavy infantry, can take on anything but AV14, and can hit anything on a board if it can see it, and it's not like the LRBT can't take triple heavy bolters and a stubber either, costing as much as a base, unupgraded LR punisher with BC, 3xHB and a stubber.

Honestly, I'd remake the heavy bolter so it was more of a machine gun. I mean, as mentioned, the heavy bolter is an automatic cannon that fires a slightly smaller round slightly faster. That's not a machine gun.

I'd switch it's profile to S4 AP5 Heavy 6 36".

Ailaros wrote:Honestly, I'd remake the heavy bolter so it was more of a machine gun. I mean, as mentioned, the heavy bolter is an automatic cannon that fires a slightly smaller round slightly faster. That's not a machine gun.

I'd switch it's profile to S4 AP5 Heavy 6 36".

I would love that for russes (poor armor save +5 people!) although then hurricane bolters would be out of a job! (in situation where you can take them as an option which is.....twice and they dont replace HB so I suppose my argument is a bit invalid)

CrazyThang wrote:

Exergy wrote:

Polonius wrote:But how often do you ever see heavy bolters in tactical squads? I mean, for five points more you can get a plasma cannon, which will kill just as many marines out of cover on average. Why save five points for a lot less functionality.

Making Heavy bolters able to fire on the move makes them a good choice for units that want to move, while still allowing them to use a heavy weapon.

which is why I reccomend (heavy3 or assault2). Assault2 and you get a bolter that can always fire twice at +1 strength and massively increased range. Would make them a lot more useful for troops.

This actually kills the hope I had for this. I don't know why I didn't see it, but better bolters for your tacs for free? No thanks.

Giving them HB Assault 2 or Heavy 3 would not be right. Ever heard of noise marines with blastmasters? They have an assault 3 pinning HB or Heavy 1 small blast BC, but then agian you can only have 1 per squad and that one gun is 40 points (as much as a termie)

IMO if you make it Heavy 4, you would have to make the AC (assualt cannon) Heavy 6 in order to keep a sense of ROF among weapons.

I'd like to see HB's be allowed to be used by single IG troops without a second team member, like Sgt. Harker.
Keep the HB stats the same, but reduce the Heavy weapons cost make them more attractive to purchase.
Re-classify them as sqaud support weapons, like a M60, instead of a heavy weapon, as in .50 Ma Deuce

A rapid fire fist sized armor piercing grenade launcher gyrojet is a heavy weapon, no question about it. But, with a separate ammo operator and a tripod, you could have a twin linked one.

Heavy Weapons Teams should take twin linked HBs. Not Space Marines or the like, who can't carry so much ammunition.

Commissar Typhus wrote:
Giving them HB Assault 2 or Heavy 3 would not be right. Ever heard of noise marines with blastmasters? They have an assault 3 pinning HB or Heavy 1 small blast BC, but then agian you can only have 1 per squad and that one gun is 40 points (as much as a termie)

IMO if you make it Heavy 4, you would have to make the AC (assualt cannon) Heavy 6 in order to keep a sense of ROF among weapons.

I have heard of noise marines. Frankly they universally suck and need to be completely redone whether Heavy bolters change or not.

Assault Cannons are already good, making them Heavy 6 would be OP.
As would making vehicle HBs heavy 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:I'd like to see HB's be allowed to be used by single IG troops without a second team member, like Sgt. Harker.
Keep the HB stats the same, but reduce the Heavy weapons cost make them more attractive to purchase.
Re-classify them as sqaud support weapons, like a M60, instead of a heavy weapon, as in .50 Ma Deuce

heavy bolters are much bigger than .50 calls. The M60 equivilent is the heavy stubber, which is sometimes fielded by 1 man.

A heavy bolter is 1.0 caliber. (The more you know!)

CrazyThang wrote:A heavy bolter is 1.0 caliber. (The more you know!)

In layman terms I believe fluffwise each "bolt" of a heavy bolter is the size of your fist

I can see why anything under a marine would fear such a weapon without a metal box to protect them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.950_JDJ a bit smaller than a heavy bolter bolt

Ailaros wrote:Honestly, I'd remake the heavy bolter so it was more of a machine gun. I mean, as mentioned, the heavy bolter is an automatic cannon that fires a slightly smaller round slightly faster. That's not a machine gun.

I'd switch it's profile to S4 AP5 Heavy 6 36".

I like this suggestion. I reckon the HB would better fill its niche role as a cost effective anti infantry weapon if it had a lower strength but a higher rate of fire.

I remember Nurglitch posted pretty good suggestion a while back which was along the lines of [Str 4 AP 5 Heavy 2 Blast]. This was based on the idea that template weapons out compete heavy bolters as anti infantry tools. The blast effect is justified under the idea that the Heavy Bolter bears more resemblance to an MK19 Grenade launcher than a higher calibre machine gun.

So basically a missile launcher but better?

It's seriously fine as it is... it's mostly the lazy cover save assignment from the players and the meta that involves lots of mechanization that is the problem.

I don't get how the bolts explode with enough force to justify a blast marker. Especially since they are designed to penetrate and THEN explode. I highly doubt they have airburst built in in case the marine misses the target.

For a machine gun profile I would like Heavy 6 range 36 STR 4 AP 5. This would Make it better at it's job whilst taking away you foolish notions that you can kill a light tank with it. Typically Squad Machine guns fire the same round a lot faster down a longer barrel - that suggest a profile like this i think.

It would make the HB usable for infantry squads without unbalancing its use on vehicles as well. It would still be the worst overall weapon when compared to rockets, auto-cannons, assault cannons, ect - So it should indeed be the cheapest.

No, the heavy bolter does NOT fire more shots than an assault cannon.

Furthermore, the heavy bolter is .25 caliber larger than the normal bolter (the normal bolter being .75, while the heavy bolter is 1.00).

I also want to make a vote for heavy 4, pinning.

I think we may be going overboard with this concept. What if Heavy Bolters just got pinning? They could be used to surpress enemy squads, rather than outright massacre them. Besides, pinning is under appreciated and under used. I'd like to see more weapons use it.

TBH, I think GW fudged up and completely missed another golden opportunity to put pinning to use with the psilencers. High rate of fire, but low mortality rate (no AP), and potentially horrifying against hordes. Considering that a heavy bolter in a 'nilla tactical squad is free, 10-35 points for a heavy 6 str 4 pinning weapon sounds like a sweet deal, and one that I'd be more willing to take. Even if the weapon is being used on an enemy it's less likely to kill, it can still adversely affect the behavior of it. Say it's dakka dakka dakka Grey Knights vs. Blood Angels assault squads. Chances are (49.327%, to be exact) precisely zero wounds will be inflicted. However, the Blood Angels assault squad may fail their leadership test, slowing their 12" movement phase (up to 18" with a run) down to 3" per turn, IIRC, giving the Grey Knights the opportunity to smash shoot everything up.

I'll admit that Space Marines are NOT my area of expertise, ever since the Space Wolves codex left me dazed and confused (these days I mostly play Daemons) but a Heavy Bolter seems to have much more potential for lethality, having an AP value and all, so I assume it should have a similar potential effect. Those it can't kill, it may daze and frighten, and that makes it valuable.

purplefood wrote:Heavy 4 pinning would make it more anti-infantry which would further seperate it from the Autocannon...
Good idea...

What? Are you insane? First of all, Str 5 Ap 4 Heavy 4, Pinning would cost what exactly in points? Give GW's recent trend in costing on epic guns, I'm willing to be this would be at least a 20-point or more gun.

Secondly, you are forgetting what the heavy bolter actually does and what it does very well. It cuts down light armor troops like butter. As a Dark Eldar player, I'd be more terrified to devastators or even tactical marines with heavy bolters. Missile launchers? I laugh at them. I'm never stupid enough for you to get the multi-wounds on the frag blast.

Exergy wrote:If any change is nessisary I would give them a on the move fire mode. Fire it from the hip with less accuracy(less shots)

Str5 AP4 Heavy 3 or Assault 2

It would make them completely different from autocannons, more inline with DE splinter cannons(Heavy6 or Assault4) while not making them any more powerful on vehicles.

IMHO they are fine on vehicles. Especilly the twinlinked ones on razorbacks. TL Heavy 4 razorbacks would be too strong.

They don't need to be inline with Dark Eldar or any other army. Bolter weapons maintain the roles the roles they were designed for which is light armor killing. You don't need to buff them. Try playing a non-MEQ army and witness the bolter destruction on everyone not in power armor.

Roll to hit with Heavy Bolter. If roll is successful, place one small blast template at target squad. Done.

My thoughts are that IoM armies already have more than a fair share of toys.

Instead of boosting the Heavy Bolter, add a few points of cost to the other weapons.

I think it should not change but it should be a freebie. As in devastators get HB free. Tacs if they qualify get HB free.
The problem with HB is they made it the same cost as a ML and only an idiot is going to take a HB over a ML. Better range, almost as good anti-hoard with the small blast and superior AT with a krak missile. The long fangs have it about right 115 for 5 hb 140 for 5 ml.

Kilkrazy wrote:My thoughts are that IoM armies already have more than a fair share of toys.

Instead of boosting the Heavy Bolter, add a few points of cost to the other weapons.

Like what? The already heavily priced IG ML? I think when it comes to IG weapons, HB should be at or near mortar price and ML should be at or near autocannon price. Maybe even make squad mortars free since you'd have to be insane to use one

The answer is simple:

Heavy Bolter Range 36'', AP 4, Strength 5, Heavy 3, Pinning.

It will make it more Anti-infantry and won't make it OP.

Aaah.. I love it when people mix real life weapon operation with games mechanics

Heavy bolters do not fire 3 rounds per turn any more than autocannon and assault cannon fire 2 and 4 respectively. It is never stated anywhere how many rounds each weapon fires to make the in-game effect as the to-hit and to-wound rolls are merely game mechanisms to gauge the combat effectiveness of a squad. You could easily say that HBs use a blast marker due to the high rate of fire and exploding shells kicking up a lot of shrapnel and debris.

Personally I think just adding the pinning rule would make an interesting difference to the use of HMGs in 40k. however there is a huge list of units that just ignore such things that it might have limited utility.

kenshin620 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:My thoughts are that IoM armies already have more than a fair share of toys.

Instead of boosting the Heavy Bolter, add a few points of cost to the other weapons.

Like what? The already heavily priced IG ML? I think when it comes to IG weapons, HB should be at or near mortar price and ML should be at or near autocannon price. Maybe even make squad mortars free since you'd have to be insane to use one

Like the ones that people are complaining get used more than heavy bolters because heavy bolters are too expensive.

Which is mostly a Marine problem.

Raising the cost of other IoM weapons wouldn't increase the usage of the heavy bolter. If heavy bolters stayed free in tactical squads, while every other weapon went up 10pts, I'm not going to "save" 10 pts an buy a HB. I'm going to spend the points to make the tactical squad worth taking. Ditto IG.

The problem isn't the points cost: it's that every other heavy weapon can actually accomplish something, while the heavy bolter can't.

Now, in things like Long Fangs, heavy bolters are fine, it's just that Missile Launchers are too cheap. Four or Five heavy bolters can actually do something.

I'm also not sure arguing that the heavy bolter (a single, if common weapon) is fine, it's just the entire rest of the game that is broken is the best analysis. Fixing the heavy bolter is easier than redoing the entire core rules and 15 codices.

Make the heavy bolter Assault 2 or 3.

Polonius wrote:Raising the cost of other IoM weapons wouldn't increase the usage of the heavy bolter. If heavy bolters stayed free in tactical squads, while every other weapon went up 10pts, I'm not going to "save" 10 pts an buy a HB. I'm going to spend the points to make the tactical squad worth taking. Ditto IG.

The problem isn't the points cost: it's that every other heavy weapon can actually accomplish something, while the heavy bolter can't.

Now, in things like Long Fangs, heavy bolters are fine, it's just that Missile Launchers are too cheap. Four or Five heavy bolters can actually do something.

I'm also not sure arguing that the heavy bolter (a single, if common weapon) is fine, it's just the entire rest of the game that is broken is the best analysis. Fixing the heavy bolter is easier than redoing the entire core rules and 15 codices.

Actually I was just arguing that the meta and the laziness people have in applying cover saves is the problem.

Melissia wrote:Actually I was just arguing that the meta and the laziness people have in applying cover saves is the problem.

But the meta game doesn't spring from the forehead of Zeus. It's the product of the combination of core rules and codices.

I'm not sure what you mean by laziness in coversaves, but they're extremely common.

Either way, it's easier to fix one broken element, in this case the heavy bolter, than try to change the metagame.

The suggestions for pinning are actually good, if this were a real wargame where suppressive fire was a factor. Pinning is of far too little use in the current rules to be a major selling point. I'm not knocking the 40k rules, I just think that suppressive fire is a little too complex a matter to try to wedge in.

So you end up with a weapon that's best used against non-mechanized, non-power armored foes, that aren't in cover. It's a niche weapon at absolute best (in the context of a squad heavy weapon), and really isn't that great even in that role.

Changing the points isn't going to make it more appealing. Making it stronger is not feasible due to the wide vairety of uses (devestators, sponsons, etc.) that are currently proprely pointed. Changing the rate of fire or strenght also starts to crowd out similar weapons (assault cannon and autocannon most notably).

So, IMO, that leaves making a special rule that gives tactical and infantry squads a reason to take the heavy bolter. Making it mobile is one way. Another way would be to model suppressing fire as defensive: so any squad with a heavy bolter counts as having defensive grenades.

Polonius wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by laziness in coversaves, but they're extremely common.

What she's refering to is the fact that people slap 4+ cover on everything instead of actually using varied cover save values like the rulebook says.

Given numbers I will take "free" HB. Sure one is not worth all that much but give me devastators for 80 pts less with 4 HB and there is reason to take it. The volume of fire that heavy bolters can put out will ruin the day of every dark eldar or give them the current scout option of hellfire small blast template that auto wounds on a 2+ and we now have a value to HB that nothing else can match.

While not having ML leaves you less flexible for anti-tank use, an 80 pt reduction for dedicated anti-personnel makes sense. Heck I can take a las-plas razorback plus 6 devastators with HB if they were free for the same cost as 6 devs with ML .

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Polonius wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by laziness in coversaves, but they're extremely common.

What she's refering to is the fact that people slap 4+ cover on everything instead of actually using varied cover save values like the rulebook says.

Even a 5+ cover save really cuts into the effectiveness of the HB though, and if you look at the chart, most cover is actually 4+ cover, at least the terrain most game stores are stocked with.

DAaddict wrote:Given numbers I will take "free" HB. Sure one is not worth all that much but give me devastators for 80 pts less with 4 HB and there is reason to take it. The volume of fire that heavy bolters can put out will ruin the day of every dark eldar or give them the current scout option of hellfire small blast template that auto wounds on a 2+ and we now have a value to HB that nothing else can match.

While not having ML leaves you less flexible for anti-tank use, an 80 pt reduction for dedicated anti-personnel makes sense. Heck I can take a las-plas razorback plus 6 devastators with HB if they were free for the same cost as 6 devs with ML .

I agree that devestators with four HBs are worth taking for the proper price. Now, you give up a heavy support slot, but a lot of armies could swing that. Likewise, if the IG could take three HBs as a squad for 60pts, you'd see it a little more.

The problem lay with the nature of squad heavy weapons. I like, and I think most people like, anti-tank weapons as the lone heavy because while a Missile or Autocannon have a low chance of damaging a vehicle, they have a chance to destroy, damage, or at least stun a unit. A heavy bolter often has no chance for silencing an infantry squad.

Polonius wrote: Fixing the heavy bolter is easier than redoing the entire core rules and 15 codices.

Not that we don't need that anyways, right?

@Melissia: What you're saying about it being a marine problem is undeniably true, but nearly 1/3 of codexes produced are MEQ, and most armies played are MEQ. This is ABSOLUTELY a marine problem, which is why it's such a big deal.

crazypsyko666 wrote:

Polonius wrote: Fixing the heavy bolter is easier than redoing the entire core rules and 15 codices.

Not that we don't need that anyways, right?

I think that the 5th edition rules, and all 5th edition codices, along with Orks and Daemons, all are pretty solid. There is room for improvement, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The game does what it tries to do very well, I think.

@Melissia: What you're saying about it being a marine problem is undeniably true, but nearly 1/3 of codexes produced are MEQ, and most armies played are MEQ. This is ABSOLUTELY a marine problem, which is why it's such a big deal.

Yeah, I dunno, I mean, the only non-marine books that use heavy bolters are IG and Witchhunters, and as Melissa pointed out basic sisters can't take heavy bolters at all.

There's always the problem with the rule of three: any list of options longer than three will tend to have only three highly used options. That's less true, although you'll rarely see IG infantry squads with anything other than AC or LC.

Part of the problem is that they keep the same sets of options for multiple units, and not all choices are ideal in each realm. I mean, nobody considers infantry multi-meltas bad because nobody takes them in devestators. They are still used in tacticals, while heavy bolters can be used in long fangs and even devs, but not in tacs.

IG HBs are different, if only because they directly compete at the same cost with ACs, which are simply better 90% of the time. And even when HBs are better, it isn't by much. (1.25 dead GEQs for the HB, .8333 for the AC) IG might use HBs at 5pts, especially in blob platoons and the like. 60pt HB heavy weapon squads are also a nice buy.

I do think GW could kill two birds with one stone, however, but allowing tactical squad heavy weapons give a bonus to the squad, and make tacticals better. No matter how much you hate marines, it's hard to argue that tacticals are an underwhelming choice when compared to BA assault marines, Grey Hunters, and Chaos troops. Allowing a tactical HB to give defensive grenades would make a tactical squad a bit better. I bet you could come up with cool rules for each tactical heavy (to represent that tac squads are actually the most battle tested). Multi-meltas can always death or glory if the squad is tank shocked. Plasma Cannons get two shots. Lascannons can draw LOS from any squad member. Missiles are twinlinked.

Whoops, completely missed the 'Core Rules' part, there.

Tac Squads weren't too bad even compared with CSM's until BA's and SW's came out. The CSM's were better in CC and got double specials, but the Tac's had better morale rules, split squad abilities, and were a bit cheaper (10-25pts for similarly equipped units), along with having the Razorback option that CSM's don't. Then along came Grey Hunters are the signature best troop choice of 5th edition, especially amongst Space Marine armies, and then BA's got their assault marines with possible furious charge and heavily discounted Fast transports to play MSU with and special jump pack rules to make them very effective at DS'ing. The problem wasn't with Tac squads, it was that Phil Kelly apparently didn't actually do any math when costing Grey Hunters and their options after making them into "CSM's+1", and BA Assault Marines can take advantage of Combat Squads and MSU better.

IG HB's are just plain overcosted. The HB's increased infantry kill ratio is actually fairly significant (~50% higher) but it's the AC's ability engage medium armor and especially transports is what makes it the default choice.

Combined with the practically "always on" 4+ cover everywhere, and a core game system designed to make it so that Heavy Bolters don't present a huge threat to Marines, results in HB's being seen as fairly weak. The problem is if you make them better, they're on so many things that really don't need to be better, that you may end up causing as many or more problems as you hoped to fix.

What tactical squads really need is one defining capability. I understand that they try to excel at whichever task they're set to ('Tactical' squads and all) but because of that, they don't have any ground to stand on when tested other than 'We have the most standard bolters.' which is bland, and not as useful as some of the other options.

If they were a hard defensive unit, they could be consistent objective takers, since that's what troops do. As a Daemons player, I always find it absolutely vital to take plaguebearers, just because of their nature towards surviving almost any incoming fire (and being fairly cheap). Drop them in on objectives. Don't move. ??? Profit!

I would definetely use it more if it were Heavy 4, but I like the Flamer and a Multi Melta or Missile Launcher, for Anti swarm and anti armour respectively. Mowing down an extra model a turn would be very helpful

Polonius wrote:But the meta game doesn't spring from the forehead of Zeus. It's the product of the combination of core rules and codices.

And general player stupidity.

Actually it's mostly just due to general player stupidity. The meta is defined by people latching on to what they think is successful, even if it isn't.

crazypsyko666 wrote:What tactical squads really need is one defining capability. I understand that they try to excel at whichever task they're set to ('Tactical' squads and all) but because of that, they don't have any ground to stand on when tested other than 'We have the most standard bolters.' which is bland, and not as useful as some of the other options.

If they were a hard defensive unit, they could be consistent objective takers, since that's what troops do. As a Daemons player, I always find it absolutely vital to take plaguebearers, just because of their nature towards surviving almost any incoming fire (and being fairly cheap). Drop them in on objectives. Don't move. ??? Profit!

Well, that's kinda the thing, SM Tac's were never intended to be the best at any one thing or have a defining job, they are consumate generalists, capable of anything, ultra effective at nothing, able to mostly outfight what they usually can't outshoot and generally outshoot what they can't outfight, outkill what they can't outlast and outlast what they can't match for killing power. The problem then became that every other Marine army needs to be "Space Marines...but Better!" instead of "Space Marines...but Different".

And that players who really should be playing more speceialized armies are playing Marines, whom are more generalist (even devastators are better at close combat than shooty armies).

Melissia wrote:And that players who really should be playing more speceialized armies are playing Marines, whom are more generalist (even devastators are better at close combat than shooty armies).

Or can just plain do everything as well or better (saying this having seen SW armies that can simultaneously nearly match IG gunlines for shooting and still outfight CSM's, and Blood Angels lists with as many battle tanks and IFV's as mechanized IG armies...)

It also doesn't help that these armies are generally far cheaper, in terms of $$$, than the non-SM armies as well. Most IG armies will run 150-200% the cost of most SM armies for example.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:But the meta game doesn't spring from the forehead of Zeus. It's the product of the combination of core rules and codices.

And general player stupidity.

Actually it's mostly just due to general player stupidity. The meta is defined by people latching on to what they think is successful, even if it isn't.

Maybe a very small local metagame, but I don't think people use transports because we're all stupid. I think the rules currently favor vehicles, and modern codices price transports very aggressively. When the edition switched, do you really think everbody started running mech because they're dumb? Or was it the massive improvement to mech in the rules?

If you're arguing that heavy bolters are good when not everybody is mech, but being mech is stupdi... well, than why would not being mech be better if there's a commonly available weapon that can deal with footsloggers?

Outside of reflex contrariness, I can't really find a consistent point you're trying to make.

Polonius wrote:Maybe a very small local metagame

No, its the overall metagame.

People, individually, might be rather smart, but people, collectively, are utterly stupid. The herd mentality which creates the metagame isn't driven by intelligence and sound tactical reasoning, but "follow the leader" and trying to copy what they heard won some tournament or other. And then getting pissed off at why this isn't working.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Maybe a very small local metagame

No, its the overall metagame.

People, individually, might be rather smart, but people, collectively, are utterly stupid. The herd mentality which creates the metagame isn't driven by intelligence and sound tactical reasoning, but "follow the leader" and trying to copy what they heard won some tournament or other. And then getting pissed off at why this isn't working.

The irony is that your opinion seems just as based on internet gossip. Unless you're attending a lot of GTs or soemthing, you're knowledge of the tournament meta game is just as second or third hand.

And the fundamental nature of "mech is pretty good in 5th edition" isn't part of herd anything: it's a pretty tangible result of concious design decisions. Yes, running footsloggers directly as a counter to that expectation is often successful, but that doesn't make the decision to buy rhinos or chimeras simply the product of groupthink.

Now, you can make the argument that only a handful of people really lead innovations in the 40k meta, and the rest simply copy from that. I'd buy that, but it doesn't make either the original innovation or the copying stupid.

Groupthink isn't as common in 40k as many people think, for two major reasons. First, individuals can test new ideas with little risk. Second, success and failure are easy to determine. Groupthink is more dangerous in situations where success and failure are hard to link to a change, and the risk of a bad decision is great.

In 40k, any player can build a wacky list, and take it to a tournament. If it wins, by definition it succeeds. Which is why we get unorthodox lists like Foot Eldar, or nearly any demon list (which group think dismissed early on). Even nob bikers were seen as overly expensive when the book came out, and then quickly (albeit breifly) dominated.

The creamy middle of tournament players (the guys that finish in the middle of the pack), are often even less susceptible to groupthink. If anything, they keep chugging along with lists or armies that are past their prime, but like to use what they have.

So, unless or until you can really come up with some evidence to back up the claim that stupidity is the prime motivator to the metagame, I'm going to have to call BS on that claim.

Polonius wrote:The irony is that your opinion seems just as based on internet gossip.

No, my opinion is based off of my experiences with humanity as a whole, as well as my (admittedly rather laywoman) understanding of psychology and sociology from the basic classes I've had to take.

People exaggerate things, even in their own heads. I do it frequently, and have to stop myself or correct myself if I work off of those kinds of beliefs and reactions.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:The irony is that your opinion seems just as based on internet gossip.

No, my opinion is based off of my experiences with humanity as a whole, as well as my (admittedly rather laywoman) understanding of psychology and sociology from the basic classes I've had to take.

People exaggerate things, even in their own heads. I do it frequently, and have to stop myself or correct myself if I work off of those kinds of beliefs and reactions.

So, based on no knowledge of a field, you feel comfortable saying that the main factor in it's development is groupthink? That's what you've said, at least how I read it.

What's intersting is that I've given several articulations and reasons why army design decisions are made in the current metagame to support my argument. You've based your argument on some combination of intro psych and "experience with humanity as a whole." In other words, my conclusion is based on personal experience, reason, and analysis. Yours is based on stereotyping and trust in a ingrained belief. In other words, exactly what you're accusing 40k players of doing.

Imho, make it heavy one and small template, the things firing explosive rounds at a high rate so this would signify the area being shot at, at least in my mind

That would make it very similar to it's 2nd Edition incarnation, where IIRC it was in fact a blast weapon and not so much a machinegun (when HB carrying SM's had what looked like a gigantic bolt pistol slung over their shoulder instead)

I loved the look of those shoulder mounted HB's [b] I think heavy weaponry should all be shoulder mounted

You should probably enjoy looking at Lootaboyz then.

Mechanized Space Corps wrote:I loved the look of those shoulder mounted HB's [b] I think heavy weaponry should all be shoulder mounted

IIRC Codex:Wargear, which came with the 2nd edition box set, actually stated that the nickname among imperial forces for the heavy bolter was "backbreaker."

Vaktathi wrote:That would make it very similar to it's 2nd Edition incarnation, where IIRC it was in fact a blast weapon and not so much a machinegun (when HB carrying SM's had what looked like a gigantic bolt pistol slung over their shoulder instead)

Heavy Bolters were never a blast weapon. Hellfire shells were, and they were only fired from heavy bolters.

I think we need to look at what each weapon is used for. (im gonna take an ig hwt cos thats what i know)

mortar- very rarly take, you take it when there is a lot of cover and lots of tightly buntched troops.

Auto-cannon- you take against high T and light low AV tanks the ap is to high to take on MEQ but is effective against heavy infantry

ML - you use to take down transports and low av tanks and still have a viable light infanty weapon

LC - you take as anti-tank simple as

Heavy bolter- you take to fight LIGHT INFANTRY, ie tau both eldars IG orks.

if you look at the stats when fighting who the hb effective against, it almost alway wounds on a 2+ (or 3+) and goes through armour. with 3 shots you expect to kill 2 ish add that with the rest of the squad or the outher hw you expect to do at least 75% kill and force a moral check

you should never take a HB to use against vehicle it just dosen't work

each weapon has their zone and effectiveness some are slightly more versitile but none are ad good as the HB at killing TEQ

i don't know who it was but they hit the nail on the head when they said most people play MEQ armies ( which the heavey bolter is not that effective against) butthat dosen't make it a bad weapon or that it needs updateing, EG a lascannon will kill at most one ork dose that mean it needs updated? (no it means you were an idiot for taking the LC )

if anything i would make the auto cannon AP3 to make it more of an anti-MEQ weapon imo

JamesMclaren123 wrote:
if anything i would make the auto cannon AP3 to make it more of an anti-MEQ weapon imo

That's also pretty unnecessary as a couple armies already spam autocannons and are very competitive.

DarknessEternal wrote:

JamesMclaren123 wrote:
if anything i would make the auto cannon AP3 to make it more of an anti-MEQ weapon imo

That's also pretty unnecessary as a couple armies already spam autocannons and are very competitive.

i guess so ive just played with autocannons and found them lacking against MEQ

DarknessEternal wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:That would make it very similar to it's 2nd Edition incarnation, where IIRC it was in fact a blast weapon and not so much a machinegun (when HB carrying SM's had what looked like a gigantic bolt pistol slung over their shoulder instead)

Heavy Bolters were never a blast weapon. Hellfire shells were, and they were only fired from heavy bolters.

That may be what I'm thinking of...

Some really interesting ideas being put out in this thread, I'm surprised by the response it's generated.

I suppose I should have also brought up why this is a topic of interest to me: I played a lot of 2nd ED and Heavy Bolters were pretty sweet back then.

Largely the same stats but they used "sustained fire" dice, basically a D6 that acted like a D3 (two sides with 1's, two sides with 2's one side with a 3 and one side with a lightning bolt representing a "jam").

Heavy Bolters had the profile Heavy, Sustained Fire 2, so you could roll somewhere between 1 and 6 shots with them per turn.

They were a really beefy feeling weapon that was rewarding to take when you rolled a few double 3's with them.

While I guess they average out to this with Heavy 3, they just seem, I dunno, a bit plain, and a bit under whelming by comparison to the other weapons in the IG and SM codexes (codecies?).

Any thoughts on keeping it Heavy 3 but with rending?

Yeah, it's a silly idea at best. I can easily get vehicles with three of those AND other anti-tank weapons, and do you really want to buff IG that much?

Agreed with Mel on that, rending HB would be too insane. IG and Loyal Marines would have a field day with that. Imagine a BA army with 6 predators with HB sponsons. Not fun!

Yeah come to think of it they would be able to glance AV14 if they had rending.

I don't know I've had them used against me (Orks) more so than I've actually used them and I just find that they're pretty ho-hum overall, not really a threat.

@More Dakka: As a horde army player, what do you feel about Heavy Bolters with Pinning?

I'm actually extending that question to anyone who plays horde armies. What do you people think?

More Dakka wrote:Yeah come to think of it they would be able to glance AV14 if they had rending.

I think they they should be Rending against non-vehicle units.
It'd make them more effective against well-armoured enemies, without lowering their AP or increasing the threat they pose to medium/heavy vehicles.



However, I don't think their rate-of-fire should change, and I don't think they should be made Pinning unless all other Heavy 3+ weapons are. They should also remain Heavy... imagine an IG Heavy Weapon Team firing a Hvy. Bolter on the move.

An auto cannon represents Large, heavy caliber rounds, used to kill entrenched infantry, whereas, the Heavy Bolter, represents an LMG, used to keep the enemy pinned, while they are flanked, or what have you.

What about this...

Leave the autocannon as is

Heavy Bolter:
S:5 AP:5 Heavy 4, Pinning.

I also Like CT GAMER's Idea of Suppressive fire. for every 6 rolled to hit, you get another shot.

Melissia wrote:What he's saying is still substantially right.

Heavy bolters aren't weak. They're just of questionable use against mech armies, and most armies these days are mech. You can't really fix that without breaking the fluff and the game balance itself.

Except they are weak. When given the option between: Missile Launcher, Autocannon, Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, and Possible Plasma Cannon, I've literally never ever seen anybody take a Heavy Bolter, ever. Why? Because they are weak.

Griever wrote:

Melissia wrote:What he's saying is still substantially right.

Heavy bolters aren't weak. They're just of questionable use against mech armies, and most armies these days are mech. You can't really fix that without breaking the fluff and the game balance itself.

Except they are weak. When given the option between: Missile Launcher, Autocannon, Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, and Possible Plasma Cannon, I've literally never ever seen anybody take a Heavy Bolter, ever. Why? Because they are weak.

Except you're ignoring the context of Melissia's statement.

Most armies are mechanized these days.

Why would you take a Heavy Bolter, which in fluff and rules is fairly naff against anything beyond a Land Speeder or buggy, when you can take a ML, AC, LC, or PC?

The abundance of mechanized units and/or the lack of specialist ammunition modes for the Heavy Bolter is what kills its effectiveness in being chosen. If, like the ML, you're able to select fire modes(a 'rapid fire' mode that's effective at killing light infantry and a 'heavy bolt' mode that can be used to target vehicles) and you've suddenly got a competitive piece.

Like I said, Rending against non-vehicle units.

Kanluwen wrote:

Griever wrote:

Melissia wrote:What he's saying is still substantially right.

Heavy bolters aren't weak. They're just of questionable use against mech armies, and most armies these days are mech. You can't really fix that without breaking the fluff and the game balance itself.

Except they are weak. When given the option between: Missile Launcher, Autocannon, Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, and Possible Plasma Cannon, I've literally never ever seen anybody take a Heavy Bolter, ever. Why? Because they are weak.

Except you're ignoring the context of Melissia's statement.

Most armies are mechanized these days.

Why would you take a Heavy Bolter, which in fluff and rules is fairly naff against anything beyond a Land Speeder or buggy, when you can take a ML, AC, LC, or PC?

The abundance of mechanized units and/or the lack of specialist ammunition modes for the Heavy Bolter is what kills its effectiveness in being chosen. If, like the ML, you're able to select fire modes(a 'rapid fire' mode that's effective at killing light infantry and a 'heavy bolt' mode that can be used to target vehicles) and you've suddenly got a competitive piece.

The problem is that the HB is NOT desined to be used against vehicles. if you look at it this way Transports were made so that you could protect you troops from the HB and the like. quite rightly the HB is not very effective against transports, if it were there would be no point in taking transports . The HB is desined to take down mediun ans light troops.

The heavy bolter is NOT weak it is just not effective aginst tanks. it your opponent has transpots don't use that many HB, if they don't punnish them with HB fire.

IMHO the HB is fine as it is

JamesMclaren123 wrote:
The problem is that the HB is NOT designed to be used against vehicles. if you look at it this way Transports were made so that you could protect you troops from the HB and the like. quite rightly the HB is not very effective against transports, if it were there would be no point in taking transports . The HB is designed to take down mediun and light troops.

And this is a silly fallacy. Transports weren't made "so that you could protect your troops from heavy bolters". Transports were made to protect your troops, period.
By the by: heavy bolters in fluff? They can, and are constantly, used against vehicles. They can even chamber the specialist bolt rounds that you see on the Sternguard's bolters.

The heavy bolter is NOT weak it is just not effective against tanks. it your opponent has transports don't use that many HB, if they don't punish them with HB fire.

It's not effective against tanks or anything over a certain AV threshold. You don't get to know what your opponent will have in many cases, meaning you're going to be taking lists tailored for the worst case scenarios.
And guess what doesn't fit in there? The heavy bolter. It just doesn't have the versatility to justify its use.

IMHO the HB is fine as it is

That's fine and dandy, but the whole point of my post that you seemed to ignore is that there's a reason the Heavy Bolter gets no love. It's because people want well-rounded weapons and the abundance of mechanized lists makes it virtually impossible to justify the Heavy Bolter. It can only reliably be used against infantry, in which case you've often paid 10-15 points for something that will be pinging off of transports.

I have thought long and hard about why I don't take heavy bolters in my infantry, and I decided that the heavy bolter is an acute case of a very basic tenet of 40k:

Anti-infantry weapons are helpless against tanks.
Anti-tank weapons can hurt infantry.

A lascannon may be ineffective against infantry, but it is never, ever, helpless against anything.

The heavy bolter is, actually, completely and totally helpless in many cases.

This is exacerbated by the fact that there are weapons such as Missiles, Plasma Cannons and Autocannons which are rarely helpless (only against LRs and LRs) and do a number to infantry too.

And yet, the HB still isn't weak. A Marine has a good chance of causing three wounds with it against T3 models that aren't wearing power armor, and even has a good chance of causing wounds against MEQ armies, even having a chance of causing more than one wound unlike a krak missile, which might seem like something of an assured wound (unless it misses ), but it's still only one.

If I could take a pair of HBs in celestian squads, I'd be pretty tempted to do so. At least it'd be long-ranged support that doesn't take up a heavy support slot, and celestians are lacking in assault equipment anyway so it's not like it'd effect their ability to assault.

Melissia wrote:And yet, the HB still isn't weak. A Marine has a good chance of causing three wounds with it against T3 models that aren't wearing power armor, and even has a good chance of causing wounds against MEQ armies, even having a chance of causing more than one wound unlike a krak missile, which might seem like something of an assured wound (unless it misses ), but it's still only one.

If I could take a pair of HBs in celestian squads, I'd be pretty tempted to do so. At least it'd be long-ranged support that doesn't take up a heavy support slot, and celestians are lacking in assault equipment anyway so it's not like it'd effect their ability to assault.

The problem isn't that it is weak, it's that, as I said above, it simply cannot do some things. While yes, you can kill 15 points of guardsmen with it, you are unlikely to ever do so unless the person you're playing is an idiot AND the dice gods like you a lot.

To put it in perspective:

A heavy bolter kills well:
Imperial Guard on foot, Eldar on foot, Dark Eldar on foot, and Tau on foot.

A (for example) autocannon kills well:
Imperial Guard on foot, Imperial Guard in transports, Eldar on foot, Eldar in transports, Dark Eldar on foot, and Dark Eldar in transports, and Tau on foot and Tau in transports.

There's the issue.

And on the note of the extra shot: against T3 models (such as IG heavy weapon teams), the Autocannon inflicts instant death and the heavy bolter does not, which is just the extra oomph the autocannon needed to simply be considered "better."

The problem isn't that the heavy bolter only does one thing well. Flamers only do one thing well, but nobody complains about them.

Heavy Bolters only don't suck at one thing, but still aren't very good at that.

I think heavy bolters suffer from being in the middle.

They have to fire less than assault cannons (multi-barrel is going to fire faster than single barrel 99.999% of the time)

They have to be weaker than autocannon.

They have to be better than bolters in all aspects (well at least most) while staying somewhat similar to them.

Cannot be the exact same as a multilaser.

So that means they have a narrow range that they can work with. Basically they can be heavy 2-3 s5-6. With h3 s6 ap 4 being too similar to multilaser. Pinning is difficult to explain as assault cannons and multilasers should have is too. Rending is possible, blasts are possible.

Personally I wouldn't mind it being h2 s5 ap4 blast. Makes it different than other anti infantry weapons, still useless against vehicles (well more useless actually) while being effective against hordes. It does fire a large explosive grenade essentially so not completely outside of the fluff.

How about just lowering the points cost? This would make it a good option for tanks where the side sponsons are just a cheap extra et cetera

Just lowering the points cost won't fix the problem if there are already better options. At that point you add it as a filler, rather than something that's intended to be useful.

Heavy 4 pinning sounds great.What about assault instead os heavy.Im happy with a assault 3 weapon.

elllaco69 wrote:Heavy 4 pinning sounds great.What about assault instead os heavy.Im happy with a assault 3 weapon.

Unless you're a terminator or something it doesnt make much sense for a HEAVY bolter to be assault. Yes I realize that heavy flamers are assault

Heavy 4 pinning sounds really good to me too. Gives it a nice 'suppressing fire' feel, very much like a heavy machine gun IRL.

kenshin620 wrote:

elllaco69 wrote:Heavy 4 pinning sounds great.What about assault instead os heavy.Im happy with a assault 3 weapon.

Unless you're wearing Power Armor or something it doesn't make much sense for a HEAVY bolter to be assault. Yes I realize that heavy flamers are assault

Fixed. Power Armored individuals can fire Heavy Bolters while moving, just not really accurately. Accuracy goes up if Suspensors are involved.

Heavy Bolter: This is the type of Bolter mounted on vehicles and taken by Heavy Weapons Teams.

S: 5 AP: 4 Range: 36" Heavy 4, Pinning

Mobile Heavy Bolter: This is the Heavy Bolter used by Space Marines as a squad support weapon, as well as any other situation where the bolter must be carried by a single individual. Rate of fire is of course reduced to compensate for less available ammunition, but the weapon's destructive fury remains undiminished.

S: 5 AP: 4 Range: 36" Heavy 3

To be perfectly clear, all Infantry and Bikes units that can take the Heavy Bolter use the MHB profile, while all Vehicles(Including Walkers), and Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons teams use the new HB.

I don't see why you would want to buff Ig and tanks but not marines. That just seems like you are picking winners. You don't need to buff mech in the current meta.

If you make the heavy Bolter assault 3 you buff foot list and make foot list more viable. Rambo style assault heavy bolters would be intresting for marines but a little odd for guard. Gaming wise it would make them an interesting choice.

The point was that the HWT and Tanks have more bolts on hand, thus letting them expend more fire in a single turn, giving them an extra shot and Pinning for laying effective suppressing fire.

I myself do not play IG at all, just for the record.

The problem is that this change, while it makes more fluff sense is the exact opposite of what is needed. Heavy bolters on vehicles are already fine, since they generally cost little and are usually seen as supplements to other weapons, as with sponson heavy bolters on a Predator or Leman Russ, the heavy bolter on a Land Speeder Typhoon, or the hull heavy bolters on Chimera chassis vehicles. Heavy weapons on infantry, on the other hand, are generally quite bad for their cost, since taking them means forgoing other heavy weapons-- a Tactical squad or Imperial Guard infantry unit that takes a heavy bolter loses the chance to take a missile launcher, multi-melta, or lascannon, and thus any ability to threaten tanks at medium to long range. Heavy bolters should be stronger on those units, not on vehicles.

If anything, I'd say vehicle heavy bolters should stay as is, whereas infantry heavy bolters (both SM/Sisters/=][=/IG) should go to Heavy 4 and pinning.

Why not opt for a compromise? Heavy 3, Pinning. No extra shots, but extra utility vs infantry (which is what its designed for).

Seems fair to me.

L. Wrex

Would adding pinning by itself make the Heavy Bolter worth it? It certainly removes it from the same value of ACs (both kinds) and gives it it's own dynamic.

If you want HBolters to be better, allow models to make both cover and armor saves. This is how it should be anyway from a balance and realism stance.

As it stands now, the AP value of the heavy bolter is worthless--in fact, the AP value of most weapons is worthless. The multilaser at s6 ap6 versus the Hbolter at s5 ap4 shows my point best I think. The multilaser has one more point of str, but the heavy bolter has 2 more points of AP. Logically it stands that the heavy bolter's total stats should be better, but because AP doesnt play much of a role the multilaser comes out the winner.

Ah almost forgot. Versus vehicles there are 3 ap values... AP1, AP2/3/4/5/6, and AP--. Those 7 values are kind of garbage. I would rather see the bonuses a bit more balanced, so AP1/2, AP3/4/5, and AP6/--. This way, the multilaser is not always better at hurting vehicles than a heavy bolter, as the heavy bolter has more penetration while the multilaser is more of a surface damage weapon.

your forgetting the key use of the HB these days imo,

FW killy, you pop a squad of fire warriors out of a devilfish and then pop a squad of (in my case Havocs) into them, what is your primary weapon of choice? the HB of course, 12 shots hitting on threes wounding on twos and ignoreing armour, going to ground here is the only option for someone who wants to save their squad, and look theres your pinning

I second Tyranic Marta, needing to go to ground to stay alive is pinning. Weapons with the actual 'pinning' unit type seem to mostly be psychological weapons, as morale in 40k is more or less fanatical even for LD7 troops.

IE, your squad of LD7 IG are ordered to assault the Wraithlord monstrous creature in front of them. They will fanatically charge in, despite not being able to even hurt the thing, with no word of morale anywhere. Only when the MC kills a few of them do they have a chance of running, and even then they also have a decent chance of staying if it doesnt kill more than 2 or so.

DevianID wrote:If you want HBolters to be better, allow models to make both cover and armor saves. This is how it should be anyway from a balance and realism stance.

Oh HELL no. There is no need to make Marine armies any more powerful than they already are.

I'm with Melissa here(unusually)

Well, if Infantry HBs need a boost...

Heavy Bolter: S: 5 AP: 4 Range: 36" Heavy 3, Suppressing Fire

Suppressing Fire: A torrent of high velocity explosive shells is bound to force even the most foolhardy warriors to take to being defensive. At the end of the Shooting Phase, if a unit was hit by a heavy bolter, regardless of whether it wounds, the target unit makes a Leadership test at -1 for each wound they took that turn(from all weapons, not just the heavy bolter). If they fail, the unit counts as being in difficult terrain for their next movement and assault phase.

This is to represent units being forced to move carefully from cover to cover, instead of an all out charge as normal. It'd give the HB more effectiveness against any army, slowing down Tau and Guardsmen, and hopefully keeping Orks Nidz from assaulting. Obviously, Suppressing Fire would be used for other Squad Support Weapons like the Heavy Stubber as well, but only Machine-Gun equivalents.

I like the idea of suppressing fire, but that rule is overly complicated, IMO. I suggested simply giving any squad with a HB defensive grenades, which I think does the same thing only far simpler.

there is a difference between slowing down a squad of assaluters so that anouther squad has time to escape and slowing down assaulters so that they dont get into cc with the squad firing

defensive grenades only fills out one of these requirements

Then make it simpler: any unit hit by a weapon with suppressing fire counts as being in difficult terrain.

I think HB are fine-they're more effective across the board than missile launchers against most Xenos.

However, if you think an upgrade is necessary, why not look at something that doesn't make them even better against the armies they're already good against?

Move 'em to AP 3. It doesn't affect most Xenos much, and it makes them better against the ever-present MEQ hordes.

You do realize that hitting three orks with a frag missile does more damage than a BS4 heavy bolter, right?

The problem is that the heavy bolter isn't even good against the stuff it's good against.

What makes you think that a BS 3 guardsman is going to hit 3 Orks with a frag missile? One of the most commonly missing items when people evaluate missile launchers is the fact that the (frag) missile is going to scatter 2/3 of the time.

If you average hitting two orks with your frag missile, you're better off with the HB. If you're averaging more than two hits with the missile launcher, I think your Ork opponents need to work on their spacing.

But a BS3 guardsman only needs to hit two orks for the frag to be as effective as the heavy bolter.

Yes frag missiles scatter, but hordes have two choices: clump up and present a tempting target for hits, or spread out and give up hits even on large scatters.

When a secondary fire mode is still almost as good as a dedicated anti-horde weapon, how good is the horde weapon, really?

2 frag missilie hits at st4 aren't as good as 1.5 HB hits at st 5.

HB is better against armor 10 than the krak missile.

When a horde weapon is better at killing your primary transport than a dedicated anti-tank option, how good is the anti-tank option?

Ordznik wrote:2 frag missilie hits at st4 aren't as good as 1.5 HB hits at st 5.

Against t4? 2 Hits at S4 = 1 wound. 1.5 hits at S5 = 1 wound.

HB is better against armor 10 than the krak missile.

HB @BS4: 2 hits = 1/3 glance, 1/3 pen.
ML @BS4: 2/3 hit = 4/9 pen, 1/9 glance

So, the HB will do more overall damage, the ML will penetrate more. Each pen had a 5/6 chance of stunning, immobilizing, or wrecking a Trukk, while each glance has a 1/2 chance of the same. So the total "stops" are:
HB: 1/3*1/2 + 1/3*5/6 = 1/6 + 5/18 = 8/18 = 24/54
ML 1/9*1/2 +4/9*5/6 = 1/18 + 20/54= 23/54

So yes, the HB is ~5% better against the TRukk than the ML. Of course the ML is substantially better against AV11 and up.

When a horde weapon is better at killing your primary transport than a dedicated anti-tank option, how good is the anti-tank option?

Lol. It's still pretty good against AV11 and up. And almost as good against the trukk.

No, I'll gladly admit that if you play trukk boy orks almost exclusively, the HB is a great option.

Fair enough, the HB is as good as frag missiles against boys-based on that set of assumptions, which seem reasonable to me. And better against truks.

The same (or at least very similar) math will get you to the conclusion that HB are better against Dark Eldar than Missile launchers.

Against Tau? You lose the ability to consistently damage vehicles (except for the piranha), but Tau get armor saves against frag missiles which they won't get against HB rounds.

Eldar are actually similar to Tau-HB can't handle their vehicles, but big chunks of their army get armor saves against frag missiles that they won't get against HB.

HB are a better weapon in general than missile launchers against most Xenos. There's absolutely no reason to turn them into screw the Ork charge weapons. If you want to improve them, make them better against what they're weak against.

Make them AP 3.

think about it, ap three does too much for it,

make it ap 3 and you deny all of meq their armour saves at 36"

make it ap3 and you deny the armour saves and res of necrons at 36" with something that can be bought more cheaply than a basic warrior (i mean the upgrade not the upgrade and the model this is assuming that the model was already there and your switching the weapon he had out for a HB)

and additionally it does one important thing,

it makes the HB better at AP than a Autocannon

which i think is absurd

Indeed, we have to preserve some sense of there being a definite hierarchy in terms of an autocannon being a better "heavy heavy weapon" option

You guys are the ones saying HB need an upgrade-as I said, I'm think they're fine as they are. I'm just pointing out that in the game as it's played, there's no reason at all to make the HB better at the things it already does sufficiently well.

HB are only really questionable against MEQ. If they need a boost at all-and I'll say again, I don't think they do-it's only against MEQ.

and even then the only real boost they could be given is to make them ap three which is daft

although there is something to be siad about making them s6 like the destroyer gun for necrons (not sure of actual name)

Tyranic Marta wrote:your forgetting the key use of the HB these days imo,

FW killy, you pop a squad of fire warriors out of a devilfish and then pop a squad of (in my case Havocs) into them, what is your primary weapon of choice? the HB of course, 12 shots hitting on threes wounding on twos and ignoreing armour, going to ground here is the only option for someone who wants to save their squad, and look theres your pinning

Fire Warriors are terrible, and Tau in general are rarely seen in competitive play. While heavy bolters are indeed good against Fire Warriors, that doesn't make them strong in an all-comers environment.

*facepalm* just because you dont see them doesnt mean everyone doesnt see them

If you up the ROF then they compete with Assault Cannons too much, up the strength and they outclass Autocannons, drop the AP and they become too good against MEQ. These fixes all fail because they actually change things too much, in reality the Heavy Bolter is very close to being usable.

Imo the easiest fix would be to simply make it an assault weapon, or maybe give it a dual profile like the Splinter Cannon (that makes them pretty awesome on vehicles though which would need a big points shift notably for the Razorback). That by itself would mean people who want to run aggressive Marine lists start taking them because it gets you two assault weapons (even if one of them is always anti infantry). It would also give it an edge over the Missile Launcher vs infantry because it can move and fire, without giving much more effect against vehicles. It not an unprecedented rule either, Deathwatch had suspensors to let them fire Heavy Bolters as assault and fluff wise you can say that the Marine armour can handle the recoil on the move.

The other easy fix would be to make the Heavy Bolter the only free heavy weapon for Tacticals, and increase the cost of the others by 5pts. I'm not such a fan of this though, because a) its a boring cheap way out and b) most people will still just pay the 5pts for the Missile Launcher and the duality it gives you.

You don't need to make it a better weapon at all. I think it's just not meant as an infantry-mounted weapon, because just because you have the option to take it does not mean you are in any way commited to taking it.

HBs on vehicles are fine as they are, I think there has been a general consensus on this across the thread. The only reason they are given as infantry options IMHO is because they "have to" be... It just works fluff-wise.

Leave them as they are.

Fetterkey wrote:

Tyranic Marta wrote:your forgetting the key use of the HB these days imo,

FW killy, you pop a squad of fire warriors out of a devilfish and then pop a squad of (in my case Havocs) into them, what is your primary weapon of choice? the HB of course, 12 shots hitting on threes wounding on twos and ignoreing armour, going to ground here is the only option for someone who wants to save their squad, and look theres your pinning

Fire Warriors are terrible, and Tau in general are rarely seen in competitive play. While heavy bolters are indeed good against Fire Warriors, that doesn't make them strong in an all-comers environment.

i completely disagree, FW are not terrible and nither are the Tau. You will rarly find a weapon that is good in all areas but the HB is not good against just tau the are good against everything but MEQs

If you want to give them a little buff, not too much, then maybe add this;

HB S:5 AP:4 Heavy3

Tracer fire. The Heavy bolter is one of the most ubiquitous weapons that the Imperium uses. It's STC design is amongst the oldest and most revered. It is usually one of the first heavy weapons to witness the front line and thus it is always prepared; every third bolt is a tracer round.
A model, sponson or turret that is equipped with the heavy bolter is subject to the universal special rule night vision.

Any good?

HB are going to shine against AC 4 or worse targets, dark eldar vehicles, etc.

The problem is cost and effectiveness. Yes a HB is better than a ML frag blast but a HB cannot match a ML krak for effectiveness at taking out a vehicle. When they cost the same, it is a no-brainer to take a ML over a HB.

A HB needs to be superior to a ML at anti-personnel not a push for effectiveness. The problem is ROF 4 or 5 would provide that effectiveness but then that skews a lot of other weapons. For example if a HB has a ROF of 4 then should and Assault Cannon be ROF 5? Or a Scatter Laser ROF 5?

My choice would be to lower the cost of a HB to 5 or even free and then it might make it an effective choice as opposed to a ML.

Polonius wrote:

Ordznik wrote:2 frag missilie hits at st4 aren't as good as 1.5 HB hits at st 5.

Against t4? 2 Hits at S4 = 1 wound. 1.5 hits at S5 = 1 wound.

And then the S4 wound gets absorbed by the nob with 'eavy armor, but the S5 wound doesn't because it ignores 'eavy armor anyway.

Rinkydink wrote:If you want to give them a little buff, not too much, then maybe add this;

HB S:5 AP:4 Heavy3

Tracer fire. The Heavy bolter is one of the most ubiquitous weapons that the Imperium uses. It's STC design is amongst the oldest and most revered. It is usually one of the first heavy weapons to witness the front line and thus it is always prepared; every third bolt is a tracer round.
A model, sponson or turret that is equipped with the heavy bolter is subject to the universal special rule night vision.

Any good?

More sensibly, make it count as a Search Light.

Personally, what I think needs to happen first is an upgrade to the Autocannon. It's a Tank's main gun, it should be a bit more powerful than a plasma pistol.

ikr, the autocannon is a little bit too weak in my opinion, ive always thought it shouold have something to make it slightly better against infantry, maybe give it a secondary fire like the railgun submunition? a s6 ap4 small blast??


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(but perhaps only on the predator??)

Rinkydink wrote:If you want to give them a little buff, not too much, then maybe add this;

HB S:5 AP:4 Heavy3

Tracer fire. The Heavy bolter is one of the most ubiquitous weapons that the Imperium uses. It's STC design is amongst the oldest and most revered. It is usually one of the first heavy weapons to witness the front line and thus it is always prepared; every third bolt is a tracer round.
A model, sponson or turret that is equipped with the heavy bolter is subject to the universal special rule night vision.

Any good?

This is not how Heavy Bolters work, so no it's really not good.

Heavy Stubbers could use this though.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:
Personally, what I think needs to happen first is an upgrade to the Autocannon. It's a Tank's main gun, it should be a bit more powerful than a plasma pistol.

This is simply a case of the mechanics of 40k models causing issues. The autocannon on the Predator should be the same size as the infantry one.

It was beefed up because really, who wants a tiny gun on their tank?

the point is the gun is still a main gun which is why i like the idea of the weapon having a secondary fire mode whilst on the pred


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and who wants a tiny gun on their tank? blood angels baal predator

Why would the Predator have a secondary fire mode that the man portable, Vulture, or Sentinel versions don't?

If it's variant shells, then they could be carried by the loader or stored in a secondary hopper for the AC same as they could for the Predator.

Which brings me back to something I said earlier. The heavy bolter suffers in terms of being a choice simply because it doesn't have the flexibility that the ML has.
The mortar suffers similarily because it doesn't have variant ammo.

With the advent of the Dark Eldar 'dual mode Splinter Cannon' I would be surprised if we didn't see more stuff of that nature as time goes on.
My Guard'll take their HE and Smoke mortar shells in packs of 20 though.

Kanluwen wrote:Why would the Predator have a secondary fire mode that the man portable, Vulture, or Sentinel versions don't?

If it's variant shells, then they could be carried by the loader or stored in a secondary hopper for the AC same as they could for the Predator.

Which brings me back to something I said earlier. The heavy bolter suffers in terms of being a choice simply because it doesn't have the flexibility that the ML has.
The mortar suffers similarily because it doesn't have variant ammo.

three simple simple reasons

#1 The predator gun tends to be larger than the others, thus the man portable version wouldnt be able to fire the larder caliber rounds needed to house the explosives,
#2 only a predator or similar sized vehicle would be able to carry enough of these shells and the ordainary shells to last an engagement without haveing to restock every three shots
#3 for the same reason that the hammerhead gunship for tau has the submunition and the broadsides manta etc dont, because it adds depth to the game and it would be over powered to have such a powerful blast weapon on the likes of Havoks, which if you remember can take 4 of the things, 4 s6 ap4 blasts from an average cheap infantry squad is to overpowered for words.

Tyranic Marta wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Why would the Predator have a secondary fire mode that the man portable, Vulture, or Sentinel versions don't?

If it's variant shells, then they could be carried by the loader or stored in a secondary hopper for the AC same as they could for the Predator.

Which brings me back to something I said earlier. The heavy bolter suffers in terms of being a choice simply because it doesn't have the flexibility that the ML has.
The mortar suffers similarily because it doesn't have variant ammo.

three simple simple reasons

#1 The predator gun tends to be larger than the others, thus the man portable version wouldnt be able to fire the larder caliber rounds needed to house the explosives

The Predator gun, as per IA2, is the standard autocannon--just essentially given a 'longer barrel'.
If the Predator gets that ammo, then it would be stupid not to put it on the Hydra--especially considering the Hydra's role as an AA vehicle. It'd also be dumb for it to not be on the Leman Russ Exterminator.

#2 only a predator or similar sized vehicle would be able to carry enough of these shells and the ordainary shells to last an engagement without having to restock every three shots

Fallacy. Any vehicle (or infantry for that matter) could feasibly carry the 'explodey' shells--just like the Imperial Armour Volume 1 rules for unique Leman Russ ammunition. You just have to 'swap' fire modes and suffer a turn of no shooting.

#3 for the same reason that the hammerhead gunship for tau has the submunition and the broadsides manta etc dont, because it adds depth to the game and it would be over powered to have such a powerful blast weapon on the likes of Havoks, which if you remember can take 4 of the things, 4 s6 ap4 blasts from an average cheap infantry squad is to overpowered for words.

Because 3x Predators with ACs and the fittings isn't possibly OP with it?

(facepalm) your looking at this the wrong way, admittedly the first point you made is valid, the second is daft and the third even more so, (no offense i just get a bit agitated sometimes)

this has nothing to do with gameplay, think about it, in a real environment an ordainary warrior probably would only have enough room in his backpack to carry tenough ammo for the autocannons main fire mode, remembering that the rounds are described as "Fist sized" and thats not teenager fist sized or ordainary man fist sized, thats massive military man (possibly even marine) fist sized.
there is no way that an ordainary soldier, or even a marine would be able to carry enough ammunition to last through a fire fight with BOTH ammo types, just not possible

sure 3x predatorws with ac and fittings isnt op, you pay for it, that rounds in at about 600ish points, correct me if im wrong, but a squad of havoks with 4 autocannons is just over or under 200, thus a third of the price for the smae number of autocannons, and lets not count the heavy bolter sponsons here considering that infantry cant take those, otherwise this argument become who has more guns


Automatically Appended Next Post:
huh actually scratch that it only comes in at around 400, ah well half the cost for the same number of guns

Tyranic Marta wrote:(facepalm) your looking at this the wrong way, admittedly the first point you made is valid, the second is daft and the third even more so, (no offense i just get a bit agitated sometimes)

The second and third are far from being 'daft'. More in a moment.

this has nothing to do with gameplay, think about it, in a real environment an ordainary warrior probably would only have enough room in his backpack to carry tenough ammo for the autocannons main fire mode, remembering that the rounds are described as "Fist sized" and thats not teenager fist sized or ordinary man fist sized, thats massive military man (possibly even marine) fist sized.

Since when does being a military man give you a "massive military man fist" size?

there is no way that an ordinary soldier, or even a marine would be able to carry enough ammunition to last through a fire fight with BOTH ammo types, just not possible

You neglect the concept of 'stowage space' on transports. Do you think all of that space is simply for the troops inside? There'd be housing for extra ammo, spare weapons, comms gear, etc.

sure 3x predators with ac and fittings isnt op, you pay for it, that rounds in at about 600ish points, correct me if im wrong, but a squad of havoks with 4 autocannons is just over or under 400, thus a third of the price for the same number of autocannons, and lets not count the heavy bolter sponsons here considering that infantry cant take those, otherwise this argument become who has more guns

Your argument assumes that this idea doesn't balance out Havocs with the 'new' rules in mind.
Just like Predators, Sentinels, etc aren't rebalanced with this concept rebalanced.

You're also neglecting in your argument that Predators are a smidge more y'know...survivable than 4x autocannon equipped havocs.

Tyranic Marta wrote:*facepalm* just because you dont see them doesnt mean everyone doesnt see them

Fetterkey wrote:in competitive play

Kanluwen wrote:

Tyranic Marta wrote:(facepalm) your looking at this the wrong way, admittedly the first point you made is valid, the second is daft and the third even more so, (no offense i just get a bit agitated sometimes)

The second and third are far from being 'daft'. More in a moment.

this has nothing to do with gameplay, think about it, in a real environment an ordainary warrior probably would only have enough room in his backpack to carry tenough ammo for the autocannons main fire mode, remembering that the rounds are described as "Fist sized" and thats not teenager fist sized or ordinary man fist sized, thats massive military man (possibly even marine) fist sized.

Since when does being a military man give you a "massive military man fist" size?

there is no way that an ordinary soldier, or even a marine would be able to carry enough ammunition to last through a fire fight with BOTH ammo types, just not possible

You neglect the concept of 'stowage space' on transports. Do you think all of that space is simply for the troops inside? There'd be housing for extra ammo, spare weapons, comms gear, etc.

sure 3x predators with ac and fittings isnt op, you pay for it, that rounds in at about 600ish points, correct me if im wrong, but a squad of havoks with 4 autocannons is just over or under 400, thus a third of the price for the same number of autocannons, and lets not count the heavy bolter sponsons here considering that infantry cant take those, otherwise this argument become who has more guns

Your argument assumes that this idea doesn't balance out Havocs with the 'new' rules in mind.
Just like Predators, Sentinels, etc aren't rebalanced with this concept rebalanced.

You're also neglecting in your argument that Predators are a smidge more y'know...survivable than 4x autocannon equipped havocs.

point one, muscle, seriously look at a soldiers fist, its huge

point two, sure but what if they diddnt have a transport, they would still have to be able to carry the ammo

point three, meh i can keep my havoks alive longer than my pred cause people see the pred and shoot it, they see my havoks and discard them as being jsut abnouther squad, ive pklayed against tournament players (only a couple of times but still) lost all my vehicles including two predators, kept my havok squad and two noise marine squads, won the game

(in one match anyway)

and sorry balanced and rebalanced? im a bit confused there


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fetterkey wrote:

Tyranic Marta wrote:*facepalm* just because you dont see them doesnt mean everyone doesnt see them

Fetterkey wrote:in competitive play

*sigh* not everyone plays competitivley against the same people, i know someone who plays tau in tournaments and he has only ever lost twice,

I'm starting a separate thread for Autocannon discussion, take it over there.