S5 is too weak for an advanced weapon. At least S6 to deal with everything
AP4 isn't that much to speak for. AP3 is the sweet spot for advanced weapons
Heavy 3 is okay
36"... coud hit farther to be safe
S5 is too weak for an advanced weapon. At least S6 to deal with everything
AP4 isn't that much to speak for. AP3 is the sweet spot for advanced weapons
Heavy 3 is okay
36"... coud hit farther to be safe
Yep. For 5 points more, a ML is 48", S8 AP 4, or S4 but a Blast, and a PC is S7 AP2 small Blast. The ML can also get Skyfire. As it is, the Heavy Bolter is overpriced. Were it the same cost as a Flamer, I think it would be better, but as is, it can't compete. I think even giving it Rending at its current cost would make it a better choice.
If you are going to use a squad or team to sit back and shoot, there are much better options. I would take a ML or PC any day if I am building a back field objective holder. Tac marines need to be riding to objectives or storming enemy positions to soak overwatch fire for the real assault infantry.
Now alternatively speaking, they have a place in 30k lists in heavy support squads where they can put out withering amounts of anti-infantry fire relatively cheaply. Don't Imperial Fists get bonuses when using bolters and heavy bolters?
what about it being used as an anti-infantry defensive weapon? Like being on your objective holders, or a tac. gun line?
Mind you, I am not ignoring the better weapons, just thinking of a place for it. Against a guardsmen spam, green tide, or eldar infantry, it definitely has its uses. Admittedly, it wont stop MEQs, but a higher strength than frag missiles, and less risky to the marine than plasma guns, Thats a good side, isnt it?
The only way I run heavy bolters is 2+ in a devastator squad. And even then, it's only effective against a handful of troops choices.... unless I'm up against massed howling banshees or something I'd rather take missile/plasma. It's mainly for fluff that I like to run the things.
If it's on a tac squad, they're going to be charging ahead the first few turns, towards an obective. That's 2 or more turns that you're going to be snap firing.... better to not have any heavy weapon in that case.
I'd rather take one of the AP2 guns. Massed heavy bolters will force a lot of saves, but I would rather have mobility and some AP 2 and anti armor.
That said, some of the newer Tyranid stuff is a bit weak against AP 4. It might have some usefulness there.
Things to change when you use Imperial Fist/Sentinels of Tara.
With the re-rolls it increased your chances to hit.
It also depends on what the rest of your army is tolled up for. If you already have buckets of anti-tank weapons and you are fighting something like Orks or Nids an extra Missie launcher might not do you any good, but tree shots that should wound on 2+ will.
S5 is too weak for an advanced weapon. At least S6 to deal with everything
AP4 isn't that much to speak for. AP3 is the sweet spot for advanced weapons
Heavy 3 is okay
36"... coud hit farther to be safe
Yep. For 5 points more, a ML is 48", S8 AP 4, or S4 but a Blast, and a PC is S7 AP2 small Blast. The ML can also get Skyfire. As it is, the Heavy Bolter is overpriced. Were it the same cost as a Flamer, I think it would be better, but as is, it can't compete. I think even giving it Rending at its current cost would make it a better choice.
Brennonjw wrote:The title says all. I know that there are better weapons for the HW slot, but why is there so much disdain for the heavy bolter?
Because they were invented in a day when AV12+ vehicles were rare, and basically nobody took monstrous creatures (which were limited to Sv4+ with no ++). They didn't have to deal with superheavies either.
Back when 40k was a game of infantry tactics with a few bits of exotic support units thrown in there, the heavy bolter had a lot of work on its hands. Now that we're in a game where you see how many riptides or wave serpents or russes you can cram into a list, well... they just have a lot less they're good against, and you'd rather not waste weapon slots on stuff that can't handle those heavy targets.
Oh, also, there's the other side of it. While the number of things the heavy bolter isn't strong against have increased extremely rapidly, the number of things the heavy bolter is strong against has died off.
In 4th edition, you needed to take at least a few heavy bolters because you wouldn't be able to handle hordes without them. Now nobody brings hordes anymore, for good reason.
S5 is too weak for an advanced weapon. At least S6 to deal with everything
AP4 isn't that much to speak for. AP3 is the sweet spot for advanced weapons
Heavy 3 is okay
36"... coud hit farther to be safe
Yep. For 5 points more, a ML is 48", S8 AP 4, or S4 but a Blast, and a PC is S7 AP2 small Blast. The ML can also get Skyfire. As it is, the Heavy Bolter is overpriced. Were it the same cost as a Flamer, I think it would be better, but as is, it can't compete. I think even giving it Rending at its current cost would make it a better choice.
Krak Missile is AP3 not AP4.
Ah, thank you. I couldn't recall if it was 3 or 4. Thus making the Heavy Bolter even worse
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ailaros wrote: Oh, also, there's the other side of it. While the number of things the heavy bolter isn't strong against have increased extremely rapidly, the number of things the heavy bolter is strong against has died off.
In 4th edition, you needed to take at least a few heavy bolters because you wouldn't be able to handle hordes without them. Now nobody brings hordes anymore, for good reason.
The only hordes I really see anymore are some Nid spam, in which taking out the high value targets is your best bet or lots of flamers that ignore cover saves, are some green tide hordes, but even those are rare.
jreilly89 wrote:The only hordes I really see anymore are some Nid spam, in which taking out the high value targets is your best bet or lots of flamers that ignore cover saves, are some green tide hordes, but even those are rare.
Yeah, and thinking back to 4th edition, before every codex gave you as many transports as you wanted, I saw plenty of hordes. Does anybody remember footdar? or WWPDE? Or when marine players used to actually bring scouts? And yeah, green tides, blob guard, and terevigon+gribblies nids were plenty common all the way through 5th.
There used to be a LOT to shoot your heavy bolters at.
I always take a unit of 4 Heavy Bolters with my Soroitas Heavy Weapons squads (Retributors) and feel they are worth it. Granted, Retributors do get make them Rending twice a game and their only other options are Heavy Flamers or Multi-Meltas.
Lobukia wrote: If HB were assault 4, they'd be worth it.
Heck, if they were just assault anything I'd be happy! I do see it as a bit silly though (considering heavy is in the name), so compromising with salvo would be great.
Then again, HEAVY flamer is assault, and ASSAULT cannon is heavy.....
Brennonjw wrote:The title says all. I know that there are better weapons for the HW slot, but why is there so much disdain for the heavy bolter?
Because they were invented in a day when AV12+ vehicles were rare, and basically nobody took monstrous creatures (which were limited to Sv4+ with no ++). They didn't have to deal with superheavies either.
Back when 40k was a game of infantry tactics with a few bits of exotic support units thrown in there, the heavy bolter had a lot of work on its hands. Now that we're in a game where you see how many riptides or wave serpents or russes you can cram into a list, well... they just have a lot less they're good against, and you'd rather not waste weapon slots on stuff that can't handle those heavy targets.
Don't kid yourself. The Heavy Bolter wasn't worth anything back then, and definitely isn't worth anything now. The stats are much worse for handling hordes compared to other options like Flamers and Frag Missiles.
kingbobbito wrote: Heck, if they were just assault anything I'd be happy! I do see it as a bit silly though (considering heavy is in the name), so compromising with salvo would be great.
Then again, HEAVY flamer is assault, and ASSAULT cannon is heavy.....
Imagine boltguns as Assault 2. Tacs would rule the world...
kingbobbito wrote: Heck, if they were just assault anything I'd be happy! I do see it as a bit silly though (considering heavy is in the name), so compromising with salvo would be great.
Then again, HEAVY flamer is assault, and ASSAULT cannon is heavy.....
Imagine boltguns as Assault 2. Tacs would rule the world...
Can we make storm bolters Assault 4 so my termies don't suck so bad?
Zewrath wrote: Heavy bolters ought to be changed to salvo 2/3 and cost 5 points, honestly that's the only thing I think should be changed about them.
In my group we experimented with changing them to Salvo 3/4.
While it certainly made Heavy Bolters better, we only saw that demonstrated on units that had them to begin with.
It still wasn't enough to encourage people to use the HB at the expense of any other option when such an option was available.
As an IG player, S5 is what kills it for me because it's just so limiting.
An autocannon gets one fewer shot, but can penetrate AV10-12 and can glance AV13.
A Heavy bolter, meanwhile, can't even penetrate a Rhino. And, frankly, if I'm facing rhinos then I'll count myself a lucky man - more frequently I find myself facing AV12+.
In addition, the Heavy Bolter isn't even a useful anti-infantry weapon. 3 shots that need 3s to wound T4 isn't exactly going to scare anyone.
IMO Heavy Bolter is only as effective as the person rolling the dice. I usually go for Combat Squads though so the rest of the unit can do stuff. I've had a fair few successes with them. Though I do think they should have something to account for the larger rounds being fired. Maybe Fleshbane.
Slayer-Fan wrote:Don't kid yourself. The Heavy Bolter wasn't worth anything back then, and definitely isn't worth anything now. The stats are much worse for handling hordes compared to other options like Flamers and Frag Missiles.
I guess you never played against a tyranid swarm back in the day? S5 Sp4 was great for breaking synapse on creatures with T5 Sv4+, and they could relatively easily down zoanthropes. I guess you never played against footdar back in the day? Everything was Sv4+ or worse, save scorps and wraiths. I guess you never played against orks back in the day? Back when you saw trukk spam and green tide? I guess you never played tau back in the day, where only broadsides had serious Sv?
Heavy bolters were super useful back in the day when people weren't cramming as many Sv2+ MCs or AV12+ transports into their lists as possible. Especially back in the day when intervening units didn't give cover saves to stuff behind them.
And you can still see it today if you play at low points games - low enough so that lists aren't made of nothing but heavy stuff. Even missile launchers do okay in low-model-count, non-super-unit 40k.
kingbobbito wrote: Heck, if they were just assault anything I'd be happy! I do see it as a bit silly though (considering heavy is in the name), so compromising with salvo would be great.
Then again, HEAVY flamer is assault, and ASSAULT cannon is heavy.....
Imagine boltguns as Assault 2. Tacs would rule the world...
Slayer-Fan wrote:Don't kid yourself. The Heavy Bolter wasn't worth anything back then, and definitely isn't worth anything now. The stats are much worse for handling hordes compared to other options like Flamers and Frag Missiles.
I guess you never played against a tyranid swarm back in the day? S5 Sp4 was great for breaking synapse on creatures with T5 Sv4+, and they could relatively easily down zoanthropes. I guess you never played against footdar back in the day? Everything was Sv4+ or worse, save scorps and wraiths. I guess you never played against orks back in the day? Back when you saw trukk spam and green tide? I guess you never played tau back in the day, where only broadsides had serious Sv?
Heavy bolters were super useful back in the day when people weren't cramming as many Sv2+ MCs or AV12+ transports into their lists as possible. Especially back in the day when intervening units didn't give cover saves to stuff behind them.
And you can still see it today if you play at low points games - low enough so that lists aren't made of nothing but heavy stuff. Even missile launchers do okay in low-model-count, non-super-unit 40k.
I played in 4th edition. Yes I knew of the existence of several of those things, and, no, heavy bolters were not the answer. Having used Necrons and Daemon Hunters, I can assure you that Heavy Bolters were a terrible weapon back then, and other people here can tell you how terrible they were in 3rd and 5th. You're in denial if you TRULY believe otherwise.
If you hit, and I think you needed to wound, but I’d have to double-check, you got to fire again. Didn’t matter if they made their save. Heavy bolters could just wipe out squads.
IIRC we houseruled that you couldn’t kill more guys then your BS. Might have been shoot more then your BS, it’s been a while.
Edit:
Just looked it up, and you did need to wound. You could shift your fire around, but all the targets had to be within 4” of the original.
They weren't too shabby in 2nd edition. you could get up to 6 shots with them (or just jam, which sucked) and with a -2 save modifer, marines would only get a 5+ save. a few of them could tear through most armies.
Also a +1 for the following fire. I saw one dude with a heavy bolter mow down a whole squad of 20 orks one time!
Heavy bolters were good in 2nd, especially with ammo feeds on vehicles. Unfortuntely, the Xenos had much, much MUCH better weapons. Shuriken cannon, anyone? -3 armor save.
If your taking heavier weapons, missiles, laser, both are more versatile vs bigger units and unlike bolter can open tanks.
And missile has frag option.
Plus a good flamer roll can decimate a hoard and right funneling to make that template more fun.
madtankbloke wrote: They weren't too shabby in 2nd edition. you could get up to 6 shots with them (or just jam, which sucked) and with a -2 save modifer, marines would only get a 5+ save. a few of them could tear through most armies.
Also a +1 for the following fire. I saw one dude with a heavy bolter mow down a whole squad of 20 orks one time!
I HATE jam dice, I mean sustained fire dice. Grrrr. I spent more time jammed than firing. Also why was it 1,1,2,2,3,JAM! Suck. 1/3 chance of a single shot, 1/6th chance of no shot and no shooting next turn. Hardly worth it. If it had been 1,2,2,3,3,Jam!, that would have been slightly better.
In second edition, blasts were where it was at. Not necessarily for hitting multiple dudes (though that was nice), but for the chance to hit even if you missed.
Slayer-Fan wrote:Having used Necrons and Daemon Hunters, I can assure you that Heavy Bolters were a terrible weapon back then
So, an Ap4 weapon was terrible because you only played Sv3+ armies?
Who was in denial again?
The AP4 weapon was terrible when used against my armies, AND was terrible against other armies. A full Devastator squad with Heavy Bolters is probably going to get off about 8 shots, and then 6-7 wounds on a squad of Termagaunts. Two or so Flamers would've caused much more damage, AND would've been cheaper at the same time. Not only is it a heavy weapon, it's a terrible one too when you consider the other anti-swarm options in this regard, in the form of Plasma Cannons or ML's, which are more flexible at the same time.
YES Heavy Bolters were terrible back then and are terrible now. Saying otherwise promotes a special snowflake status or a L2P.
Slayer-Fan wrote:A full Devastator squad with Heavy Bolters is probably going to get off about 8 shots, and then 6-7 wounds on a squad of Termagaunts. Two or so Flamers would've caused much more damage, AND would've been cheaper at the same time.
So, let's say that the model holding a flamer survives until he gets to shoot it, and let's say that he gets into range, and let's say the flamer gets more than one shot. Even then, it's S5 Ap4, compared to S4 Ap5. So the flamer is still worse. Which is why it was cheaper.
Unless you also mean to believe that you're going to be netting 18 hits per flamer shot, or something...
Slayer-Fan wrote: it's a terrible one too when you consider the other anti-swarm options in this regard,
Really. So, a weapon that is nearly always in range and can start shooting turn 1 from a unit that can be dug deep in cover that has +1S and -1Ap is terrible? Flamers must REALLY suck.
Slayer-Fan wrote:in the form of Plasma Cannons or ML's, which are more flexible at the same time.
Missile launchers are only better than heavy bolters against infantry in a fantasy land where you always get 9 hits per shot.
They're more flexible, but that's not necessarily a benefit if the point is to kill hordes.
Slayer-Fan wrote:YES Heavy Bolters were terrible back then and are terrible now. Saying otherwise promotes a special snowflake status or a L2P.
Its so bad because alot of stuff has better armoursave then 4+... And those that dont often have either cover, or some special rule that lets them evade stuff, or are just so cheap that it's not worth.
The Tactical Heavy Bolter is a VERY Situational Weapon.
The only time I use them is with Imperial Fist/Sentinels of Tera List. And then only if I am expeting to gunline against a Horde/Swarm Army.
I think it also depends on the second weapom.
Flamer: I don't think mixes well, mostly become of range.
Grav Gun: This one meshes well with the SoT CT. At 18" You got the full RoF of 3 of the Grav Gun [Assuming you did not move] and the HB getting its 3 shots woth Re-Rolls. Toss in a Combi-Grav for more shots.
Melta-Gun: No Synergy Here, at least with the flamer you get some Assualt Protection.
Plasma-Gun: The other good choice, it gives you mufti-target engagement ability.
Now having said all of that unless I am running a IF/SoT list I go with Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon/Combi-Plasma.
Slayer-Fan wrote:Having used Necrons and Daemon Hunters, I can assure you that Heavy Bolters were a terrible weapon back then
So, an Ap4 weapon was terrible because you only played Sv3+ armies?
Who was in denial again?
The AP4 weapon was terrible when used against my armies, AND was terrible against other armies. A full Devastator squad with Heavy Bolters is probably going to get off about 8 shots, and then 6-7 wounds on a squad of Termagaunts. Two or so Flamers would've caused much more damage, AND would've been cheaper at the same time. Not only is it a heavy weapon, it's a terrible one too when you consider the other anti-swarm options in this regard, in the form of Plasma Cannons or ML's, which are more flexible at the same time.
YES Heavy Bolters were terrible back then and are terrible now. Saying otherwise promotes a special snowflake status or a L2P.
I play imperial fists, who are a little different, and heavy bolters can re-roll 1's and have tank hunters. this means they shred light vehicles, stand a reasonable chance of glancing down a rhino in one round and are slightly more accurate than your usual marines. you can also count on getting more than 1 round of shooting with them (unless death happens).
What this means for said unit of termagants Vs imperial fists, is that you will have to weather at least 2 turns of HB shooting from a Dev squad, 3 shots at BS5 re-rolling 1's and 9 shots at BS4 re-rolling 1's (which is about 10 hits from 12 shots and will probably net 17-18 casualties before cover saves over 2 rounds of shooting) and then once you have closed the distance a unit of tac marines with a flamer and combi flamer, or a bike squad with Tl bolters comes in to finish the job.
If it wasn't for the IF chapter trait i don't think i would take heavy bolters at all, and while i have been experimenting with tac squads with a HB I think the only 'good' way of using HB's is 4 in a dev squad, a dakka pred if you are trying to be cheap and still have a tough tank, and scouts who can benefit from having hellfire shells. certainly not on Centurions,or with vets
There are better weapons, certainly, but HB's have a 12 inch advantage over Plasma, will always get their 3 shots, and S5 can wound most things, even if the AP is a little weak. they can only threaten infantry and light vehicles.
Blasts might seem to be a better way to deal damage. the thunderfire has a better range, better strength, but worse AP which admittedly hardly matters against MEQ's but in my experience, will struggle to get as many hits and wounds in a round of shooting as a heavy bolter armed dev squad will. you can hide thunderfires, which is something you cant do with devs.
but if a unit of termagants gets into range after only 1 round of shooting, either i've done something wrong, or my opponent has outplayed me.
Azreal13 wrote: I wonder if making them "Rapid Fire 3" could work? It would certainly satisfy my fluff muscle.
Except, then you'd have to create the rules for Rapid Fire 3. I think Salvo 2/3 is the better option there.
But is Salvo 2/3 better or worse than Heavy 3, yes you get you full Ballistic Skill when you move, but at only 18"
Salvo 3/5 to sounds a little better.
Correct about the rapid fire 3 working, but it will be OTT.
6 shots at 18" while mobile will make heavy bolters too much of a horde wiper.
I mean, you put some HBdevs in rhinos and simply go to town on hordes with such a statline.
You guys need to remember, anything you will change about heavy bolters, will chain effect any tank in the game that has it. and many IoM tanks got it as their secondary gun.
Therefor any change should be one that affects infantry, yet not takes. hence-salvo 3/3.
Nobody said the number of shots HAS to change with salvo
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
My little group decided to try having terminators come with heavy bolters instead of stormbolters, for the same price. Its been nice to see tac terminators again and they can put out decent firepower. Would have been OP back with GK all having psibolts though.
ClassicCarraway wrote: I never understood why a heavy bolter is "heavy" but a heavy flamer (just as big model-wise) is "assault".
Make heavy bolters assault, give them two more shots, keep them at 10 points.
Or make heavy flamers heavy weapons, that makes more sense than what you suggested.
Except that Heavy Flamers fit the description of "indiscriminate", while Heavy Bolters don't.
You don't have to aim a heavy flamer. You do have to aim a Heavy Bolter.
Heavy Bolters are cumbersome and need to be braced to fire because bolt weapons have magical recoil despite their fluff explanation.
Heavy Flamers are cumbersome, but they don't need to be braced to fire, because there is no recoil and there is no aiming with such a short-ranged weapon.
On top of that, the Heavy Bolter has the range to be fired while stationary, and can be snap shotted. A Heavy Flamer that can only be fired while stationary would be useless, because you could never fire it.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
It sound intuitive, but Rapid Fire isn't actually an "X" shots weapon. Its always one shot at full range, 2 shots at half. Never more or less. You would have to write a new rule to add "X" shots to rapid fire. I'm not totally against it, but it's a very unlikely solution when Salvo exists as a way to cover the "super rapid fire" weapons.
Heavy Bolters are cumbersome and need to be braced to fire because bolt weapons have magical recoil despite their fluff explanation.
Physics miko, self-propeled mini-rockets DO have recoil.
Even falmers have SOME recoil.
Basic physics really. there is not a single recoil-free gun, just levels of recoil.
The HB shoots a fast rate of mini-rockets, the recoil should be heavy enough that shooting it on the run is difficult. enough to justify "heavy"? probably not, that's why I offer salvo. but not very easy none-the-less, and assault/RF status are not going to fit.
At the danger of turning this into a fluff discussion, I've read recently (don't remember where, but it's likely Scars, Vengeful Spirit or the second Ahriman book) that the bolts have a two stage rocket, a low power one to fire them and a second stage that kicks in once the bolt is clear of the barrel, so the recoil wouldn't necessarily be proportional with what one would expect.
You also have Astartes scale and human scale weapons, but that's not pertinent to in game use. It would however make "minimal" recoil for an Astartes weapon still be potentially enough to dislocate a mortal's shoulder.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
It sound intuitive, but Rapid Fire isn't actually an "X" shots weapon. Its always one shot at full range, 2 shots at half. Never more or less. You would have to write a new rule to add "X" shots to rapid fire. I'm not totally against it, but it's a very unlikely solution when Salvo exists as a way to cover the "super rapid fire" weapons.
There is not a rule that excludes Rapid Fire from an "x" shots facility, there just happens to not be one (which in and of itself would make this solution unlikely)
The BRB simply states that some weapons have an X after there weapon type, and this number indicates how many shots they may fire, and while you are free to choose not to fire a weapon, if you do, you must do so at full effect.
Nothing preventing a Rapid Fire X weapon, just nobody's written one.
Azreal13 wrote: At the danger of turning this into a fluff discussion, I've read recently (don't remember where, but it's likely Scars, Vengeful Spirit or the second Ahriman book) that the bolts have a two stage rocket, a low power one to fire them and a second stage that kicks in once the bolt is clear of the barrel, so the recoil wouldn't necessarily be proportional with what one would expect.
You also have Astartes scale and human scale weapons, but that's not pertinent to in game use. It would however make "minimal" recoil for an Astartes weapon still be potentially enough to dislocate a mortal's shoulder.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
It sound intuitive, but Rapid Fire isn't actually an "X" shots weapon. Its always one shot at full range, 2 shots at half. Never more or less. You would have to write a new rule to add "X" shots to rapid fire. I'm not totally against it, but it's a very unlikely solution when Salvo exists as a way to cover the "super rapid fire" weapons.
There is not a rule that excludes Rapid Fire from an "x" shots facility, there just happens to not be one (which in and of itself would make this solution unlikely)
The BRB simply states that some weapons have an X after there weapon type, and this number indicates how many shots they may fire, and while you are free to choose not to fire a weapon, if you do, you must do so at full effect.
Nothing preventing a Rapid Fire X weapon, just nobody's written one.
I don't have my rule book with me, but if that's the case, I'm fairly certain it specifically says it fires 2 shots at half range, not double shots. So, a Rapid Fire 3 weapon would fire 3 shots at above half range and only 2 shots below half.
Just make it assault 3...Marines really need a heavy weapon the can shoot out of a rhino on the move or after disembark. It would kinda make marines viable if they had a mobile heavy weapon.
Furyou Miko wrote: In what possible way is assault 3 Heavy Bolters without a Suspensor Rig fluffy?
Ah, but if anyone was going to get fancy suspensor tech, wouldn't it be Space Marines?
Back in the day, everyone had that crap, otherwise you were stationary. Heavy weapons used to actually reduce your move value in addition to being slow firing.
Azreal13 wrote: At the danger of turning this into a fluff discussion, I've read recently (don't remember where, but it's likely Scars, Vengeful Spirit or the second Ahriman book) that the bolts have a two stage rocket, a low power one to fire them and a second stage that kicks in once the bolt is clear of the barrel, so the recoil wouldn't necessarily be proportional with what one would expect.
You also have Astartes scale and human scale weapons, but that's not pertinent to in game use. It would however make "minimal" recoil for an Astartes weapon still be potentially enough to dislocate a mortal's shoulder.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
It sound intuitive, but Rapid Fire isn't actually an "X" shots weapon. Its always one shot at full range, 2 shots at half. Never more or less. You would have to write a new rule to add "X" shots to rapid fire. I'm not totally against it, but it's a very unlikely solution when Salvo exists as a way to cover the "super rapid fire" weapons.
There is not a rule that excludes Rapid Fire from an "x" shots facility, there just happens to not be one (which in and of itself would make this solution unlikely)
The BRB simply states that some weapons have an X after there weapon type, and this number indicates how many shots they may fire, and while you are free to choose not to fire a weapon, if you do, you must do so at full effect.
Nothing preventing a Rapid Fire X weapon, just nobody's written one.
I don't have my rule book with me, but if that's the case, I'm fairly certain it specifically says it fires 2 shots at half range, not double shots. So, a Rapid Fire 3 weapon would fire 3 shots at above half range and only 2 shots below half.
No, the "weapon type, X" bit specifies you fire the weapon "the number of times specified in X" or words to that effect. So a Rapid Fire 3 weapon would shoot three discreet times when fired, on each occasion once or twice depending on range (but the same on all three because it happens simultaneously.)
I've re-read the section since you raised your points, and I really can't see anything that prevents "Rapid Fire X" other than they just don't exist.
Azreal13 wrote: At the danger of turning this into a fluff discussion, I've read recently (don't remember where, but it's likely Scars, Vengeful Spirit or the second Ahriman book) that the bolts have a two stage rocket, a low power one to fire them and a second stage that kicks in once the bolt is clear of the barrel, so the recoil wouldn't necessarily be proportional with what one would expect.
You also have Astartes scale and human scale weapons, but that's not pertinent to in game use. It would however make "minimal" recoil for an Astartes weapon still be potentially enough to dislocate a mortal's shoulder.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
It sound intuitive, but Rapid Fire isn't actually an "X" shots weapon. Its always one shot at full range, 2 shots at half. Never more or less. You would have to write a new rule to add "X" shots to rapid fire. I'm not totally against it, but it's a very unlikely solution when Salvo exists as a way to cover the "super rapid fire" weapons.
There is not a rule that excludes Rapid Fire from an "x" shots facility, there just happens to not be one (which in and of itself would make this solution unlikely)
The BRB simply states that some weapons have an X after there weapon type, and this number indicates how many shots they may fire, and while you are free to choose not to fire a weapon, if you do, you must do so at full effect.
Nothing preventing a Rapid Fire X weapon, just nobody's written one.
I don't have my rule book with me, but if that's the case, I'm fairly certain it specifically says it fires 2 shots at half range, not double shots. So, a Rapid Fire 3 weapon would fire 3 shots at above half range and only 2 shots below half.
No, the "weapon type, X" bit specifies you fire the weapon "the number of times specified in X" or words to that effect. So a Rapid Fire 3 weapon would shoot three discreet times when fired, on each occasion once or twice depending on range (but the same on all three because it happens simultaneously.)
I've re-read the section since you raised your points, and I really can't see anything that prevents "Rapid Fire X" other than they just don't exist.
Like I said. I don't have the book with me. I was just going off memory. You might be right. Regardless, I don't see GW ever adopting Rapid Fire X. I believe their answer to that type of weapon is Salvo. Now, I hate salvo. There is a reason people only like it on relentless models, but GW love it.
So they could be much better for the points, but there are tricks you can do if you play certain chapters. For my Minotaurs I have a Dev Squad of five heavy bolters plus Vigilator Sergeant Hamath Kraatos. His special abilities make the unit great at destroying infantry with volume of fire with re-roles. Also, in my experience. They get ignored because there is no respect for the heavy bolter.
Furyou Miko wrote: In what possible way is assault 3 Heavy Bolters without a Suspensor Rig fluffy?
Ah, but if anyone was going to get fancy suspensor tech, wouldn't it be Space Marines?
Back in the day, everyone had that crap, otherwise you were stationary. Heavy weapons used to actually reduce your move value in addition to being slow firing.
In 3rd, rules were published for Deathwatch Kill Teams who had suspensor rigs. They fired Heavy Bolters as assault weapons, but only had an 18" range as a result.
In combat patrol a devastator marine squad with HB isn't a bad choice. That being said if you are playing any point level over 500 - 600 you would be much better off with the AC or ML.
As stated the HB just cant compete as is.
There are a few places that heavy bolters are still useful, but they aren't "tactical marines". Five sisters with a heavy bolter makes for a cheap backfield objective holder troop choice for sisters if you're not going to do flamer/heavy flamer immo push group. And retributors with Heavy Bolters are what I'd call a nasty surprise, especially if you put something with decent rate of fire on their Sister Superior; getting the rending means they have a a chance of actually doing damage (each six is a minimum glance on AV 12 since you can't roll lower than 1). Combined with a Simu, you can vastly outplay their points on TEQ or vehicles.
Similarly, any group that makes rolling more dice attractive will gain benefits from going Bolter, even if they're not super specialized like Fist/Sents. For that matter, there's a good argument for Hellfire HB Scouts if you're expecting hordes since you're going to be parking them somewhere anyway if you have sense and give them snipers and cloaks.
The other place they're useful is vehicles. For most vehicles that mount them, heavy flamers or multimeltas aren't actually good replacements-- though multimeltas come closer, especially on MEQ-BS-- unless they're twinlinked. Having 8 1 melta is lovely... until you end up missing half or more of the time. And Heavy Flamers don't tend to work great in coherence. Take the Guard-- like a Basilisk-- who wouldn't be able to even shoot the flamer if it launched a danger close barrage, even if it was Divination twin-linked. Meanwhile, if a Wyvern has LOS, and isn't moving, you can add it to the fun trivially whereas the HFs would have to wait for range. Hellhounds are usually projecting far enough away you won't have range, etc. Even with BS 4, ~67% still would make me grind teeth on a Melta and the "help save my ordinance's rear end" for danger close rule is still in effect, not to mention if you're throwing oodles of dice at flyers. Honestly, I prefer to run HB sponsons even on my paskisher; it's expensive enough without paying 10 more points for multimeltas.
In other words-- they're good for two things: cheapness, and throwing numbers out if you can't get mid-range automatics. For a heavy weapons team in the guard, or devastators who aren't Fist? Laughable.
Heavy bolters were not worth it when they were free on tactical squads. At the same points you can get a multimelta, which will stop tanks from driving in that area, or for 5pts more you can get a plasma cannon.
Heck, heavy bolters are only good on maybe a land speeder, and that's because they are free and come with it.
One advantage HBs have over blast/template weapons is unit spacing. HBs don’t care how well your opponent has spread out, they just take their 3 shots. When dropping frag missiles down range, how many guy you can actually fit under the blast, as opposed to how many you can theoretically get, is important.
Crazyterran wrote: Heavy bolters were not worth it when they were free on tactical squads. At the same points you can get a multimelta, which will stop tanks from driving in that area, or for 5pts more you can get a plasma cannon.
Heck, heavy bolters are only good on maybe a land speeder, and that's because they are free and come with it.
I don't know if a multimelta is worth it in a tac squad with the one shot honestly unless you're playing He'Stan Salamanders or Ultramarines. Especially given the movement penalty. Though I suppose against MEQ and TEQ the AP favors the multimelta anyway-- On MEQ, for example, the MM stays at 5/36th of a wound, whereas the HB drops to 1/12 from 1/4. Though there is the range issue, since your HB will have 50% more threat range, but that's more nebulous and board dependent.
That being said, I don't think any heavy weapon is worth it for a tac squad unless you intend to drop pod them onto an objective and leave them there. In my Salamanders & Skulls, they have drop pods to massage the numbers so 2 of my dreads and my command squad can drop first turn. I suppose if I had more points to fill out... well, I'd honestly add more Legionnaires and maybe some bling onto the drop pods but maybe in a 3K point game I'd fill the tacs to 10 and put a multimelta on them to objective camp. Would probably do an HB if I was playing Fists instead, though.
It's really, really hard for me to not give tac marine heavy flamers (BA) or plasma guns. All other choices seem to make a lot less sense. I don't think a melta meshes particularly well, either.
Martel732 wrote: It's really, really hard for me to not give tac marine heavy flamers (BA) or plasma guns. All other choices seem to make a lot less sense. I don't think a melta meshes particularly well, either.
5 mans with lascannon...keep the tax to a minimum. Maybe blow up a tank. I love how my super human warriors have to be taken in min squads to have a chance at winning. Fortunately for you as a BA player - your marines are some of the best in the game. Furious charge, ability to assualt turn 1, 3 flamer 10 mans. Have you used the tri storm raven formation? seems like it would be insanely good.
Martel732 wrote: It's really, really hard for me to not give tac marine heavy flamers (BA) or plasma guns. All other choices seem to make a lot less sense. I don't think a melta meshes particularly well, either.
5 mans with lascannon...keep the tax to a minimum. Maybe blow up a tank. I love how my super human warriors have to be taken in min squads to have a chance at winning. Fortunately for you as a BA player - your marines are some of the best in the game. Furious charge, ability to assualt turn 1, 3 flamer 10 mans. Have you used the tri storm raven formation? seems like it would be insanely good.
That formation has its issues. The tax for bringing it is pretty high. I'm not a huge fan on tac marines or Stormravens.
I feel that 5 man + lascannon is wasting the other four guys, such that they are. This is even more true after the AP 2 vehicle nerf.
Martel732 wrote: It's really, really hard for me to not give tac marine heavy flamers (BA) or plasma guns. All other choices seem to make a lot less sense. I don't think a melta meshes particularly well, either.
5 mans with lascannon...keep the tax to a minimum. Maybe blow up a tank. I love how my super human warriors have to be taken in min squads to have a chance at winning. Fortunately for you as a BA player - your marines are some of the best in the game. Furious charge, ability to assualt turn 1, 3 flamer 10 mans. Have you used the tri storm raven formation? seems like it would be insanely good.
That formation has its issues. The tax for bringing it is pretty high. I'm not a huge fan on tac marines or Stormravens.
I feel that 5 man + lascannon is wasting the other four guys, such that they are. This is even more true after the AP 2 vehicle nerf.
Yeah it is a waste for the other 4 guys but what else are you gonna do? The only other viable option results in having to put a 200ish point squad at 12 inches from the enemy that can't assault until the next turn? 5 man with las cannon or plasma gun at least does one thing right. It's so nonthreatening that shooting at it seems like a waste for your opponent so you can keep them on objectives getting ignored. Las cannon does this best cause it has the best chance to MAYBE kill something.
Storm ravens are actually quite good. Their biggest draw back is have to be held in reserve and being 200 points(thats a lotta points to gamble on never showing up)...rolling on turn one though - it becomes a pretty formidable threat. Granted it's a lot less threatening with TAC marines inside - at least it's an assault vehicle and you are getting furious charge for 20 str 5 int 5 attacks with frag grenades. I think I could do work with this formation but I don't see any other reason to play BA over standard SM than that.
Im all for salvo 3/5 on the heavy bolter. It will distinguish it enough from other weapons, allow heavy bolters in tacts to be viable for a mobile unit and it would even make standard razorbacks almost usable. The only problem I could foresee would be with Leman Russ and Chimeras, because they can take a lot and cheaply. Even those will still suffer from BS 3 and a slight point raise on sponsons for the Russes and Chimera turret upgrades would be more than enough to overcome the shift.
The only other thing that would make them something remotely usable would be to give them pinning (that would almost make sense, right?). This would make it a standard gun with a specific use of covering fire, plus it seems pretty fluffy and for any Dawn of War players it was always pretty awesome to see an enemy unit pinned by heavy bolters and then eaten up by your bigger firepower.
buddha wrote: I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.
2/4 salvo shred would still be marginal, because of its lack of efficacy against vehicles. Which is why the heavy bolter isn't used now. The autocannon is a TAC choice, the heavy bolter is not. It's that simple.
buddha wrote: I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.
2/4 salvo shred would still be marginal, because of its lack of efficacy against vehicles. Which is why the heavy bolter isn't used now. The autocannon is a TAC choice, the heavy bolter is not. It's that simple.
buddha wrote: I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.
2/4 salvo shred would still be marginal, because of its lack of efficacy against vehicles. Which is why the heavy bolter isn't used now. The autocannon is a TAC choice, the heavy bolter is not. It's that simple.
What about 3/5 Salvo Rending?
Sure, I guess, but that's giving it more shots than an assault cannon.
This is basically saying that there should be no dedicated ranged anti-infantry heavy weapon. That's what the HB is. Making it into a mixed anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapon is taking away the autocannon's niche.
Personally I think the weapon it itself is fine and the reason that it doesn't do too well in actual play is that a large number of players play Marines, against the main infantry of which the weapon is only marginally better than the autocannon. If half those Marine players changed overnight into Guard or Ork or Tau players, the heavy bolter would instantly become more popular.
Alcibiades wrote: This is basically saying that there should be no dedicated ranged anti-infantry heavy weapon. That's what the HB is. Making it into a mixed anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapon is taking away the autocannon's niche.
Personally I think the weapon it itself is fine and the reason that it doesn't do too well in actual play is that a large number of players play Marines, against the main infantry of which the weapon is only marginally better than the autocannon. If half those Marine players changed overnight into Guard or Ork or Tau players, the heavy bolter would instantly become more popular.
I regularly play Tau, and never take the HB. Its not enough to threaten Broadsides or Suits and Riptides, and a Heavy Flamer is better at killing Pathfinders because it ignores cover and armor. Even against Orkz, its only 3 shots. I'd rather take a ML for anti&horde.
buddha wrote: I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.
2/4 salvo shred would still be marginal, because of its lack of efficacy against vehicles. Which is why the heavy bolter isn't used now. The autocannon is a TAC choice, the heavy bolter is not. It's that simple.
What about 3/5 Salvo Rending?
Sure, I guess, but that's giving it more shots than an assault cannon.
Well gak lol you can't have it both ways.
2/4 Salvo Shred is my preference. I don't think the HB should be anti vehicle, it should be anti horde.
buddha wrote: I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.
2/4 salvo shred would still be marginal, because of its lack of efficacy against vehicles. Which is why the heavy bolter isn't used now. The autocannon is a TAC choice, the heavy bolter is not. It's that simple.
I think my thought is that heavy bolters are supposed to be great against infantry not vehicles; and currently they are awful versus infantry. My suggestion would fix that while still making distinction with anti-tank weapons like autocannons, missile launchers, and lascannons.
I don't hate the heavy bolter so much as I don't have a need for it. If I'm going to park a tactical squad on an objective (in or out of a rhino), then they might get a plasma gun (24" range doesn't completely suck) which can threaten othter transports that come near and a missile launcher, which can reach out and touch someone and/or help keep transports away. Sometimes, I just give them the missile launcher. Their point is to be cheap and sometimes useful. That's it.
A heavy bolter *can* glance a rhino, but the odds are poor. It can't touch a drop pod, a dreadnought, or any other AV12 vehicle. For hordes, a single 3-shot S5 gun isn't that much better than a bolter, and I'd rather have the missile launcher anyway for deff dreads or doubling out T4 nids (can't think of their names).
Alcibiades wrote: This is basically saying that there should be no dedicated ranged anti-infantry heavy weapon. That's what the HB is. Making it into a mixed anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapon is taking away the autocannon's niche.
Personally I think the weapon it itself is fine and the reason that it doesn't do too well in actual play is that a large number of players play Marines, against the main infantry of which the weapon is only marginally better than the autocannon. If half those Marine players changed overnight into Guard or Ork or Tau players, the heavy bolter would instantly become more popular.
I regularly play Tau, and never take the HB. Its not enough to threaten Broadsides or Suits and Riptides, and a Heavy Flamer is better at killing Pathfinders because it ignores cover and armor. Even against Orkz, its only 3 shots. I'd rather take a ML for anti&horde.
.
I said "ranged" anti-infantry weapon, which the heavy flamer is not.
More specifically, it is a ranged anti-light/medium-infantry weapon. And against Orks (or Pathfinders, or Fire Warriors, or Necron Warriors, or Guardsmen -- or for that matter anything Stealth Suits or Battle Sisters, against which it is significantly superior to the autocannon) it is definitely the best option in that role, .
Giving it Shred would make it superior at killing most MCs than the autocannon BTW. Do people want that?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Giving bolters Shred makes them do more damage to almost everything than pulse rifles do. Which means you're going to have to upgrade the pulse rifle.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK, just for the hell of it, how do HBs compare against autocannons against infantry?
Without factoring BS into things. Multilpy by 1/2 or 2/3 to get BS3 or 4.
vs. Guardsmen (or Pathfinders, or Kroot, or Fire Warriors, or Hormagaunts):
HB 5/6 x 3 = 15/6 = 2 1/2
AC 5/6 x 2 = 1 2/3
vs. Orks (or Necron Warriors, or Genestealers)
HB 2/3 x 3 = 2
AC 5/6 x 2 = 1 2/3
vs. MEQ
HB 2/3 x 1/3 = 2/9 x 3 = 2/3
AC 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 = 2 = 5/9
vs. Stealth Suits, Battle Sisters, Warp Spiders, stuff that is T3 3+.
HB 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 x 3 = 5/6
AC 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 x 2 = 5/9
Sooo... the HB is far superior against all these targets than is the AC, with the sole exception of vs. MEQ (T4 3+) against which it is only marginally superior.
Automatically Appended Next Post: and its superiority gap also narrows against T4 4+.
Martel732 wrote: I also think the assault cannons should have more shots as well. It's a *chain gun*.
That's why it has Rending.
Insufficient. Assault cannons usually come in small enough numbers that the rending doesn't matter at all.
Doesn't matter. The rate of fire is fluff justified by the rending rule instead of a higher number of shots. The Assault Cannon is a relic of a bygone age in that respect.
Martel732 wrote: I also think the assault cannons should have more shots as well. It's a *chain gun*.
That's why it has Rending.
Insufficient. Assault cannons usually come in small enough numbers that the rending doesn't matter at all.
Doesn't matter. The rate of fire is fluff justified by the rending rule instead of a higher number of shots. The Assault Cannon is a relic of a bygone age in that respect.
It absolutely matters because rending is a poor rule for a weapon that comes in sparse numbers and doesn't add that much to the weapon's capabilities.
It's irrelevant because it being a chaingun is only relevant to the fluff. As far as crunch is concerned, its just another anti-infantry gun. If you ignore the fluff reason for Rending instead of more shots, then you have to ignore the fluff that says it should have more shots.
Alcibiades wrote: This is basically saying that there should be no dedicated ranged anti-infantry heavy weapon. That's what the HB is. Making it into a mixed anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapon is taking away the autocannon's niche.
Personally I think the weapon it itself is fine and the reason that it doesn't do too well in actual play is that a large number of players play Marines, against the main infantry of which the weapon is only marginally better than the autocannon. If half those Marine players changed overnight into Guard or Ork or Tau players, the heavy bolter would instantly become more popular.
I regularly play Tau, and never take the HB. Its not enough to threaten Broadsides or Suits and Riptides, and a Heavy Flamer is better at killing Pathfinders because it ignores cover and armor. Even against Orkz, its only 3 shots. I'd rather take a ML for anti&horde.
.
I said "ranged" anti-infantry weapon, which the heavy flamer is not.
More specifically, it is a ranged anti-light/medium-infantry weapon. And against Orks (or Pathfinders, or Fire Warriors, or Necron Warriors, or Guardsmen -- or for that matter anything Stealth Suits or Battle Sisters, against which it is significantly superior to the autocannon) it is definitely the best option in that role, .
Giving it Shred would make it superior at killing most MCs than the autocannon BTW. Do people want that?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Giving bolters Shred makes them do more damage to almost everything than pulse rifles do. Which means you're going to have to upgrade the pulse rifle.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK, just for the hell of it, how do HBs compare against autocannons against infantry?
Without factoring BS into things. Multilpy by 1/2 or 2/3 to get BS3 or 4.
vs. Guardsmen (or Pathfinders, or Kroot, or Fire Warriors, or Hormagaunts):
HB 5/6 x 3 = 15/6 = 2 1/2
AC 5/6 x 2 = 1 2/3
vs. Orks (or Necron Warriors, or Genestealers)
HB 2/3 x 3 = 2
AC 5/6 x 2 = 1 2/3
vs. MEQ
HB 2/3 x 1/3 = 2/9 x 3 = 2/3
AC 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 = 2 = 5/9
vs. Stealth Suits, Battle Sisters, Warp Spiders, stuff that is T3 3+.
HB 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 x 3 = 5/6
AC 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 x 2 = 5/9
Sooo... the HB is far superior against all these targets than is the AC, with the sole exception of vs. MEQ (T4 3+) against which it is only marginally superior.
Automatically Appended Next Post: and its superiority gap also narrows against T4 4+.
Pulse rifles are superior vs vehicals and have higher range 18" rapid compared to 12" rapid is huge...need I say huge? There is no reason to suggest that a bolter being made useful would in any way justify a buff to the hands down best standard infantry weapon in the game (pulse rifles). Pulse rifles also don't need to be better at everything compared to the bolter - they will be relevent with str 5 30" for 10 points for as long as other standard weapons have less range.
