THIS FROM AN ORK! yeah i also started out playing marines before I learned better.

Anyway, I am a horde army, Heavy bolters are designed to be the bane of my existence. I actually get excited when my opponent tells me he has Heavy Bolters in his list.

This isn't a Major overhaul but I think it is necessary.


Heavy Bolter:
Range 36 S5 AP4 Heavy 4.

Any comments anyone?

The big issue is that compared to other heavy weapons available to tac or devastator marines it doesn't gel well with a lot of their special weapons with their need to stay still in order to get their full complement of shooting. This is seen with tactical marines, who are almost always on the move and for devastators they have a similar issue where 36" isn't enough range for them to be in optimal position in most games (presuming there is adequate LoS blocking terrain) and therefore need to waste a turn or two getting into position. This issue of mobility I think would be better addressed if it was a Salvo 2/3 weapon, this way the tac marines can move without having to snapfire or stay still to get the full benefit of the gun. Similarly, the devastators would have a mobility they wouldn't have if they took other heavy weapons options while still putting out a decent output of anti-infantry fire. This is of course if they make the pricing of the Heavy Bolter down to 5 points rather than an absurd 10.

I foresee massive ripple effects with Heavy 4. Think about all the problems we've had to deal with trying to fix Stormbolters.

Now turn that up to eleven for Heavy Bolters. Remember, HBs are equipped by defeault by most IG vehicles, and most Imperial vehicles in general can take a set of sponson HBs.

There's also the issue that most of the time it seems like it's not HBs in general that have issues, it's HBs carried by infantry. As a general start, I like the following changes:

HBs are now a 5 point weapon upgrade. Additionally, the Astartes and Sororitas pattern HBs are introduced, which are Marine and Sisters specific variants with the Salvo 2/3 weapon type, rather than Heavy 3.

IG can't logically carry and fire HBs as Salvo 2/3, considering it's a two-man team manning a tripod mounted, spade-grip fired heavy weapon. SM/SoB have the benefit of power armor, and while a Marine is already strong enough to lug around a HB without PA, Sisters likely have a special variant- much like their existing "Godwyn-De'az pattern" bolters- that provides a reduced-weight weapon that can be carried with ease by a power-armored Sister.

Too complicated Whiskey, to many profiles in a game that is already hard enough to remember the exact profile of your opponents weapons. Im just saying that as an Ork player I love seeing Devs and even tanks with Heavy bolters instead of Plasma cannons/Flamers.

Ghaz, how do you find the HBs perform against your Ork army on the table?

An extra shot is nice but if the main issue is mobility or overperforming ACs (to pop transports at range like Trukks), the HB is still going to get panned.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Too complicated Whiskey, to many profiles in a game that is already hard enough to remember the exact profile of your opponents weapons. Im just saying that as an Ork player I love seeing Devs and even tanks with Heavy bolters instead of Plasma cannons/Flamers.

So... you like Heavy Bolters because they're not nearly as effective against your horde-army style Orks, in comparison to blast and template weapons.

And you think that Heavy 4 is going to change that.

When it comes down to it, it's not too complicated. I can barely remember off-hand what weapon goes with what profile for most of the xeno armies in the game- I literally have to look up most every gun in the Eldar book. Tau, DE, Crons, are a little bit better, but not by much. I barely know which Ork 'special' weapons do what, and I literally know the S/AP values of maybe four Tyranid guns off the top of my head. Not even the range of RoF values, just Strength and AP.

I get around this by simply referring to reference tables constantly. It's not hard.

It's also worth noting that the main problems HBs have tend to be lumped into two main issues:

1) HBs are too expensive for what they offer
2) HBs are too inflexible for infantry that must move around.

The problem with Salvo 2/3 HBs for IG is that it's incredibly unintuitive. All of the GW-official models are a two-man, what, 60mm? base firing a fixed-position weapon. No one will believe that they can actually move around and fire with that arrangement in anything resembling a timely fashion. For Marines and Sisters, it's reasonably intuitive- it looks big and heavy, but like you could walk around shooting it to reduced effect. IE, Salvo rules.

TBH, at present a major issue for HBs is just that the meta favors so many S6/7 weapons, which themselves often have passable RoF but are taken in such numbers as to make RoF issues irrelevant. There's also all the ripple effects of Heavy 4 HBs. There are better ways to fix Heavy Bolters than just buffing their RoF.

We simply need to figure out what that way is.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Ghaz, how do you find the HBs perform against your Ork army on the table?

An extra shot is nice but if the main issue is mobility or overperforming ACs (to pop transports at range like Trukks), the HB is still going to get panned.

Generally I ignore them because they aren't effective. 3 shots 2 hits usually 2 wounds means I lose 2 orks, im not to concerned with that, throw in the double sponson and im sitting with 4 dead orks, thats factoring in 0 FNP and 0 Cover, I usually have one of those in my boyz squads. So its not important to me. Thats why a Xenos player thinks they need a buff.

Heavy Bolter isn't great vs Boyz, since you're paying to get AP4. Ideally you go after tougher targets like Nobs with the 4+ armour upgrade to make back your points.

yeah but yoyoyo my 4+ Nobz are always in a vehicle unless they just won an assault and got caught in the open. otherwise they are in CC, in the trukk or in some kind of cover to givem that 5+ cover and FNP

i vote for 5pts hb. I would deploy do many havoc squads with 4 hb. hb can hurt wave serpents right?

Arguably heavy 4 isn't enough still, maybe heavy 5 to really take it into it's own realm. Or Heavy 4 pinning, to slow down what you are shooting at also potentially.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Arguably heavy 4 isn't enough still, maybe heavy 5 to really take it into it's own realm. Or Heavy 4 pinning, to slow down what you are shooting at also potentially.

THAT! is a good thought!

Heavy 4 pinning, arguably even heavy 3 pinning would be ok, it would slow the hordes down to give you more chances to fire, keep the same point cost or add 1-2 pts if they make it heavy 4 pinning. Good thinking.

I'd say heavy shots plus pinning with no price increase still, or heavy 5. So many units can gain fearless one way or another that at points it could be useless and this, the standard heav bolter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also make multi-heavy bolter squads/vehicles not ideal still as they only need 1 to pin the enemy.

but to have it would MAKE units take the feareless upgarde costing them poinst

Considering Sniper and Barrage both lost pinning, I'm curious about the logic why.

Machine guns usually do a good job of pinning units down in real life conflicts, it's one of their main jobs along with actually killing. Heavy bolster is a machine gun, and whilst it can be argued that other weapons should also get this fluff wise blah blah blah, it would just give the humble heavy bolster something different and provide another option as to why it could or should be used. There's no real reason why a power axe is AP2 and a power sword isn't other than to give it a different in game mechanic, and this would be the same sort of thing.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Machine guns usually do a good job of pinning units down in real life conflicts, it's one of their main jobs along with actually killing. Heavy bolster is a machine gun, and whilst it can be argued that other weapons should also get this fluff wise blah blah blah, it would just give the humble heavy bolster something different and provide another option as to why it could or should be used. There's no real reason why a power axe is AP2 and a power sword isn't other than to give it a different in game mechanic, and this would be the same sort of thing.

Traditionally Axes were able to pierce armor more so then a sword because in battle you don't lunge with a sword as much as swing it and an axe can put more force behind a swing then a sword. The reason that Axes weren't as prevalent was that they took a bit of recovery time which usually ended with the bearer getting stabbed in the neck.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Machine guns usually do a good job of pinning units down in real life conflicts, it's one of their main jobs along with actually killing. Heavy bolster is a machine gun, and whilst it can be argued that other weapons should also get this fluff wise blah blah blah, it would just give the humble heavy bolster something different and provide another option as to why it could or should be used. There's no real reason why a power axe is AP2 and a power sword isn't other than to give it a different in game mechanic, and this would be the same sort of thing.

In all seriousness, an would generally be better at penetrating armor. Swords are generally designed for slashing and stabbing, neither of wish carry a tremendous amount of force behind them. A sword cuts you in half because it's actually cutting you as it slides across you, it needs very little force if it's sharp to cut you. An axe, on the other hand, is all about hacking. Not as versatile, but carries more force behind the swing and it all goes directly into the point the blade hits. Still works even if the blade is relatively dull compared to the sword.

I do think it's a bit silly that some machine guns get pinning (tau carbine) where others that fire more shots don't though.

EDIT: Beat me to it!

Riddle me this one batman, Tau Carbine .....A Carbine is a cross between a Rifle and a Pistol so how the hell do they have such firepower/pinning?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Riddle me this one batman, Tau Carbine .....A Carbine is a cross between a Rifle and a Pistol so how the hell do they have such firepower/pinning?

Tau is how

And to be fair, there are carbines that fire rifle rounds and just have a shortened barrel, and you could also consider that if the tau carbine is a smaller caliber it'd have a potentially higher rate of fire (easier to suppress an opponent).

And then you realize that all tau weapons fire plasma burst things and it just messes with all pre-conceived notions of how firearms work....

Okay, bad example with the axes, but there are other examples in the game where some weapons have a special rule for the sake of a mechanic without giving the same to similar weapons. Heavy 4 and pinning, could make them viable.

Pinning is a possibility but from a design standpoint it's not going to be so fun dealing with pinning spam, right? Heavy Bolters are ubiquitous.

I think effectiveness is just a matter of getting the costing in line and aligning everything with internal Codex balance. Example for HWT, they compete against the Wyvern for supplying anti-infantry. At 65pts you get 1x HB and 2x Mortars w/permanent IC and Shred for 65pts. Also, Autocannons are a little underpriced given their utility against vehicles. So poor internal balance under the current codex, is also one reason HB isn't so attractive.

Here's a rebalance for AM HWTs against the Wyvern. **Draft version.** I haven't looked at cross-codex balance or the numbers yet!

-- Wyvern increased to 75pts. Weapons profile includes:
----- 2x S4 AP6 3" Blast, 48", Ignore Cover, Shred.
----- 3x S5 AP4, 36"

-- HWT - Mortar reduced to 3pts, now has Ignore Cover. Combined Squad is 53pts, 3x Mortar Teams are 54pts.
----- Complete Platoon w/PCS = 190pts (5x S4 AP6, 3" Blast, 48", Ignore Cover)

-- HWT - Heavy Bolter upgrade reduced to 3pts. Combined Squad is 53pts, 3x Heavy Bolter Teams are 54pts.
----- Complete Platoon w/PCS = 190pts (15x S5 AP4, 36")

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Riddle me this one batman, Tau Carbine .....A Carbine is a cross between a Rifle and a Pistol so how the hell do they have such firepower/pinning?

I thought pinning came from the fact that it had underslung photon grenade launcher (fluff-wise per its description in the codex) so it caused pinning via that rather than weight of fire.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Riddle me this one batman, Tau Carbine .....A Carbine is a cross between a Rifle and a Pistol so how the hell do they have such firepower/pinning?

I thought pinning came from the fact that it had underslung photon grenade launcher (fluff-wise per its description in the codex) so it caused pinning via that rather than weight of fire.

Didn't know that was the reasoning. But even then, you're trying to say that a laser light show is going to make my marines throw themselves helplessly to the ground? Yet wimpy tau are just going to stand there and laugh while heavy bolters drop a couple hundred shells on them, with no fear whatsoever of the imminent liquification of their entire upper body?

 kingbobbito wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Riddle me this one batman, Tau Carbine .....A Carbine is a cross between a Rifle and a Pistol so how the hell do they have such firepower/pinning?

I thought pinning came from the fact that it had underslung photon grenade launcher (fluff-wise per its description in the codex) so it caused pinning via that rather than weight of fire.

Didn't know that was the reasoning. But even then, you're trying to say that a laser light show is going to make my marines throw themselves helplessly to the ground? Yet wimpy tau are just going to stand there and laugh while heavy bolters drop a couple hundred shells on them, with no fear whatsoever of the imminent liquification of their entire upper body?

You can say it about every ranged weapon...

...
...
Let's give all weapons pinning!

 koooaei wrote:
You can say it about every ranged weapon...

...
...
Let's give all weapons pinning!

Eh, not exactly. The slower something fires, and the more often it needs to be reloaded, allowed to cool, etc. the less likely it is to force your opponent to hold their position. If you're firing a bunch of rifles at them and take a few seconds to reload, they'll pop their heads out and shoot back, or charge you. The idea of suppression is that there's a near continuous stream of bullets coming at your squad, meaning you're too nervous to peek your head out to shoot back, let alone charge them. What provides a better endless stream of bullets than a gun that literally has a backpack full of ammo feeding into it?

So no, none of the base weapons should get it. Only things that can be described as bottomless leadbelchers. Maybe give it to things like Lootas if they roll for max firepower?

Heavy Bolters are fine IMO. Out of the suggestions listed here, I think I'm with the guy who said reduce them to simply reduce them to 5 points a model.

They aren't what's supposed to counter your horde Ork army. They are more to chew up T3 infantry, of which they do an extremely good job.

Adding more shots would have huge ripple effects, biggest of which is for Dark Angels of all armies. One of the better long-range rate-of-fire spamming squads in the game is double heavy bolter 5-speeder deep Ravenwing squads. If they were heavy 4 (or heavy 5 like some people suggested), I'd have 40 (or 50) S5 AP4 BS4 shots from 36" on a highly mobile platform for 300 points. As a Dark Angels player this would make me happy, but I doubt many other people would share my happiness.

And the ease I could twin-link all of that with psykers. Ho boy. That'd be a lot of fun.

 kingbobbito wrote:
The idea of suppression is that there's a near continuous stream of bullets coming at your squad, meaning you're too nervous to peek your head out to shoot back, let alone charge them.

So, how do you imagine this?

A squad of firewarriors stands cool watching how 9 bolter marines rain them with bolt fire. And than, suddenly: "OH NOEZ! A heavy bolter!" and they must pass pinning.

I'd say that irl almost any ranged weapon causes pinning

 koooaei wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
The idea of suppression is that there's a near continuous stream of bullets coming at your squad, meaning you're too nervous to peek your head out to shoot back, let alone charge them.

So, how do you imagine this?

A squad of firewarriors stands cool watching how 9 bolter marines rain them with bolt fire. And than, suddenly: "OH NOEZ! A heavy bolter!" and they must pass pinning.

I'd say that irl almost any ranged weapon causes pinning

Actually, I would like to watch some fire warriors say "OH NOEZ!" and fall to the ground

It's all about perspective really. 9 bolters are firing single shots or small bursts, and all intermittent. A guy pops up here, takes a few shots, a guy pops up there, takes a few shots... unless you're in their face they're spitting a handful of bullets at you. Then big papa bolter stands up and goes dakka dakka dakka, firing on his own as many bullets as the 9 other guys combined... I think some tau pants just got a little wet.

Yes, the rules say it's only "three shots" vs a marine's one, but that's after you account for the fact that it's wildly inaccurate compared to a standard bolter.

Makes sense, doesn't it? Ah well, I can at least have my heavy bolter fantasies where marines are actually cool.

In all seriousness, I'd be happy with a points drop if that was only option.

if hb was 5pts, does that make the quad bolter 20pts? is tl hb 10pts?

my army list would be

sorc+2×10 cultists for 160pts
3x5 havocs with 4 hb for 285pts

and then i would spam some lascannons in other slots.

if predators can be squadrons then i would spam 85pts preds with hb side sponsons.

if quad bolters on rapier batteries were 25pts instead of 45pts then i would spam them. ( i could be wrong on pts)

if hb was 5pts then i would spam for malefic ammo to rend!

And once again about high rate of fire => pinning. Heavy bolters are ~the same rof like big shootas, shuricannons, heavy stubbers. Basically, any weapon with 3 or more shots has high RoF.

It's gona be easier to create a special rule called Not Pinning.

Doesn't ATSKNF make you immune to pinning anyway?

Heavy Bolters saw a lot of use in Sisters armies when they were 5 ppm, but only on Retributors, where they could gain Rending. Nobody else could afford to sacrifice their mobility for them.

So maybe heavy bolters could be fixed with an upgrade available to power armoured models that gives them Relentless but reduces their weapons' range by 6"? Call it Suspensors, maybe.

Another idea drawing from rules already in the 40k universe:

Some sort of upgrade to Shrapnel Rounds as used by the Iron Warriors in HH rules. Basically drops the AP to 5, but gives them rending.

I would be fine with any army spamming heavy bolters on vehicles, specifically the DA player who said he would bring enough speeders for 40-50 Heavy bolter shots.

Land speeder runs into Lootas in a Battlewagon. Lootas fire 10-30 S7 shots and poof no more speeder, rinse and repeat. :-p

They are super overpriced as sponsons on the LRBT and friends.

20pts for 2x Heavy Bolters, especially when your main gun is often ordnance? Price them at 5pts, along with the Heavy Flamer, and you might start seeing a lot more of them.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Riddle me this one batman, Tau Carbine .....A Carbine is a cross between a Rifle and a Pistol so how the hell do they have such firepower/pinning?

Fluff-wise, the Tau Pulse Carbine has an underslung grenade launcher that fires photon grenades. Apparently the amazing light show from said photon grenades makes people curl up/go blind/stare at the pretty lights.

Realistically speaking, it's entirely possible that photon grenades are primarily optical-spectrum, but also include some kind of concussion effect as well. Neither will be particularly dangerous to a Space Marine in PA, of course. But it's probably enough to slow down the Marines by, optimistically speaking, about 10 seconds.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Doesn't ATSKNF make you immune to pinning anyway?

Heavy Bolters saw a lot of use in Sisters armies when they were 5 ppm, but only on Retributors, where they could gain Rending. Nobody else could afford to sacrifice their mobility for them.

So maybe heavy bolters could be fixed with an upgrade available to power armoured models that gives them Relentless but reduces their weapons' range by 6"? Call it Suspensors, maybe.

I don't know offhand if ATSKNF confers immunity to pinning. Might have to look that up. In any case, I'd say that PA-equipped models should actually get Salvo HBs, rather than Relentless with 30" range instead of 36". IMO it much more cleanly interfaces with the rules, and introduces less extra stuff.

So, I'd say that the following changes would be good:

Heavy Bolter:
36" Salvo 2/3 S5 AP4 [PA-equipped models, IE Marines/Sisters]
36" Heavy 3 S5 AP4 [IG variant]

All Heavy Bolters are 5 points per weapon, so HB sponsons on a Russ/Pred would now cost 10 points (2x HB @5pts each).

For those curious about why the Guard gets stuck with Heavy 3 HBs, it's because it requires two Guardsmen and a tripod to deploy a HB. In contrast, a single Marine/Sister can carry and fire a HB- and Marines don't even need power armor!

Giving AM less mobile but cheaper Heavy Bolters fits with the faction's character, which is a nice touch. Salvo on the expensive manuever units (BSS and Tac squads), Heavy on the cheaper but fragile fire support units (AM HWTs).

Whiskey144 wrote:
All Heavy Bolters are 5 points per weapon, so HB sponsons on a Russ/Pred would now cost 10 points (2x HB @5pts each).

One thing to note. On a Demolisher or LRBT, the HB sponsons and Ordnance main cannon work against each other, so you get far less effectiveness for your points spent. How many points are worth sacrificing for 1x S5 AP4 hit? In the first case, 5pts is about right, it ends up being about as effective as a pintle mount.

Meanwhile, Punisher Pask gets 6x shots at BS4, Rerollable, reroll AV penetration, at the same strength. That's a steal at 20pts, much less 10pts!

That's the problem with universal pricing -- it's still not universal value.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Doesn't ATSKNF make you immune to pinning anyway?

Just looked it up. ATSKNF doesn't have any play into Pinning.

Pinning is an effective mechanic vs. marines in general. Forcing them to go to ground when they're likely better off using their armor saves is beneficial.

Make the HB a 36" S5 AP4 Salvo 3/4 weapon. Then change Guard heavy weapon teams into pocket artillery- T5 2 wound model with a "weapon setup rule" that it may only fire snapshots on the turn it moves.

...How is a Punisher w/ Pask getting re-rolls on the HBs? After all, HB sponsons are two separate weapons, not a single twin-linked mount (which would be dumb anyways, given the how the mounts are designed).

Unless that's factoring in Prescience? In which case, it's going to be incredible difficult to balance anything if we're considering just how far you could combo something.

It's also worth noting that, IMO, Ordnance Russes mostly just got shafted by the change of the Leman Russ to "Heavy". I'm not sure what could be done about LR Demolishers, but the LRBT could be given additional non-Ordnance profiles for its Battle Cannon (at an appropriate price, naturally), which would better represent the great versatility of not only the basic Russ but also the Battle Cannon.

In any case, I don't think that a Salvo 2/3 HB is worth 10 points anyways. It's also worth pointing out that IG HB teams are terrible anyways, since it's pretty easy to bring a few tanks to get some HBs into your list.

Pask has Preferred Enemy as a Warlord trait, so rerolling 1's only. Not exactly like TL, the point is simply the platform affects the weapon.

I do think rebalancing the LR family is worthwhile, alongside the HWTs and undercosted Wyvern. I'm saving up the big points to hit for a compiled cross-codex "balance patch".

I just want heavy bolters to be Salvo 3/5 like grav cannons, which makes them competitive again.

Increase the points up to 20 like a lazcannon and your golden.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Pask has Preferred Enemy as a Warlord trait, so rerolling 1's only. Not exactly like TL, the point is simply the platform affects the weapon.

I do think rebalancing the LR family is worthwhile, alongside the HWTs and undercosted Wyvern. I'm saving up the big points to hit for a compiled cross-codex "balance patch".

I forgot that Pask got PE. Still, I do think that the ubiquity of the HB does require a bit of "universalizing" the costing, since it's on so many things that don't really change how the weapon works; Pask seems a bit like an outlier. Not only that, but BS4 pseudo-PE is available to Codex:SM using Imperial Fists chapter tactics, not to mention Sentinels of Terra getting twin-link bolt weapons at half range. I don't think any of those things would really change the cost of the HB, so I don't really see why Pask would.

Also, with regards to LR viability, I'm personally hoping that GW will eventually allow coaxial weapons on the LRBT and the Vanquisher. The LRBT would mostly be for flavor, truthfully- though the novel Gunheads describes the LRBT as having a coaxial autocannon, so.... The Vanquisher with a coax gun would be markedly better, IMO- particularly considering that even a 36" gun would have a hard time being out of range on a typical 6x4' table.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
I just want heavy bolters to be Salvo 3/5 like grav cannons, which makes them competitive again.

Increase the points up to 20 like a lazcannon and your golden.

HBs being Salvo 3/5 doesn't help them though. Part of the problem is that the issue with HBs is that they don't actually have very much to shoot at that they're really good at killing. The other half is that because of how ubiquitous it is something like "Salvo 3/5" could have unimaginably bad ripple effects.

It also still wouldn't be worth 20 points, and TBH I question if a Lascannon is even worth twenty points in the first place, considering the current mechanics. I can definitely see a Lascannon being worth 20 points, if vehicle damage mechanics changed and guns like the Lascannon (IE, S8+/AP2-) became incredibly important for killing said vehicles. But a HB, even at Salvo 3/5, wouldn't be worth 20 points.

Well, if you ever want to see it on a HWT or LRBT, you want to price them as low as possible. Pask is the exception, where his rules and the Gatling main gun give the HB a lot of synergy it otherwise wouldn't have.

I think 3x S5 AP4 is fine, and Salvo is helpful for the AS/SM squads. Costing is what's worthwhile to look at because it kills the HB as a choice -- the HB is not supposed to be a premier weapon, just a solid ubiquitous one.

Cheap, solid, and ubiquitous; so does that mean I can have double the amount of heavy bolters per tactical squad, or that I can double my number of tactical squads by switching to heavy bolters?

Like, say I have five tactical squads, each with a single multi melta or a plasma cannon. If I switch them all to the solid, ubiquitous heavy bolter, does that allow me to have five squads with ten heavy bolters? Does it give me enough points to field ten tactical squads?

No, just like thirty points? And all I get are 15 strength five shots?

Maybe I'll convert just one squad to heavy bolter, for five points. Maybe I can use them to buy one of my sergeants an auspex.

No, it means you could save 25 points, and then shoot 15x S5 AP4 shots at GEQ infantry rather than 5x S8 AP1 Melta shots at tanks. Matching weapons to their target is a good idea.

A more constructive post, might have asked why you can't also take them in the Special Weapons slot on a Tac/BSS squad.

The idea behind calling the HB "ubiquitous" is more to say that almost every Imperial (and many Chaos Marine) unit can, in some way, be equipped with a Heavy Bolter. This is why I dislike anything that changes the RoF of the HB to something like Heavy 4 or Salvo 3/4- that extra shot doesn't seem like much, but it likely has huge (and unintended) consequences due to the substantial increase in volume of fire that that could provide.

Pinning I'm less leery of, if only because it doesn't seem that "all the pinning" is particularly gamebreaking, going by the sheer variety of Eldar weapons with Pinning on them .

Now, as to the distinction between "special" and "heavy" weapons, I think a good way to think of the difference is as follows:

Special weapons can be carried as a rifle-equivalent; only one infantryman is necessary to carry all of the relevant equipment for the weapon to be effectively deployed. Moreover, the weapon does not require any special equipment or requirement to be braced in order to fire at maximum effectiveness.

In contrast, a heavy weapon requires some combination of multiple infantrymen to effectively deploy, and/or a need to be braced, or use specialized equipment to accomplish a similar effect, in order to fire at maximum effectiveness.

As an example, most special weapons are not that much bigger than the "service rifles" carried by a given faction. Heavy weapons, OTOH, are often large, bulky, and sometimes deployed by a multi-person team or on a separate platform of some kind.

Whiskey144 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Riddle me this one batman, Tau Carbine .....A Carbine is a cross between a Rifle and a Pistol so how the hell do they have such firepower/pinning?

Fluff-wise, the Tau Pulse Carbine has an underslung grenade launcher that fires photon grenades. Apparently the amazing light show from said photon grenades makes people curl up/go blind/stare at the pretty lights.

Ahhh basically a flash bang grenade then. wouldn't really provide pinning in real life but ok thats at least something.

I remember we were doing MOUT town training (urban warfare) and we were clearing a building and threw a Flash bang into a room.....the Coyotes (fake enemies) had tied a "civilian" to a chain in that specific room and the poor bastard got hit with 2 flash bangs. He was sitting, tied to his chair, crying and mewing rocking back and forth. Ahhh memories.

S5 heavy weapons with no special rules just aren't competitive in general. It kind of doesn't matter how many shots you give them. S5 weapons on every troop, on the other hand, is fantastic.

Martel732 wrote:
S5 heavy weapons with no special rules just aren't competitive in general. It kind of doesn't matter how many shots you give them.

Effectiveness aside, it's of the reasons to look at the costing. Right now, Heavy Bolters are the same price as an AC on a older unit like a HWT. On a more recent unit like the Fire Raptor, they are essentially costed at 2:1 (turret HB shots are doubled).

More a sign of codex neglect than anything else IMO. You see the same problems with the Wyvern versus the mortar HWT. The older units aren't costed competitively, or they're lacking special rules (IC, Shred in this case) which allow them to keep up.

wouldnt be to hard to invent some fluff about how they found a new STC for HB's that give it a special rule.

The problem with increasing the HB's RoF to 5 is that it will then outshine the Autocannon vs. most MCs and be better or almost the same vs. light vehicles.

.Vs. Carnifex

1/3 x 1//3 = 1/9 x 5 = 5/9

2/3 x 1/3 = 2/9 x 2 = 4/9

Vs. Rhino

1/6 x 5 = 5/6

1/2 x 2 = 1

Vs. Raider

1/3 x 5 = 1 2/3

2/3 x 2 = 1 1/3

Thus, since the Lascannon is superior against AV13+ and T7+, the autocannon will become a niche weapon against AV12. A very niche weapon.

The way that the game mechanics work do not give much leeway for adjusting the HBs' stats.

I said ROF to 4 not 5 :-P but meh, the biggest problem I see to upgrading the HB is that it will start stepping on the assault cannons niche.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I said ROF to 4 not 5 :-P but meh, the biggest problem I see to upgrading the HB is that it will start stepping on the assault cannons niche.

The assault cannon has a non-niche in my view. It's another poor heavy weapon, so it's not benchmark either. That being said, I don't see a good change without changing off the D6 system.

Going to a 3+ save for vehicle armour would be interesting. S6/S7 lose 67% of their effectiveness against AV. In response, players need more S8 AP3+ to compensate. And these weapons being low RoF, aren't nearly so dangerous to infantry.

Original idea was posted in the Land Raider thread as a house rule. Honestly I think it's a great idea.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Going to a 3+ save for vehicle armour would be interesting. S6/S7 lose 67% of their effectiveness against AV. In response, players need more S8 AP3+ to compensate. And these weapons being low RoF, aren't nearly so dangerous to infantry.

Original idea was posted in the Land Raider thread as a house rule. Honestly I think it's a great idea.

But the heavy bolter is still hosed, because it can't wound MCs like S6/7 can.

I kind of get the feeling that people think that if a heavy weapon (or any weapon) doesn't lead to units being removed in one blow that it is bad.(I blame Ion Accelerators! )

The HB (and Assault Cannon) are meant to supplement the basic firepower of the squad, not wipe out things on their lonesome.

Alcibiades wrote:
I kind of get the feeling that people think that if a heavy weapon (or any weapon) doesn't lead to units being removed in one blow that it is bad.(I blame Ion Accelerators! )

The HB (and Assault Cannon) are meant to supplement the basic firepower of the squad, not wipe out things on their lonesome.

They aren't supplementing, because so many units are immune to or nigh-immune to bolters. They are doing all the heavy lifting.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
wouldnt be to hard to invent some fluff about how they found a new STC for HB's that give it a special rule.

This is true. After all, there's all sorts of spiffy ammo or special army-wide rules for Heavy Bolters in Horus Heresy gameplay.

Maybe its just because I lack other options, but my heavy bolters have been some of the most effective weapons my Sisters have against Necrons... heavy flamers are better, but the heavy bolter outranges the 'crons at least.

Reduce HB to 5pts only if the shooter is in Power Armor. The other 5pts was for the mount/stand for the guardsmen to shoot it.

Why power armor only?

Allow squads and dedicated transports to overwatch their heavy bolters once a turn against ranged attacks. lets call it "return fire"

Squads and dedicated transports with Heavy bolters allows you to hit on fives during overwatch. Would give troops and their dedicated transport more synergy lets call it "tracer fire"

Well I think that if there were fewer Marines armies in the meta that HBs would be much more popular.

They're quite effective against Necrons BTW.

 koooaei wrote:
Why power armor only?

Because the piece of metal to stand the hb on the ground or on a vehicle costs 5pts.

Except the idea that you're "paying for the piece of metal to stand the Heavy Bolter on the ground" is slowed.

Heavy Bolters at 10 points are, for IG, competing with Autocannons that are pretty much infinitely better. For the same price you can easily squeeze in enough S7/48" range shooting to murder most things from across the board, while still retaining a good chunk of anti-infantry fire.

And if you're just really worried about anti-infantry, then throw a Wyvern or two into your list. That will mince infantry to pieces with ease, and much more efficiently, than a bunch of 10-point HBs.

A 5-point HB, however, competes with the Mortar. Both do the same job, but do it in sufficiently different ways as to be a choice of either tactical/strategic preference or even aesthetic preference. A Mortar offers an overall poorer-quality blast template, but it's also a barrage weapon so you can keep your squishy HWTs safely concealed from direct-fire weapons. HBs offer superior overall killing potential, thanks to better S/AP values, trading a little bit of range.

I'd argue that Heavy 3 is about comparable to a Heavy 1 3" Blast, due to the fact that spacing is a huge issue for the small blast templates.

The whole point of me proposing 5pts hb for power armor only is to side step IG and hwt comparison.

Because the AC is better, there is a higher demand for ac not hb so there is a surplus of hb lying around. They took all the tripod stands and vehicle mounts for the hb and jury rigged it for ac. The construction of that metal stand is lost to the dark ages and not easily mass produced. Therefore the hb tripod/ vehicle mounts that are specifically calibrated for hb cost a mind bending 5pts.

Orks on the other hand can jury rig heavy dakka on to any crude tripod and vehicle without any cost as scraps of metal is suplerflous .

.......You do realize, of course, that you've just demonstrated the stupidity of "5pt HBs for PA-armies only" far better than I ever could, right?

I mean, there's simply no logical way that you actually believe what you've typed and therefore must be, in fact, trolling the piss out of everyone else in the thread.

Because the alternative is simply too ridiculous and stupid to bear consideration.

Oh, by the way, just in case you're serious, the whole "AC is better than HB, but both should still cost the same" is idiotic.

I think salvo 2/3 or 2/4 would make them much more viable.

Whiskey144 wrote:
.......You do realize, of course, that you've just demonstrated the stupidity of "5pt HBs for PA-armies only" far better than I ever could, right?

I mean, there's simply no logical way that you actually believe what you've typed and therefore must be, in fact, trolling the piss out of everyone else in the thread.

Because the alternative is simply too ridiculous and stupid to bear consideration.

Oh, by the way, just in case you're serious, the whole "AC is better than HB, but both should still cost the same" is idiotic.

lolz!

 More Dakka wrote:
I think salvo 2/3 or 2/4 would make them much more viable.

Still wouldn't use it. S5 is just too poor on a heavy slot.

Whiskey144 wrote:

Filch wrote:

Whiskey144 wrote:

Filch wrote:
Because the piece of metal to stand the hb on the ground or on a vehicle costs 5pts.

XD

We are fish eating smaller fish eating smaller fish.

Come on, its basic WH40k economics!

Stuff that are over powered are undercosted and stuff that suck are over costed. Case in point at all the worthless stuff in CSM being over costed while a WS has a devastating offense for just 10pts.

A freaking Necron warrior is much better than a CSM and cost less! It can glance an av14 vehicle. Has fnp rp. Has nearly the same stat line.

The same spawns from RH cost 40pts less! CSM has 3 spawns for 90pts while RH has 3 spawns for 55pts! The price for the same things are not equivalent. Pricing is so inconsistent its like a stock market of randomness.

in wh40k, you can charge through walls, a ws can jink while imobolized, invisible are immune to template and blast. YOu have unlimited vertical movement. etcc... so much non sense!

so it would only make sense that a piece of metal cost 5pts while the orks can jury rig any and everything for free.

Flawless logic IMO. I'm convinced

Actually, you can't jink while immobilised any more.

 Filch wrote:
so it would only make sense that a piece of metal cost 5pts while the orks can jury rig any and everything for free.

Except that Orks don't get Heavy Bolters or Autocannons. In fact, a squad of CSM, Chosen, or Havocs all pay 10 points for either a HB or an AC. Just like the IG. So why should only the Chaos Marines get the benefit of having HBs that are cheaper than Autocannons? Especially when you consider that the IG have to take HWTs, which actually take two guns off the field, instead of just one, like any variety of PA-equipped heavy weapon carrier.

The argument that "only PA armies should get 5 point HBs for infantry" is stupid, because every unit in the game is paying too much for a Heavy Bolter. For most of the PA-equipped armies, there's either a better choice for the cost, given the current meta, or there's simply not another option. In the former, the better-for-cost option is taken. In the case of the latter, the option will simply not be used. Granted, for PA-armies part of the problem of HBs is that it tends to kill the squad's mobility, which sucks immeasurably. HBs are even one of the few weapons which would make a good Salvo-type weapon. But for IG- and to a lesser extent CSM- the "HB problem" is that it costs just as much as an AC but is only better in such niche conditions (meta wise) as to be considered relatively useless.

It's rare for a vehicle to come along and actually be paying 20 points for 2 HB sponsons and actually be cost-efficient. Mostly it involves specific combinations (like IG Leman Russ+Pask); for a SM/CSM tank, like, say, a Predator, 10 points per sponson HB is ridiculously overpriced. Of course, Predators have their own issues which are separate from HB problems, but let's stay on topic.

In any case, HBs aren't worth 10 points. If you could get them for 5 points, and certain armies could even get a Salvo variation (mostly Marines/Sisters, who need the mobile firepower a lot more than the Guard), then they would be pretty good from an objective standpoint. They'd still suffer in the current meta of "S6/7 above all", but that's a meta issue, and not a HB issue.

Personally I agree with Filch.

But if we are being serious, here's the effectiveness of the two side by side. Assume all hits, no saves. Heavy Bolter is on top.

Against T3
-- 3x(5/6) = 15/6 (2.5)
-- 2x(5/6) = 10/6 (1.67)

Against T4
-- 3x(2/3) = 6/3 (2.0)
-- 2x(5/6) = 10/6 (1.67)

Against T5
-- 3x(1/2) = 3/2 (1.5)
-- 2x(5/6) = 10/6 (1.67)

Against T6 or AV10
-- 3x(1/3) = 3/3 (1.0)
-- 2x(2/3) = 4/3 (1.33)

Against T7 or AV11
-- 3x(1/6) = 3/6 (0.5)
-- 2x(1/2) = 2/2 (1.0)

Against T8 only -- HB cannot glance AV12!!!
-- 3x(1/6) = 3/6 (0.5)
-- 2x(1/3) = 2/3 (0.67)

What you should notice: the Heavy Bolter is an anti-infantry weapon! Even against bikes at T5, it's less useful. So be judicious in it's application. Lessons learned -- only shoot them at T3 and T4 targets!

I'd like to point out that I fully acknowledged that HBs are anti-infantry weapons, and that even at 5 points people wouldn't take them due to the meta, not because HBs are objectively bad.

HBs at 5 points are a good buy. HBs at 10 points are not. Here's a comparison in terms of role/cost:

Mortar: dedicated anti-infantry weapon. Costs 5 points.
HB: dedicated anti-infantry weapon. Costs 10 points.
AC: multirole anti-light armor/anti-MC weapon. Costs 10 points.
ML: multirole weapon; costs 15 points; costs 25 points with anti-flyer ammo upgrade.
LC: dedicated anti-armor weapon; costs 20 points.

So we see some interesting things here- multirole weapons (like MLs) tend to cost more- a ML costs 5 points more than an AC, but gets to engage a wider variety of land-bound targets. You can take Flakk (which is still overpriced), which makes it 5 points more expensive than the lascannon, but can shoot at most anything in the game and have a passable chance of doing something.

Mortars, a dedicated anti-infantry weapon, cost 5 points. Compared to a HB they have poorer S/AP/RoF values, but make up for it with improved range, as well as the Blast and Barrage traits. IMO the increased S/AP/RoF of the HB is a fair trade in comparison with the better range/Blast/Barrage traits of the Mortar.

Either that, or Autocannons should cost 15 points, because of their multipurpose nature.

To sort of drive the point home, the AC can engage with passable results anything that a HB can. They cost the same amount of points. The AC has superior range and Strength, increasing its potential target profile.

If I absolutely, positively must kill every T3 infantry model on the board, then the better choice is generally going to be something like a Wyvern or Hellhound. Not mass HBs.

Whiskey144 wrote:
If I absolutely, positively must kill every T3 infantry model on the board, then the better choice is generally going to be something like a Wyvern or Hellhound. Not mass HBs.

Yup. For what it's worth, I think the Wyvern is quite undercosted.

Salvo 2/3.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Whiskey144 wrote:
If I absolutely, positively must kill every T3 infantry model on the board, then the better choice is generally going to be something like a Wyvern or Hellhound. Not mass HBs.

Yup. For what it's worth, I think the Wyvern is quite undercosted.

Well, see that's the thing. It's not just that I'd pick a Wyvern over a bunch of HBs for murdering T3 infantry. It's that there are simply so many other things that are either better at the job or are more versatile. Valkyries with MRPs, Hellhounds, Manticores, Basilisks, any of the 5" blast Russes, the LR Punisher, or the LR Exterminator.

Mass HBs are really only "awesome" when considering the Quad HB on the Rapier carriages, since it's Heavy 6 and Twin-Linked, on top of being on a T7/3+ artillery carriage. And even then, the biggest part of that "awesome" is the gun carriage itself, because of just how impressively durable that T7/3+ can be.

The unfortunate thing is that it's unlikely to really change even if HBs are 5 points, simply because there's just so many things that can bring the hate on massed T3 infantry models. Even in SM armies, there's TFCs and Whirlwinds- even Vindicators are pretty good at gibbing large amounts of T3 infantry- though to be fair there's not many infantry models that a Vindi can't gib en masse. LRCs are pretty chill at killing mass T3 infantry, though you do have to sit still- and even the "worst" configuration for DevCents (HB+Hurricanes) can mulch T3 infantry like no tomorrow.

This is, quite frankly, why HBs are likely to remain useful for two primary things:

1) Enhancing squad-level anti-infantry firepower, such as a HB in a Tac/BSS/CSM squad.
2) Throwing spare guns onto tanks, since the extra shots won't really be a downside (if appropriately costed, that is), and worst-case you can probably keep your really nice turret guns firing for longer since the sponsons could soak Weapon Destroyed results.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Personally I agree with Filch.

But if we are being serious, here's the effectiveness of the two side by side. Assume all hits, no saves. Heavy Bolter is on top.

Against T3
-- 3x(5/6) = 15/6 (2.5)
-- 2x(5/6) = 10/6 (1.67)

Against T4
-- 3x(2/3) = 6/3 (2.0)
-- 2x(5/6) = 10/6 (1.67)

Against T5
-- 3x(1/2) = 3/2 (1.5)
-- 2x(5/6) = 10/6 (1.67)

Against T6 or AV10
-- 3x(1/3) = 3/3 (1.0)
-- 2x(2/3) = 4/3 (1.33)

Against T7 or AV11
-- 3x(1/6) = 3/6 (0.5)
-- 2x(1/2) = 2/2 (1.0)

Against T8 only -- HB cannot glance AV12!!!
-- 3x(1/6) = 3/6 (0.5)
-- 2x(1/3) = 2/3 (0.67)

What you should notice: the Heavy Bolter is an anti-infantry weapon! Even against bikes at T5, it's less useful. So be judicious in it's application. Lessons learned -- only shoot them at T3 and T4 targets!

Okay, but ANY weapon can look decent if you assume all hits and no saves. What in the world does this teach us, exactly?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
What in the world does this teach us, exactly?

That hb are better vs infantry than AC (shocking, right).

 koooaei wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
What in the world does this teach us, exactly?

That hb are better vs infantry than AC (shocking, right).

But not so much better that I'd ever consider taking one.

I would like to point out that heavy bolters perform great on my Cyclone missile launcher speeders. They actually end up putting decent wounds on MC which is all I expect out of them. I consider them the best weapon option between a flamer MM and HB. Mostly because speeders are fragile and really only survive with mobility and range - interestingly enough I think this is the only place a HB can realistically work. Being heavy and only range 36" I find on dakka preds that the HB are rarely in range and I can't move to put the target in range cause tanks are crap in this edition - same for infantry with HB - they have to remain stationary and only 36" range. On fast vehicles they are the bomb though.

Yeah, but 'Phoon Speeders want to stay at range, and realistically speaking the HB is left on because it's simply easier to leave it. The MM swap is 10 points more expense for something that is relatively expensive for its durability when 'Phoon fit, while the HF is simply unable to synergize with the Typhoon ML. The range bracket of a HF and the bracket of the Typhoon ML are so radically different as to be kind of dumb to try and use them in the same unit.

To put it another way, a Typhoon/HF speeder is schizophrenic like a SB/PF Terminator- they want to be using weapons that are suited to such different situations that it becomes nearly impossible to make cost effective.

In any case, you've also succinctly pointed out why the HB+Typhoon combination works- Land Speeders are relatively thin vehicles that leverage their mobility and range to survive and the HB is the longest range crew-mount weapon you can take.

Know what Heavy Bolters are better against than Autocannons?

Necrons. Sure, you need to keep enough anti-tank around to kill the Ghost Arks, but once you do, the 'crons don't care if your S5 AP4 or S10 AP1. They're still going to ignore half of all incoming fire (assuming Warriors).

Against Lychguard? That rate of ignored hits goes up to five sixths of all wounds being deflected... assuming they are not in a decurion.

Heavy Bolters have a niche: Killing Necrons.

Oh just make all bolsters S10 Ap2 already! Lol. ... and heavy 6!

Then lower the cost!

Narf!

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Know what Heavy Bolters are better against than Autocannons?

Necrons. Sure, you need to keep enough anti-tank around to kill the Ghost Arks, but once you do, the 'crons don't care if your S5 AP4 or S10 AP1. They're still going to ignore half of all incoming fire (assuming Warriors).

Against Lychguard? That rate of ignored hits goes up to five sixths of all wounds being deflected... assuming they are not in a decurion.

Heavy Bolters have a niche: Killing Necrons.

While I appreciate the contribution, I feel that we've already established that the HB is better at killing a large variety of infantry models than the Autocannon is. It's just that for the price you pay, the substantial increase in overall versatility that you gain for taking ACs is simply more valuable than the moderate increase in anti-infantry firepower that HBs confer.

At present, I feel the problems of the HB are summed up thusly:

1) It's too expensive for what it is/does
2) When deployed by infantry, it often negatively impacts mobility (which is critical) if the HB is to be deployed in the most effective manner possible
3) S6/7 firepower is king under the current meta/core mechanics.

As far as 1&2 go, we can easily fix that- HBs cost 5 points, are instead Salvo weapons; while there would be penalties for moving&shooting, such penalties would be, IMO, far less than what currently is imposed. This is especially the case for Tac/CSM/BSS units, where the other "on-the-move" weapon choices tend to be fairly short ranged, so the Salvo half-range penalty on the HB (where range becomes 18") isn't overly difficult to surmount.

As far as the meta goes... that would require a substantial change to how a number of other mechanics- mostly core ones (thinking of vehicle damage in particular here)- work.

darkcloak wrote:
Oh just make all bolsters S10 Ap2 already! Lol. ... and heavy 6!

Then lower the cost!

Narf!

You are not being helpful. Please do not comment if you do not have something even slightly constructive to say.

I think that kind of candor is very valuable. It's better than a bunch of hot air.

2) When deployed by infantry, it often negatively impacts mobility (which is critical) if the HB is to be deployed in the most effective manner possible

Actually, heavy bolters do not have any rules that negatively affect a unit's mobility. It's just the same set of rules as any other heavy weapon.

It's not candor when it's unconstructive drivel that consists of ridiculous suggestions.

Candor would be saying "bolters are pretty much fine, it's just that the meta is fethed up".

What was displayed is not candor.

In any case, HBs negatively affect infantry unit mobility when trying to leverage HBs in the most effective manner. Yes, you can walk around and haphazardly snapfire into things, for all the good it might do.

This is why Salvo is a good choice for HBs, even if it's generally terrible on all but the Splinter Cannon.

HBs mathematically can't engage as many high priority targets as autocannons. You can call that the meta, but in the range of models that GW produces, S7 is just a much sweeter spot than S5.

Id like to throw my hat into the salvo 2/3 ring so that at the least it has a use in mobile armies.

 Desubot wrote:
Id like to throw my hat into the salvo 2/3 ring so that at the least it has a use in mobile armies.

I'd support his, but I'd still never use the weapon because S5 is too weak for a heavy slot, imo.

Martel732 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Id like to throw my hat into the salvo 2/3 ring so that at the least it has a use in mobile armies.

I'd support his, but I'd still never use the weapon because S5 is too weak for a heavy slot, imo.

Not if you wern't going to put a heavy in that spot anyways because it's a squad on the move. With salvo it would be my go to heavy weapon on rhino or drop pod tacticals. cause 2 str 5 shots at bs getting out of a transport is way better than 1 shot hitting on 6's.

Still though - I'm not a fan of salvo - savlo effectively makes it's mobile mode complete gak by reducing ROF. Just make its salvo 3/3 and I'll be happy.

Well, something that has been thrown around is actually going Salvo 3/4- RoF isn't reduced on the move (compared to the current), and you basically get a bonus shot for sitting still.

There should, realistically, be some other benefit besides increased range for sitting still with the HB, unless we're intending it to fulfill a pseudo-SAW role in SM squads.

I'll also just throw out there that Martel, based on some comments he's made, is a BA player, so he gets access to the fairly nice HF as a heavy option.

Tacs are still fairly meh, but Tacs with HFs are a bit less meh.

Whiskey144 wrote:
Well, something that has been thrown around is actually going Salvo 3/4- RoF isn't reduced on the move (compared to the current), and you basically get a bonus shot for sitting still.

There should, realistically, be some other benefit besides increased range for sitting still with the HB, unless we're intending it to fulfill a pseudo-SAW role in SM squads.

I'll also just throw out there that Martel, based on some comments he's made, is a BA player, so he gets access to the fairly nice HF as a heavy option.

Tacs are still fairly meh, but Tacs with HFs are a bit less meh.

Let's be real. The things I REALLY want to flame aren't going to let me. They will be in a transport or disable the tac's transport well out of flamer range. Even if I didn't have heavy flamers, I still would never take a heavy bolter. I didn't use heavy bolters in the 5th ed BA codex.

Realistically like the saw it should be a suppressive weapon. much like how its depicted in DOW series

Buuuuuut Gw seems to hate the idea of pinning and stuff so meh :/

Clearly, the real problem is that some genius decided to give Autocannons to infantry models.

 Desubot wrote:
Realistically like the saw it should be a suppressive weapon. much like how its depicted in DOW series

Buuuuuut Gw seems to hate the idea of pinning and stuff so meh :/

I kind of agree with you. I think Heavy Bolters and sniper rifles should have pinning. I would LOVE to have heavy bolters with salvo 3/4 pinning at the current 10 points price. I would however live with salvo 3/4. Would I ever take like say 4 heavy bolters? maybe. If the unit that has them has split fire. Otherwise I would keep them around for better RoF. Something for when I don't really have anything better to sink my points into. Which can happen more than one might think.

Sniper rifles and Ord weapons have pinning.. . In our meta, just change the rules like we do, if it works keep it, if not, change it, 7th is the house rule edition!

 Formosa wrote:
Sniper rifles and Ord weapons have pinning.. . In our meta, just change the rules like we do, if it works keep it, if not, change it, 7th is the house rule edition!

My group already is doing this for the most part, but it would be nice if GW admitted they screwed up and don't know or care about what they are doing gameplay wise.

Well, I'd probably recommending starting off a little bit "lower-level" with Pinning HBs; probably Salvo 2/3 or Salvo 3/3; mass Pinning has a lot of potential to be very un-fun to play against for certain armies.

We don't want Marines to become the next Eldar book, after all.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Clearly, the real problem is that some genius decided to give Autocannons to infantry models.

In all honesty, I would agree that it's quite.... bemusing.... that some armies have infantry-portable ACs. OTOH, it is also the case that, AFAIK, only CSM and IG have the ability to deploy infantry armed with ACs. Of course, I'd honestly say that ACs really belong as vehicle-only weapons, rather than the man-portable and vehicle-mounted variations that currently exist.

infantry carrying vehicle mounted cannons? My CSM has them growing out for an arm!

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/Mjg3WDEwMjc=/z/ZsYAAOSw8d9Uw~QD/$_3.JPG" border="0" />
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MzIyWDEwMzk=/z/e34AAOSw2s1Uw~P0/$_3.JPG" border="0" />

pm me if you are interested in buying as to keep this post on subject.

ugggg. I recently made the switch from Sentinels of Terra to DE, and really there is almost no way to buff the heavy bolter with huge ripple effects IMO. I like the idea of H4 pinning, but then that will be SUPER spammed (like if that were to happen, I would take like 3 dev squads with HB and rain hell on all light 4+ save infantry, and then pin them. But as SRSFACE said, that would also be spammed. I think just heavy 4 would be enought of a buff to make them usable.

gummyofallbears wrote:
ugggg. I recently made the switch from Sentinels of Terra to DE, and really there is almost no way to buff the heavy bolter with huge ripple effects IMO. I like the idea of H4 pinning, but then that will be SUPER spammed (like if that were to happen, I would take like 3 dev squads with HB and rain hell on all light 4+ save infantry, and then pin them. But as SRSFACE said, that would also be spammed. I think just heavy 4 would be enought of a buff to make them usable.

True. I just like the idea of sniper scouts with pinning and a hellfire heavy bolter with pinning. Overkill on pinning, probably. Personally I think every arming should have a few "dirty tricks" they can pull like pinning and what not. May armies already have them. And some are easier to pull of than others.