Would you consider it fair if the heavy bolter had 4 shots standard?

Nobody uses them as they cost the same as an autocannon, but are much less effective.

Considering....
It used to have shots 1 + 2 sustrained fire (a SF die was basically a D3 with one face being a jam, which prevented you from firing next turn)... averaging about 3.7 shots per turn.
Then they used to also only cost as much as a guardsman, so now you pay double the price and get a weaker weapon... no wonder noone uses them.,,,,



Also multi-laser used to fire 3 sustained fire dice so would have about 4.5 shots per turn, would it make send to increase the shots here?

I'd maybe look at it if it were Salvo 2/4 or Heavy 4.

Given that AP 4 is almost useless in 7th ed, and Str 5 is suboptimal for a heavy weapon to say the least, I'd say it's fair. The sad part is, I don't think I'd take them even still.

The step from Str 5 to Str 6 is so huge that adding a shot to the heavy bolter can't save it.

Salvo 2/4 sounds about right to me.

I'd rather see a lot more Heavy, High RoF weapons use the Salvo profile.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Salvo 2/4 sounds about right to me.

I'd rather see a lot more Heavy, High RoF weapons use the Salvo profile.

Sounds right, but it's still crap. Only wounds T6 on a 5, doesn't penetrate MC armor or marine armor. Can't do much to scrub hull points, either. Useless.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Salvo 2/4 sounds about right to me.

I'd rather see a lot more Heavy, High RoF weapons use the Salvo profile.

Sounds right, but it's still crap. Only wounds T6 on a 5, doesn't penetrate MC armor or marine armor. Can't do much to scrub hull points, either. Useless.

We know what you think about anything that doesn't match a Scatterlaser in firepower or a Riptide in durability, Martel. We know.

Autocannons are good. They have niche. Multilasers are good. They also can do work. The weapon the forgefiend has has a pretty good niche too. It doesn't have to be scatterlaser good. But it has to be better than S5 AP 4. There's too much stuff that just doesn't care about the specific heavy bolter profile. Like every power armor list ever.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Salvo 2/4 sounds about right to me.

I'd rather see a lot more Heavy, High RoF weapons use the Salvo profile.

Salvo seems right for Space Marines, but for Guard weapon teams it doesn't suit. I cannot see the weapon teams being very capable at firing on the move.

Just take it away from guard. They don't need it.

Martel732 wrote:
Just take it away from guard. They don't need it.

They should still have the option, but I understand what you mean as they have the Multilaser and Autocannon.

I think a salvo 2/4 Heavy Bolter would actually be pretty useful. It lets them move without becoming entirely ineffectual, and gives enough shots that you're going to be able to put some serious dents into the appropriate targets.
If Heavy Bolters were 2/4 Salvo, I would consider using them, possibly even in a Skyhammer - Against rear armor, that gives enough shots to kill most tanks, (3.6 hull points against AV10, rather than the 2.5 you get from current HBs,) you'll put a serious dent in AV11, (1.8 vs 1.2,) and you'll kill 8 T4 models that don't have a save or 9 T3 models that don't have a save - That's not going to clear out an Ork Horde, exactly, but it IS going to put a big chunk of damage in most targets, and for 145 points, it's not bad at all.

That doesn't seem fair though unless Autocannons become Salvo 1/2

Tygre wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Salvo 2/4 sounds about right to me.

I'd rather see a lot more Heavy, High RoF weapons use the Salvo profile.

Salvo seems right for Space Marines, but for Guard weapon teams it doesn't suit. I cannot see the weapon teams being very capable at firing on the move.

I kind of think a lot of space marine weapons would make sense having slightly different rules and the word "astartes" in front of their names. Some mechanics just match the cinematic feel of a given faction better than others. For instance...

* Astartes Heavy Bolters become salvo 2/4 because it provides an interesting, flexible compliment to regular bolters and because marines walking around with enormous bolters blazing simply looks awesome.
* Astartes plasma weapons do not get hot because spontaneously dying from forgetting to vent your plasma kind of flies in the face of the action movie protagonist aesthetic that marines channel. Maybe even give marines the option to fire more lethal versions of their plasma weapons at the cost of making that gun unusable for the rest of the game. For instance, a plasma gun might become s8 Ap1 once per game, but cannot be fired again afterward as the (centuries old and martially-obsessed) marine allows it to safely cool down.
*Astartes frag grenades and missiles become large blasts. So that you actually have a reason to occassionally throw a frag.
* Astartes krak missiles inflict multiple hull points worth of damage on a penetrating hit to give them an anti-tank role.

That sort of thing. It matches the fluff of the army better (without becoming blatantly overpowered) and sort of makes sense. There's a difference between a teenaged guardsman frantically firing his plasma gun for the first time and a space marine who sleeps with his plasma pistol and ocassionally uses it to clean the bathtub when he isn't incinerating tyranids with it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't seem fair though unless Autocannons become Salvo 1/2

I'd be fine with doing that too.

I think 4 shots isn't quite enough.

I'd say make it Heavy 4 but also -1 to cover saves. The idea here is that the heavier shells slam into cover and explode, shredding the target with debris anyway, so there's less benefit to being in cover against it.

This doesn't make the weapon suddenly an ideal anti-marine weapon or anything, but does give it a bit of a niche as a long-range weapon that can put extra hurt on targets in cover, compared against flamers which are better at that but need to get a lot closer first.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I kind of think a lot of space marine weapons would make sense having slightly different rules and the word "astartes" in front of their names. Some mechanics just match the cinematic feel of a given faction better than others. For instance...

* Astartes Heavy Bolters become salvo 2/4 because it provides an interesting, flexible compliment to regular bolters and because marines walking around with enormous bolters blazing simply looks awesome.
* Astartes plasma weapons do not get hot because spontaneously dying from forgetting to vent your plasma kind of flies in the face of the action movie protagonist aesthetic that marines channel. Maybe even give marines the option to fire more lethal versions of their plasma weapons at the cost of making that gun unusable for the rest of the game. For instance, a plasma gun might become s8 Ap1 once per game, but cannot be fired again afterward as the (centuries old and martially-obsessed) marine allows it to safely cool down.
*Astartes frag grenades and missiles become large blasts. So that you actually have a reason to occassionally throw a frag.
* Astartes krak missiles inflict multiple hull points worth of damage on a penetrating hit to give them an anti-tank role.

That sort of thing. It matches the fluff of the army better (without becoming blatantly overpowered) and sort of makes sense. There's a difference between a teenaged guardsman frantically firing his plasma gun for the first time and a space marine who sleeps with his plasma pistol and ocassionally uses it to clean the bathtub when he isn't incinerating tyranids with it.

Not to poke holes, but I'm not sure I get where you're coming from for the majority of these points:
- I understand marine heavy bolters being salvo because marines are strong enough to lug them around and keep firing on the move, but I would at least give non-SM heavy bolters a point reduction to compensate for marines having better stuff. Balance and all that.
- Why only buff grenades/missiles for marines? Not quite sure why standard issue rockets create bigger explosions when fired by a steroid monster as opposed to a guardsman, the marines superior training is already covered by his BS stat.
- Finally, I was under the impression that gets hot! is used to represent anything from the gun overheating to destabilisation and misfire, not just some trigger happy idiot forgetting to vent his gun. That is to say, the problem is with the weapon and not the gunman. So why are marines getting special plasma that won't scratch their 3+ armour (which already means the marine only has a 1/18 chance of death)? Also, how would you balance the removal of gets hot other than a price hike for marine plasma? The one shot s8 round I wouldn't have a problem with, but apart from the last turn of the game I don't understand why anyone would sacrifice their weapon for it. The difference in skill between a marine or guardsman firing the gun is denoted by the difference is BS. Even a new guardsman will have been trained to shoot, and a d6 system will struggle to show this comparison accurately without giving marines BS5, or nerfing guardsmen into the ground to BS2 - that's ork territory!)

I do like the idea of making HBs salvo weapons though

"Bolters" are like the standard 40K weapon. Excess rules are not needed. Necrons have Guass, Dark Eldar have poison, Eldar have BladeStorm (although arguable this should be Shred according to the fluff, but I didn't write the rules). "Heavy" Bolters should have whatever special rule Bolters have, i.e. none.

Salvo 2/4 is a good start. It bumps them up to 4 shots on the units that start with them normally (like Razorbacks, Attack bikes, etc) and makes them at least usable for on foot units.

You also can't really mess much with the Str/AP. Assault cannons and Autocannons already fill the mid-str AP-"not power armour" niche. I would argue then that Heavy Bolters need to stay are str5, but at that point, the role the Heavy Bolter needs to fill is that of anti-infantry shredder.
Salvo 2/4 isn't going to cut it here. Assault cannons and Grav are just better and more versatile

Given the above, how does this sound? Str5, AP4, Salvo 3/5
Now the HB has enough shots to look appealing over an Assault cannon, especially since it is the "free" choice of the two.

Problem is that the assault cannon should then have around 8 shots, because it is a rotary autocannon.

Str 5 Ap 4 is not a good statline even for an infantry shredder in 7th ed because of the prevalence of cover. A single heavy flamer shot can kill 8 heavy bolters worth of units in one go.

Well if you buff the heavy bolter to 3/5 you're certainly going to have change something about the assault cannon. They're 20pts more than a heavy bolter atm.

Making it a 2/4 will also buff the tactical squad, as you would now have a heavy weapon you could give to a mobile squad.
Devastators as well, well at least without packing grav.

Everything has it's balance (or should anyway). Not everything can take a Heavy Flamer for example, and those that can have to get close.
Assualt cannons should be worth a lot more than a Heavy bolter, even with Salvo 3/5. Str 6 and Rending is really good.

I am working under the assumption that Heavy Bolters are currently garbage that they we are trying to make the work for A) their current points cost and B) that they do not over shadow other choices.
As soon as you start adding in str6, or ignores cover, or Shred, or some other such change, the HB becomes an "obvious choice". Obvious choices are things like Scatter lasers, Ion cannons and Grav Cannons. Ynnead knows we don't need more of those kind of options.

-

 Galef wrote:
Everything has it's balance (or should anyway). Not everything can take a Heavy Flamer for example, and those that can have to get close.
Assualt cannons should be worth a lot more than a Heavy bolter, even with Salvo 3/5. Str 6 and Rending is really good.

I am working under the assumption that Heavy Bolters are currently garbage that they we are trying to make the work for A) their current points cost and B) that they do not over shadow other choices.
As soon as you start adding in str6, or ignores cover, or Shred, or some other such change, the HB becomes an "obvious choice". Obvious choices are things like Scatter lasers, Ion cannons and Grav Cannons. Ynnead knows we don't need more of those kind of options.

-

There's not enough mathematical space for all the weapons in the game. Some have niches, and some don't. There is no room for the heavy bolter.

Gladius spamming Razorbacks and Attack bikes. That is where the HB niche is. 3 Shots currently is meh, and the reason why Attack bike get upgraded to Multimeltas, but if you make it Salvo 3/5 it becomes a harder choice.
Most will leave the Razorback un-upgraded and be happy with the free 5 shots, while those using Attack Bikes will choose what there army needs. 5 str5 shots at 36", or 1 more Melta shot. If you already have plenty of melta and Grav elsewhere, the 5 shots is better.

Salvo 3/5 also helps Dev units required for a Gladius, since you can plant them in cover and blast out 20 str 5 shots a turn. Ask Guard players if they thing that many Str5 shots is good. Even 12 shots on the move is pretty nice.

-

There is no justification for making the heavy bolter shoot more than an assault cannon.

Because of the rotary barrel? Yeah I get that.
I was looking at it from strictly rules, but if you want it to be what it looks like, I would say at most Salvo 2/3, and at that point you really need to justify why a Space Marine would ever take that over any other choice.

Aside from Dreadnaught and Predators, can Space Marine take Autocannons anywhere else? Maybe the Heavy Bolter could be Str7, AP5, Salvo 2/3 and only 24" (to match the range and AP of the Bolter).
Would that A) set it apart from the Assault cannon? and/or B) not step too much on the toes of the Autocannon?

-

HB should have shred at its current point cost. Problem solved. It would become about as good as a scatter laser vs infantry and MC - and still would be weaker vs light armor. Hard to argue this isn't the perfect solution - because it it.

BTW bolters should have shred too but also - razorbacks shouldn't be free.

 Xenomancers wrote:
HB should have shred at its current point cost. Problem solved. It would become about as good as a scatter laser vs infantry and MC - and still would be weaker vs light armor. Hard to argue this isn't the perfect solution - because it it.

BTW bolters should have shred too but also - razorbacks shouldn't be free.

I would like bolters having shred.
It seems to be the thing atm that everyone should have a special snowflake for a standard small arm.

Giving bolter weapons shred would help vs MCs tremendously in a general sense.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
HB should have shred at its current point cost. Problem solved. It would become about as good as a scatter laser vs infantry and MC - and still would be weaker vs light armor. Hard to argue this isn't the perfect solution - because it it.

BTW bolters should have shred too but also - razorbacks shouldn't be free.

I would like bolters having shred.
It seems to be the thing atm that everyone should have a special snowflake for a standard small arm.

That's why I think it's the perfect solution. It would be insanely OP with gladius though - gladius is only not OP because bolters are terrible.

As much as I am against every standard weapon having it's own add-on rule, all Bolters having Shred at least makes sense fluffwise (exploding bullets) and helps immensely against so many things Marines struggle with (i.e. MCs)

But in an ideal world, Eldar Bladestorm would be Shred instead of the pseudo-Rending it is now.

While I like the idea of normal bolters having shred.... I can't help but feel that would simply make SM's and CSM's just a little too... well 'shreddy'.

I think some of the more 'soft' armies like Orks, Guard and Nids would really suffer. And yes that's even with the Nid's MC's.

EDIT: Obviously I'm biased as I play two of those 'soft' armies In all honesty I wouldn't be opposed to heavy bolters having shred, just not the normal variety. Although as Galef said, it does make a lot of sense fluff wise.

If bolters gained shred, they should lose AP 5. That would help slightly with the softer armies.

What if instead of shred bolter weapons after rolling to to wound, those that hit and failed to wound my try to wound again at Str 3 AP 6? Not a straight reroll but not pointless. Maybe this is too little.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
HB should have shred at its current point cost. Problem solved. It would become about as good as a scatter laser vs infantry and MC - and still would be weaker vs light armor. Hard to argue this isn't the perfect solution - because it it.

BTW bolters should have shred too but also - razorbacks shouldn't be free.

I would like bolters having shred.
It seems to be the thing atm that everyone should have a special snowflake for a standard small arm.

That's why I think it's the perfect solution. It would be insanely OP with gladius though - gladius is only not OP because bolters are terrible.

Bolters are not terrible.
They are not ridiculous OP nonsense like grav but they are an effective weapon.

No, they are not. Not in the 7th ed meta. Specifically the heavy bolter trying to pretend its a heavy weapon.

As a BA player, I actually have to pay for my units (unlike vanilla marines), and I minimize the presence of bolt anything due to their ineffectiveness.

What about salvo 2/4 with shred?

Jbz` wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
HB should have shred at its current point cost. Problem solved. It would become about as good as a scatter laser vs infantry and MC - and still would be weaker vs light armor. Hard to argue this isn't the perfect solution - because it it.

BTW bolters should have shred too but also - razorbacks shouldn't be free.

I would like bolters having shred.
It seems to be the thing atm that everyone should have a special snowflake for a standard small arm.

That's why I think it's the perfect solution. It would be insanely OP with gladius though - gladius is only not OP because bolters are terrible.

Bolters are not terrible.
They are not ridiculous OP nonsense like grav but they are an effective weapon.

LOL no they're not. You buy Special weapons for a reason. Any infantry problems can be handled by just a few flamers from Assault Squads.

 hippyjr wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I kind of think a lot of space marine weapons would make sense having slightly different rules and the word "astartes" in front of their names. Some mechanics just match the cinematic feel of a given faction better than others. For instance...

* Astartes Heavy Bolters become salvo 2/4 because it provides an interesting, flexible compliment to regular bolters and because marines walking around with enormous bolters blazing simply looks awesome.
* Astartes plasma weapons do not get hot because spontaneously dying from forgetting to vent your plasma kind of flies in the face of the action movie protagonist aesthetic that marines channel. Maybe even give marines the option to fire more lethal versions of their plasma weapons at the cost of making that gun unusable for the rest of the game. For instance, a plasma gun might become s8 Ap1 once per game, but cannot be fired again afterward as the (centuries old and martially-obsessed) marine allows it to safely cool down.
*Astartes frag grenades and missiles become large blasts. So that you actually have a reason to occassionally throw a frag.
* Astartes krak missiles inflict multiple hull points worth of damage on a penetrating hit to give them an anti-tank role.

That sort of thing. It matches the fluff of the army better (without becoming blatantly overpowered) and sort of makes sense. There's a difference between a teenaged guardsman frantically firing his plasma gun for the first time and a space marine who sleeps with his plasma pistol and ocassionally uses it to clean the bathtub when he isn't incinerating tyranids with it.

Not to poke holes, but I'm not sure I get where you're coming from for the majority of these points:
- I understand marine heavy bolters being salvo because marines are strong enough to lug them around and keep firing on the move, but I would at least give non-SM heavy bolters a point reduction to compensate for marines having better stuff. Balance and all that.
- Why only buff grenades/missiles for marines? Not quite sure why standard issue rockets create bigger explosions when fired by a steroid monster as opposed to a guardsman, the marines superior training is already covered by his BS stat.
- Finally, I was under the impression that gets hot! is used to represent anything from the gun overheating to destabilisation and misfire, not just some trigger happy idiot forgetting to vent his gun. That is to say, the problem is with the weapon and not the gunman. So why are marines getting special plasma that won't scratch their 3+ armour (which already means the marine only has a 1/18 chance of death)? Also, how would you balance the removal of gets hot other than a price hike for marine plasma? The one shot s8 round I wouldn't have a problem with, but apart from the last turn of the game I don't understand why anyone would sacrifice their weapon for it. The difference in skill between a marine or guardsman firing the gun is denoted by the difference is BS. Even a new guardsman will have been trained to shoot, and a d6 system will struggle to show this comparison accurately without giving marines BS5, or nerfing guardsmen into the ground to BS2 - that's ork territory!)

I do like the idea of making HBs salvo weapons though

It's a matter of aesthetic more than anything else. When a guardsman's plasma gun gets hot and fries the wielder's face off, you can go, "Oh man. That's rough. This really illustrates how expendable human lives are in the 41st millenium." When a space marine abruptly loses life or limb because his gun acts up, it's more, "Wow. Probably not a good idea to let our extremely rare and difficult to produce super soldiers carry around time bombs that have a 1 in 18 chance of killing them." My pet preference in general would be to have marines be much less numerous but to do much more damage in a given round of shooting/assault than they tend to right now. Bigger explosions and not accidentally melting your face off ties into that both mechanically and thematically.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing other imperial factions get a few tweaks for their weaponry either. Guardsmen are welcome to large blast frag missiles, as far as I'm concerned.

The appeal of S8 Ap1 shooting would generally be for alpha striking units. Your drop pod marines probably won't survive long behind enemy lines, but at least you have a shot at bringing down a critical (probably vehicular) target before you do so. Even a rhino rush type army might decide "using up" their plasma is worth it if it let them crack open some transports or take down some heavier vehicles when they did so.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haravikk wrote:
I think 4 shots isn't quite enough.

I'd say make it Heavy 4 but also -1 to cover saves. The idea here is that the heavier shells slam into cover and explode, shredding the target with debris anyway, so there's less benefit to being in cover against it.

This doesn't make the weapon suddenly an ideal anti-marine weapon or anything, but does give it a bit of a niche as a long-range weapon that can put extra hurt on targets in cover, compared against flamers which are better at that but need to get a lot closer first.

Neat idea, but I'm not sure I'd like the result in practice. I see this doing relatively little to improve the heavy bolter against most targets, but making it somewhat better against dark eldar vehicles or 'nids and orks trying to make their way towards you using cover. All of which are armies that don't need another kick in the geneseed right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
There is no justification for making the heavy bolter shoot more than an assault cannon.

Would it be crazy to just switch the rules/names of heavy bolters and assault cannons (while still fixing the mechanics of heavy bolters)? You could make the assault cannon a high rate of fire anti-MC/infantry weapon with shred or what have you representing its high rate of fire, and the heavy bolter could have a lower rate of fire but be able to rending vehicles and have a higher strength (representing its explosive ammunition).

I think HBs should be at least Salvo 3/5 weapons with Rending.

 Galef wrote:
As much as I am against every standard weapon having it's own add-on rule, all Bolters having Shred at least makes sense fluffwise (exploding bullets) and helps immensely against so many things Marines struggle with (i.e. MCs)

But in an ideal world, Eldar Bladestorm would be Shred instead of the pseudo-Rending it is now.

Not to get too off-topic, but I've actually come to kind of like the special snowflake rules on basic guns. Poison shows dark eldar being mean. Gauss fits well with the slow, implaccable nature of 'crons (we'll kill you one hull point at a time), bladestorm represents the air being replaced with sharp death that eventually carves up a weak point in your armor, and pulse weapons have the strength and range to simply out shoot most other basic guns. I kind of like it.

But yes, shred would make sense on bolters and help reinforce the idea that bolters are in fact significantly more lethal than a las gun. I also don't hate the idea of simply making bolters strength 5, thus allowing them to potentially take down light transports with sufficient weight of fire. This would mean bolters aren't totally useless when you're trying to pop an enemy transport with your krak grenade and meltagun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
I think HBs should be at least Salvo 3/5 weapons with Rending.

Eh. At that point, aren't you just making an off-brand assault cannon though? You'd have an extra shot (sometimes), and you'd have a slightly lower strength, but the two weapons would be remarkably similar. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I feel like your performance against most targets would be remarkably similar to the assault cannon's.

Wyldhunt wrote:Not to get too off-topic, but I've actually come to kind of like the special snowflake rules on basic guns. Poison shows dark eldar being mean. Gauss fits well with the slow, implaccable nature of 'crons (we'll kill you one hull point at a time), bladestorm represents the air being replaced with sharp death that eventually carves up a weak point in your armor, and pulse weapons have the strength and range to simply out shoot most other basic guns. I kind of like it.

But yes, shred would make sense on bolters and help reinforce the idea that bolters are in fact significantly more lethal than a las gun. I also don't hate the idea of simply making bolters strength 5, thus allowing them to potentially take down light transports with sufficient weight of fire. This would mean bolters aren't totally useless when you're trying to pop an enemy transport with your krak grenade and meltagun.

Shred would be nice, yeah. Or at least something to make bolters feel more like there own thing and not just the generic 40k small arm while everyone else gets cooler stuff. As long as it's not rending.

Wyldhunt wrote:Eh. At that point, aren't you just making an off-brand assault cannon though? You'd have an extra shot (sometimes), and you'd have a slightly lower strength, but the two weapons would be remarkably similar. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I feel like your performance against most targets would be remarkably similar to the assault cannon's.

At this point, I really don't care. Given that it's absurdly hard to actually field assault cannons in numbers (please, please, please, no whining about the battle company. The only thing worse than facing one is hearing the incessant complaining about it), and even harder to get them where you want them to be, the fact that they might be slightly confused with another weapon isn't that big a deal.

" Given that it's absurdly hard to actually field assault cannons in numbers "

This is a big reason I don't like the weapon at all.

Martel732 wrote:
" Given that it's absurdly hard to actually field assault cannons in numbers "

This is a big reason I don't like the weapon at all.

I like the concept, but the fact that you can't actually use them is obnoixious. Every single other weapon in the marine codex barring stuff like the demolisher cannon is man portable, why are assault cannons only usable on a couple vehicles and 1 to a squad of terminators?

It's just a slap in the face when the Eldar trot out 40 scatterlasers as well.

Martel732 wrote:It's just a slap in the face when the Eldar trot out 40 scatterlasers as well.

Ugh...dude, we get it. Is it really necessary for every other post to be you complaining about riptides, WKs, scatterlasers, MCs in general, or some combination of the above?

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Martel732 wrote:It's just a slap in the face when the Eldar trot out 40 scatterlasers as well.

Ugh...dude, we get it. Is it really necessary for every other post to be you complaining about riptides, WKs, scatterlasers, MCs in general, or some combination of the above?

Not everyone gets it amazingly enough. It's very hard to have a discussion about assault cannons without mentioning the pink elephant as well.

Martel732 wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Martel732 wrote:It's just a slap in the face when the Eldar trot out 40 scatterlasers as well.

Ugh...dude, we get it. Is it really necessary for every other post to be you complaining about riptides, WKs, scatterlasers, MCs in general, or some combination of the above?

Not everyone gets it amazingly enough. It's very hard to have a discussion about assault cannons without mentioning the pink elephant as well.

Don't forget we had posters in the past (Bharring being an example) that thought the codex was perfectly balanced externally.

It wouldn't be so bad if the gulf between heavy bolter and multilaser/scatterlaser wasn't so large. AP4 is severely devalued and strength is overvalued because of hull points and cover.

Salvo weapon type would help a lot with it, str 5 AP 3 would be a good place as well since you don't wanna step on assault cannon toes

Auto cannon as well should be str 7 AP 3, until then they are worthless.

Autocannon is fine as is for the most part. Ask the Chaos Marine and Imperial Guard players.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Salvo weapon type would help a lot with it, str 5 AP 3 would be a good place as well since you don't wanna step on assault cannon toes

Auto cannon as well should be str 7 AP 3, until then they are worthless.

You could just say "I want to hard-ban Space Marines/Battle Sisters" straight out instead of handing everything in the game AP3 in an effort to force them off the table.

 Xenomancers wrote:
HB should have shred at its current point cost. Problem solved. It would become about as good as a scatter laser vs infantry and MC - and still would be weaker vs light armor. Hard to argue this isn't the perfect solution - because it it.

BTW bolters should have shred too but also - razorbacks shouldn't be free.

Came to the thread to say exactly this. A heavy bolter with shred Is a cheaper less efficient assault cannon (-1 st, -1 shot, shred instead of rending) and becomes worth it's points. Absolute perfect solution.
Don't agree with normal bolters having shred though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orrr... give it rending rather than shred.

Either/or. Both would sort it out immediately

Poly Ranger wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orrr... give it rending rather than shred.

We already have that, mostly. Raptor's chapter tactics. As someone who uses that tactic....it's not that great, IMHO. Rending just isn't reliable enough to kick in when you need it to, and for normal stuff it's overkill ("hey, I got a pair of sixes in that volley....oh, right. I'm shooting at some boyz"). Shred is more useful since while it doesn't let you have a 1/6 chance of doing damage to something you normally can't hurt, it lets you actually score more injuries to the things you can hurt.

Perhaps regular bolters could get a rule like 'tearing - reroll failed to wound rolls of 1'
Or maybe that's just adding to the rules bloat.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Perhaps regular bolters could get a rule like 'tearing - reroll failed to wound rolls of 1'
Or maybe that's just adding to the rules bloat.

Actually, this would not be a bad idea for all Bolters. Re-roll rolls of 1 gives a slight feel like Shred, but is not so OP as an entire army with Shred shooting.
Salvo 2/4 Heavy Bolters with this rule would be pretty good since you would re-roll half your fail wounds against most targets anyway.
It would also leave room for Eldar Shuriken weapons to one day be fixed as Shred instead of Bladstorm.

It would be odd for Bolters and Shurikens, two weapons that are quite fundamentally different, to have the same special rule.

-

If you give the HB 4 shots, it becomes statistically as effective against the bog standard T6 3+ MC as an autocannon. Do you want this?

Alcibiades wrote:
If you give the HB 4 shots, it becomes statistically as effective against the bog standard T6 3+ MC as an autocannon. Do you want this?

Well they cost the same, so, yes.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orrr... give it rending rather than shred.

We already have that, mostly. Raptor's chapter tactics. As someone who uses that tactic....it's not that great, IMHO. Rending just isn't reliable enough to kick in when you need it to, and for normal stuff it's overkill ("hey, I got a pair of sixes in that volley....oh, right. I'm shooting at some boyz"). Shred is more useful since while it doesn't let you have a 1/6 chance of doing damage to something you normally can't hurt, it lets you actually score more injuries to the things you can hurt.

I was meaning on heavy bolters not bolters. Rending will enable a heavy bolter to be able to damage vehicles up to AV14. It will also make them more effective against MCs. The reliability increases for heavy bolters due to the HRoF. Looking at Rapiers for instance, they will be getting you just under 3 rends on average a turn from a full unit. That's why rending on assault cannons is so nice - the HRoF. Raptors bolters become heavy 1, so lose any chance of even a mid RoF.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
If you give the HB 4 shots, it becomes statistically as effective against the bog standard T6 3+ MC as an autocannon. Do you want this?

Well they cost the same, so, yes.

They're supposed to have different functions. The HB is supposed to be primarily a light infantry killer which can if pressed do double-duty against MCs and light vehicles; the AC is supposed to be the opposite.

If you give the HB four shots, the AC becomes a superior weapon to other options only against AV12 -- the only category in which it would be superior to both HBs and lascannons.

This is exactly why it's so hard to change the HB. If you increase its ability against its supposed preferred target (light infantry), either by increasing RoF or strength or adding Shred, it starts to take over the roles of other weapons. Because an increase from 3 to 4 is a 33% increase, which is big, as is an increase from 50 to 75% (a 50% increase!) or 17 to 31% or 33 to 61% (almost 100%!) with Shred and so on. (Shred almost doubles its damage output against T6).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
actually what adding Shred would do is create a relatively small increase in lethality against light infantry (83% to 97%, only about 20%), but a very large increase against high-T units.(almost 100% agaiinst T6).

Heavy bolter is a high RoF infantry slayer
Autocannon is the mid ground
Lascannon is an anti-tank weapon.

T6 is the middle ground between weak and strong, I'm fine with autocannons/heavy bolters meeting there. Did you know against T2 an auto cannon equals a boltgun?
Lascannons don't compare nearly so well, they're twice the price for a start.

Currently an autocannon is superior to the heavy bolter against anything T4 and above, and is significantly better against vehicles. Lets even that out
Although I would agree shred is too much, at best it should get my 'tearing'

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
I think HBs should be at least Salvo 3/5 weapons with Rending.

HB can't have rending. It would just become an assault cannon then.

Alcibiades wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
If you give the HB 4 shots, it becomes statistically as effective against the bog standard T6 3+ MC as an autocannon. Do you want this?

Well they cost the same, so, yes.

They're supposed to have different functions. The HB is supposed to be primarily a light infantry killer which can if pressed do double-duty against MCs and light vehicles; the AC is supposed to be the opposite.

If you give the HB four shots, the AC becomes a superior weapon to other options only against AV12 -- the only category in which it would be superior to both HBs and lascannons.

This is exactly why it's so hard to change the HB. If you increase its ability against its supposed preferred target (light infantry), either by increasing RoF or strength or adding Shred, it starts to take over the roles of other weapons. Because an increase from 3 to 4 is a 33% increase, which is big, as is an increase from 50 to 75% (a 50% increase!) or 17 to 31% or 33 to 61% (almost 100%!) with Shred and so on. (Shred almost doubles its damage output against T6).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
actually what adding Shred would do is create a relatively small increase in lethality against light infantry (83% to 97%, only about 20%), but a very large increase against high-T units.(almost 100% agaiinst T6).

However, Lascannons are 20 points, so you'd have to do the math for 1-2 Lascannons vs 2-4 Autocannons.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I was meaning on heavy bolters not bolters. Rending will enable a heavy bolter to be able to damage vehicles up to AV14. It will also make them more effective against MCs. The reliability increases for heavy bolters due to the HRoF. Looking at Rapiers for instance, they will be getting you just under 3 rends on average a turn from a full unit. That's why rending on assault cannons is so nice - the HRoF. Raptors bolters become heavy 1, so lose any chance of even a mid RoF.

Eh...maybe. I've still never liked rending even on the handful of weapons I own that do have it, it's just not reliable enough.

Alcibiades wrote:They're supposed to have different functions. The HB is supposed to be primarily a light infantry killer which can if pressed do double-duty against MCs and light vehicles; the AC is supposed to be the opposite.

If you give the HB four shots, the AC becomes a superior weapon to other options only against AV12 -- the only category in which it would be superior to both HBs and lascannons.

This is exactly why it's so hard to change the HB. If you increase its ability against its supposed preferred target (light infantry), either by increasing RoF or strength or adding Shred, it starts to take over the roles of other weapons. Because an increase from 3 to 4 is a 33% increase, which is big, as is an increase from 50 to 75% (a 50% increase!) or 17 to 31% or 33 to 61% (almost 100%!) with Shred and so on. (Shred almost doubles its damage output against T6).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
actually what adding Shred would do is create a relatively small increase in lethality against light infantry (83% to 97%, only about 20%), but a very large increase against high-T units.(almost 100% agaiinst T6).

I'm really not seeing the issue. It's taking over the role of another weapon....that is barely being used as is. Auto cannons are on what, two models for the marines and like 3 in the IG? Honestly, I wouldn't mind dumping them entirely from the marine line and taking HBs away from the IG, so each group has there own distinctive set of weapons and gear (maybe tweak the stats on each a bit so the new armies don't have any holes in their armory). Marines get bolters of various sizes, IG has lasguns and autocannons.

Xenomancers wrote:HB can't have rending. It would just become an assault cannon then.

While I agree with not giving HBs having rending, I don't really think it would be such a big deal. It's not like marines have that many ways to get assault cannons on the field anyway.

As someone who plays Sisters of Battle, I regularly bring Retributors with Heavy Bolters. The whole squad gets rending a few times a game, and they're one of the most consistently underperforming units in my army.
So, yeah, there's that. Rending on Heavy Bolters doesn't make them cost effective.

Waaaghpower wrote:
As someone who plays Sisters of Battle, I regularly bring Retributors with Heavy Bolters. The whole squad gets rending a few times a game, and they're one of the most consistently underperforming units in my army.
So, yeah, there's that. Rending on Heavy Bolters doesn't make them cost effective.

I think that's really the issue with rending. Sure, it has some none-zero chance of hurting AV14. Good for it. The problem is if you pull your HB squad away from what they should be shooting at (light/medium infantry) to try and get that lucky rend on a heavy tank, you're odds of getting that rend are iffy and the target you should be attacking is rumbling along not being shoot at. Role confusion is an inherently bad thing and rending serves no purpose but to induce it.

Heavy bolters aren't even good vs light/med infantry once they have any kind of cover. Especially T4 infantry like orks. That AP 4 stat is a total waste of time. The approach of the multilaser or scatterlaser is much better. How much do those weapons care about your 4+ cover? They don't because sandpapering though saves was their plan to begin with.

Giving heavy bolters shred would help this, but maybe too much. The problem with the current D6 system is that a single point of Str on a gun makes an enormous difference that can't easily be compensated for. What do multilasers and scatterlasers get to kill IKs and heavy bolters can't?

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
As someone who plays Sisters of Battle, I regularly bring Retributors with Heavy Bolters. The whole squad gets rending a few times a game, and they're one of the most consistently underperforming units in my army.
So, yeah, there's that. Rending on Heavy Bolters doesn't make them cost effective.

I think that's really the issue with rending. Sure, it has some none-zero chance of hurting AV14. Good for it. The problem is if you pull your HB squad away from what they should be shooting at (light/medium infantry) to try and get that lucky rend on a heavy tank, you're odds of getting that rend are iffy and the target you should be attacking is rumbling along not being shoot at. Role confusion is an inherently bad thing and rending serves no purpose but to induce it.

I usually use it as a stopgap - If I have nothing else to fire at, I'll target something non-ideal with Rending. Problem is, I seem to inevitably end up going against armies with a bunch of 3+ and 2+, or else Daemons. Either way, it does no good. Even when it's something else, it's usually endless hordes, where HBs just don't have volume of fire.

Waaaghpower wrote:
I usually use it as a stopgap - If I have nothing else to fire at, I'll target something non-ideal with Rending. Problem is, I seem to inevitably end up going against armies with a bunch of 3+ and 2+, or else Daemons. Either way, it does no good. Even when it's something else, it's usually endless hordes, where HBs just don't have volume of fire.

Yeah, but that's more of a "eh, might as well take the shot since nothing else is in range" thing. Giving HBs rending as a core part of the profile doesn't seem to be something they really need or want.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
I usually use it as a stopgap - If I have nothing else to fire at, I'll target something non-ideal with Rending. Problem is, I seem to inevitably end up going against armies with a bunch of 3+ and 2+, or else Daemons. Either way, it does no good. Even when it's something else, it's usually endless hordes, where HBs just don't have volume of fire.

Yeah, but that's more of a "eh, might as well take the shot since nothing else is in range" thing. Giving HBs rending as a core part of the profile doesn't seem to be something they really need or want.

Which was my point in the first place. It's not great, it's barely good.

Rending is only good with high volume of fire.

Just give heavy bolters rapid fire.....

 CanisFish wrote:
Just give heavy bolters rapid fire.....

Sure, let's reduce its RoF to a third at range and two-thirds at half range. An excellent idea that would definitely not cause people to choose other weapons in their favor.

 Charistoph wrote:

 CanisFish wrote:
Just give heavy bolters rapid fire.....

Sure, let's reduce its RoF to a third at range and two-thirds at half range. An excellent idea that would definitely not cause people to choose other weapons in their favor.

Huh?
They would be normal at 36" 3 shot
But at 18" will have six shots

What are you on about?

Edit: oh you thought I meant make the heavy bolter into a regular bolt gun? no, just take the rule a bolt gun gets (Rapid fire: double shots at half range), and stick it on the heavy bolter.

It also would fire at full BS when moving because of no longer being heavy

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
It also would fire at full BS when moving because of no longer being heavy

Is that to my suggestion? why would it not still be a heavy because it has rapid fire?

Salvo seems more appropriate.

 CanisFish wrote:
Is that to my suggestion? why would it not still be a heavy because it has rapid fire?

As far as I know weapon classes are one or the other. There's no such thing as an assault rapid fire weapon, or a heavy salvo weapon.

Frankly, I think what would be nice is to just make them assault weapons (not exactly sure how this would work with IG, maybe drop them from the IG heavy weapon team list). with a little more mobility they can have their role as being basically the 40k version of a SAW, while autocannons are the heavier, fixed emplacement/vehicle mounted version.

 CanisFish wrote:

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
It also would fire at full BS when moving because of no longer being heavy

Is that to my suggestion? why would it not still be a heavy because it has rapid fire?

Please post your variant of heavy bolter's profile so we can better understand your exact proposal.
Like 'heavy 3, rapid fire' or 'rapid fire 3, heavy' or 'heavy 3, rapid fire 3' or something?

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 CanisFish wrote:
Is that to my suggestion? why would it not still be a heavy because it has rapid fire?

As far as I know weapon classes are one or the other. There's no such thing as an assault rapid fire weapon, or a heavy salvo weapon.

Frankly, I think what would be nice is to just make them assault weapons (not exactly sure how this would work with IG, maybe drop them from the IG heavy weapon team list). with a little more mobility they can have their role as being basically the 40k version of a SAW, while autocannons are the heavier, fixed emplacement/vehicle mounted version.

I believe Rapid fire is a special rule, not a weapon type

Sonic Keyboard wrote:

 CanisFish wrote:

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
It also would fire at full BS when moving because of no longer being heavy

Is that to my suggestion? why would it not still be a heavy because it has rapid fire?

Please post your variant of heavy bolter's profile so we can better understand your exact proposal.
Like 'heavy 3, rapid fire' or 'rapid fire 3, heavy' or 'heavy 3, rapid fire 3' or something?

S5 AP4 Heavy 3, Rapid fire

Normal heavy bolter in all accounts except at half range gets heavy 6

Rapid fire is it's own profile type.
What you are suggesting would be best represented by Salvo 6/3. They would also add mobility, but is too much imo.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Rapid fire is it's own profile type.
What you are suggesting would be best represented by Salvo 6/3. They would also add mobility, but is too much imo.

Ah yes my mistake, read the entry in the rulebook and it is indeed its own weapon type.
Strange, heavy and assault sounds like descriptive words for a weapon while rapid fire sounds like something it can do.

 CanisFish wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Rapid fire is it's own profile type.
What you are suggesting would be best represented by Salvo 6/3. They would also add mobility, but is too much imo.

Ah yes my mistake, read the entry in the rulebook and it is indeed its own weapon type.
Strange, heavy and assault sounds like descriptive words for a weapon while rapid fire sounds like something it can do.

Agreed, rapid fire holds the kind of middle ground. You can move with it, but no assault with it.
However it's now almost exactly just salvo 2/1. The only difference is that rapid fire can still move and fire at max range, salvo 2/1 couldn't. 5th ed rapid fire literally is current salvo 2/1.
That and salvo normally has the second number being bigger, but that's an irrelevant difference.

 CanisFish wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Rapid fire is it's own profile type.
What you are suggesting would be best represented by Salvo 6/3. They would also add mobility, but is too much imo.

Ah yes my mistake, read the entry in the rulebook and it is indeed its own weapon type.
Strange, heavy and assault sounds like descriptive words for a weapon while rapid fire sounds like something it can do.

To be fair, I do hope that Rapid Fire does get setup as you thought at some point. It should be a reverse Salvo in concept. Until then making Heavy Bolters Rapid Fire would be generally classified as a nerf.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
I think 4 shots isn't quite enough.

I'd say make it Heavy 4 but also -1 to cover saves. The idea here is that the heavier shells slam into cover and explode, shredding the target with debris anyway, so there's less benefit to being in cover against it.

This doesn't make the weapon suddenly an ideal anti-marine weapon or anything, but does give it a bit of a niche as a long-range weapon that can put extra hurt on targets in cover, compared against flamers which are better at that but need to get a lot closer first.

Neat idea, but I'm not sure I'd like the result in practice. I see this doing relatively little to improve the heavy bolter against most targets, but making it somewhat better against dark eldar vehicles or 'nids and orks trying to make their way towards you using cover. All of which are armies that don't need another kick in the geneseed right now.

Hmm, perhaps.

Another alternative that might help the anti-infantry credentials could be for each to-Hit roll of a 6 the target unit suffers two hits instead of 1. Combined with Heavy 4 this gives an average number of 3.333 hits at BS4, rather than 2.666 as normal, at BS3 it'd be 2.666 vs 2 and so-on. On average it works out the same as having an extra point of Ballistic Skill, however on a very good roll you're potentially hitting more targets than the higher BS.

Of course if that's too complicated, treating heavy bolters as +1 to-Hit could work too, such that it also affects Snap Shots?

[edit] That said, your criticism on the heavy bolter being more useful against DE vehicles, orks and 'nids, while I agree that these armies are woefully underpowered right now, aren't they exactly the types of targets that the Heavy Bolter should be good against? Personally I still prefer the cover penalty as a mechanic for the explosive shells, and remember, I'm only proposing this for the Heavy Bolter. I figure the regular boltgun and bolt pistol are already represented by their Strength and AP values, as the explosion presumably isn't as large as for the heavier rounds.

 Charistoph wrote:

 CanisFish wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Rapid fire is it's own profile type.
What you are suggesting would be best represented by Salvo 6/3. They would also add mobility, but is too much imo.

Ah yes my mistake, read the entry in the rulebook and it is indeed its own weapon type.
Strange, heavy and assault sounds like descriptive words for a weapon while rapid fire sounds like something it can do.

To be fair, I do hope that Rapid Fire does get setup as you thought at some point. It should be a reverse Salvo in concept. Until then making Heavy Bolters Rapid Fire would be generally classified as a nerf.

For foot sloggers yes.
For Bikes and Vehicles not so much.
Land Speeders would be amazing.
Could you imagine the damage a 95 point Predator could do at 18"? Twelve S5 shots followed by two S7 shots, that's going to hurt. 285 points gets the squadron with Killshot on top of the six S7 shots and thirty six S5 shots.
Space Mutts and Blood Angels both got short-changed on cheap flyers but Guard and Vanilla Marines would have some serious flying threat.

Or for that matter a line of chimeras with twin heavy bolters? Man, with them giving twelve shots each, AND being transports, AND 12 front armor... yikes. That'd certainly make mech guard players happy!

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
For foot sloggers yes.
For Bikes and Vehicles not so much.
Land Speeders would be amazing.
Could you imagine the damage a 95 point Predator could do at 18"? Twelve S5 shots followed by two S7 shots, that's going to hurt. 285 points gets the squadron with Killshot on top of the six S7 shots and thirty six S5 shots.
Space Mutts and Blood Angels both got short-changed on cheap flyers but Guard and Vanilla Marines would have some serious flying threat.

It would be a nerf no matter who was taking them in the current environment. The Rate of Fire for Rapid Fire Weapons is a constant based on the range to the target, 1 shot from half to full range, 2 from point blank to half range.

What he was suggesting is that Rapid Fire be a function that doubled fire at half range. This would be an improvement for EVERYONE that carried the Heavy Bolter, foot slogger or no, considering that Relentless does not affect this at all. Relentless only affects a model's ability to Charge after using a Rapid Fire Weapon.

I personally want to see it turn intop a 48 inch range with slavo 4/2 S5 Ap4 so it is just a better bolter.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
For foot sloggers yes.
For Bikes and Vehicles not so much.
Land Speeders would be amazing.
Could you imagine the damage a 95 point Predator could do at 18"? Twelve S5 shots followed by two S7 shots, that's going to hurt. 285 points gets the squadron with Killshot on top of the six S7 shots and thirty six S5 shots.
Space Mutts and Blood Angels both got short-changed on cheap flyers but Guard and Vanilla Marines would have some serious flying threat.

It would be a nerf no matter who was taking them in the current environment. The Rate of Fire for Rapid Fire Weapons is a constant based on the range to the target, 1 shot from half to full range, 2 from point blank to half range.

What he was suggesting is that Rapid Fire be a function that doubled fire at half range. This would be an improvement for EVERYONE that carried the Heavy Bolter, foot slogger or no, considering that Relentless does not affect this at all. Relentless only affects a model's ability to Charge after using a Rapid Fire Weapon.

Well there you go.
I've only really encountered Rapid Fire on Bolters and simply didn't care after finding out that you couldn't charge after using it - so, you got a cool name for this new mechanic?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Well there you go.
I've only really encountered Rapid Fire on Bolters and simply didn't care after finding out that you couldn't charge after using it - so, you got a cool name for this new mechanic?

It's on a lot of stuff besides Boltguns, like Lasguns and Plasma Guns, but that's neither here nor there.

I was stating that this be the version that Rapid Fire should be. It should either double shots at half range, or improve the stat by +1 or +half. It would require adding a number after Rapid Fire ala Assault or Heavy, but that's nothing new. The alternative is using a #/# system ala Salvo to indicate short/long range rates of fire.

Though, this has nothing to do with Heavy Bolters. Their fluff and setup is far better suited to either a Heavy or Salvo mechanic, such as it is.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Well there you go.
I've only really encountered Rapid Fire on Bolters and simply didn't care after finding out that you couldn't charge after using it - so, you got a cool name for this new mechanic?

It's on a lot of stuff besides Boltguns, like Lasguns and Plasma Guns, but that's neither here nor there.

Still double the shots and no charge without relentless.

I was stating that this be the version that Rapid Fire should be. It should either double shots at half range, or improve the stat by +1 or +half. It would require adding a number after Rapid Fire ala Assault or Heavy, but that's nothing new. The alternative is using a #/# system ala Salvo to indicate short/long range rates of fire.


Though, this has nothing to do with Heavy Bolters. Their fluff and setup is far better suited to either a Heavy or Salvo mechanic, such as it is.

Not like fluff doesn't get Retconned regardless of our feelings. Don't let that stop a rule improvement.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Well there you go.
I've only really encountered Rapid Fire on Bolters and simply didn't care after finding out that you couldn't charge after using it - so, you got a cool name for this new mechanic?

It's on a lot of stuff besides Boltguns, like Lasguns and Plasma Guns, but that's neither here nor there.

Still double the shots and no charge without relentless.

More to the point, there is little reason to not be familiar with it if you are familiar with the game, much less familiar with the Boltgun which is in the BRB nwo.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

I was stating that this be the version that Rapid Fire should be. It should either double shots at half range, or improve the stat by +1 or +half. It would require adding a number after Rapid Fire ala Assault or Heavy, but that's nothing new. The alternative is using a #/# system ala Salvo to indicate short/long range rates of fire.


Though, this has nothing to do with Heavy Bolters. Their fluff and setup is far better suited to either a Heavy or Salvo mechanic, such as it is.

Not like fluff doesn't get Retconned regardless of our feelings. Don't let that stop a rule improvement.

Really, you think that the in-universe equivalent of a M2 .50 caliber machine gun should be a Rapid Fire weapon like an M16?

 Charistoph wrote:
Not like fluff doesn't get Retconned regardless of our feelings. Don't let that stop a rule improvement.

Really, you think that the in-universe equivalent of a M2 .50 caliber machine gun should be a Rapid Fire weapon like an M16?

I recall that the Heavy Bolter as been descirbed by GW as like the gun on the Apache helicopter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M230_chain_gun

So a 0.50 cal (12.5mm) is a peashooter compared to this 30mm chain gun.

Bolter calibre/performance varies widely by source. I've seen bolters described as 0.75-calibre and heavy bolters described as 1.0-calibre (25mm) before.

Modern weapons/equipment is usually a pretty poor comparison to 40k, the numbers we're given are always so weird. The tanks have vastly more open space inside, the anti-gravity tech means we've got planes running around with foot-thick wings that exist mostly to mount missiles, weapons with widely varying calibres are described as doing the exact same thing, we've got no way of coming up with a realistic equivalent of the melta weapons...

Martel732 wrote:
There is no justification for making the heavy bolter shoot more than an assault cannon.

depends what you want the HB's niche to be. is it supposed to be simply a dirth cheap option you toss on when you don't wanna spend the points for something better? (if so leave it as is, maybe reduce it to a 5 point cost although I think that;d be a bit nuts) but if you want the HB to be a "lighty infantry clearer" then it makes sense. and I think that isn't a bad idea, the assault cannon is a fantastic option to crack heavy infantry squads, but sometimes you just need something to hose down that 30 man blob. the HB could, easily eneugh, be that option

" the assault cannon is a fantastic option to crack heavy infantry squads"

Not really. ROF is too low.

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Not like fluff doesn't get Retconned regardless of our feelings. Don't let that stop a rule improvement.

Really, you think that the in-universe equivalent of a M2 .50 caliber machine gun should be a Rapid Fire weapon like an M16?

Heavy bolter makes a .50 look like a pea shooter.

1) you messed up the quote.

Skip for 2.

Tygre wrote:I recall that the Heavy Bolter as been descirbed by GW as like the gun on the Apache helicopter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M230_chain_gun

So a 0.50 cal (12.5mm) is a peashooter compared to this 30mm chain gun.

2) The point wasn't the firepower of the weapon, but the widespread use and availability of the weapon. No other weapon sees as much widespread use in the 40K game as the Heavy Bolter. It is carried by super-soldiers, a crew-served "mobile" weapon, and used on Ground Vehicles and Air Vehicles in numerous codices. The Browning M2 .50 caliber has been in use for decades and was used on EVERYTHING in the American military during WWII. It is a single-barrel heavy small arm that provides a better-than-a-rifle rate of fire.

Does that really sound like one hit at range, two a bit closer, effectiveness?

Martel732 wrote:
" the assault cannon is a fantastic option to crack heavy infantry squads"

Not really. ROF is too low.

I don't belvie a single weapon of ANY type should be wiping out entire units save maybe lucky use of blasts

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" the assault cannon is a fantastic option to crack heavy infantry squads"

Not really. ROF is too low.

I don't belvie a single weapon of ANY type should be wiping out entire units save maybe lucky use of blasts

I'm saying the assault cannon is lucky to get one or two heavy infantry kills. Not that impressive.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Well there you go.
I've only really encountered Rapid Fire on Bolters and simply didn't care after finding out that you couldn't charge after using it - so, you got a cool name for this new mechanic?

It's on a lot of stuff besides Boltguns, like Lasguns and Plasma Guns, but that's neither here nor there.

Still double the shots and no charge without relentless.

More to the point, there is little reason to not be familiar with it if you are familiar with the game, much less familiar with the Boltgun which is in the BRB nwo.

Even judges make mistakes - pretty sure they're more than familliar.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

I was stating that this be the version that Rapid Fire should be. It should either double shots at half range, or improve the stat by +1 or +half. It would require adding a number after Rapid Fire ala Assault or Heavy, but that's nothing new. The alternative is using a #/# system ala Salvo to indicate short/long range rates of fire.

Though, this has nothing to do with Heavy Bolters. Their fluff and setup is far better suited to either a Heavy or Salvo mechanic, such as it is.

Not like fluff doesn't get Retconned regardless of our feelings. Don't let that stop a rule improvement.

Really, you think that the in-universe equivalent of a M2 .50 caliber machine gun should be a Rapid Fire weapon like an M16?

When its usually being lugged about by super soldiers who wield extended and reinforced chainsaws with the dexterity I have with a shinai, no, it's not too big a leap of the imagination to think they have rapid-fire canon calibre weaponry.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Even judges make mistakes - pretty sure they're more than familliar.

Then why are you treating them as if they are not?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Really, you think that the in-universe equivalent of a M2 .50 caliber machine gun should be a Rapid Fire weapon like an M16?

When its usually being lugged about by super soldiers who wield extended and reinforced chainsaws with the dexterity I have with a shinai, no, it's not too big a leap of the imagination to think they have rapid-fire canon calibre weaponry.

But even those same super soldiers don't hold it like an M16. They hold it closer to an underslung M60. That's nothing like an assault rifle. Even the Sisters of Battle carry it the same way with their power armor.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Even judges make mistakes - pretty sure they're more than familliar.

Then why are you treating them as if they are not?

Because my familiarity with that rule was just as I described it and I'd never seen anything to suggest I might need to look further into its wording.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Really, you think that the in-universe equivalent of a M2 .50 caliber machine gun should be a Rapid Fire weapon like an M16?

When its usually being lugged about by super soldiers who wield extended and reinforced chainsaws with the dexterity I have with a shinai, no, it's not too big a leap of the imagination to think they have rapid-fire canon calibre weaponry.

But even those same super soldiers don't hold it like an M16. They hold it closer to an underslung M60. That's nothing like an assault rifle. Even the Sisters of Battle carry it the same way with their power armor.

Just the fact the Sisters can carry a Heavy Bolter is pretty telling. Power Armour only adds to strength, it doesn't make up for the "natural" strength difference between a Sister and a Marine. If there's any reason a Marine would carry this weapon the way they do I'd blame it on a lousy weapon design - it's DESIGNED to be carried underslung - it's also hardly a design that would stop a person holding the trigger a little longer.

Dakka Wolf I think you're missing the point, rapid fire is small arms fire.Same as ARs.
If we assume a heavy bolter is to a bolt gun what a. 50 is to an M16 (which I think is reasonably accurate) why would the .50 fire like an M16?

I agree with Martel, there is no justification for the heavy bolter to fire faster or stronger than am assault cannon.
If the heavy bolter is like an Apache's 30mm the assault cannon is like the Thunderbolts GAU-8 minigun.

I think a Heavy Bolter would best served as a light-infantry killer

It shouldn't massacre troops like an assault cannon bjut it should be reasonably mobile.
I think Salvo 2/4 would be best.
It gives a mobile tactical squad a reasonable heavy weapon other than grav and is a slight buff if you use it for stationary fire.
It doesn't invalidate assault cannons or autocannons or aything else.
Issues however include Guard heavy weapons lugging and firing a heavy bolter on the got. Perhaps their heavy bolters could instead be heavy 4? Would set Astartes apart. Or maybe a special rule like 'fixed positions' or something, Heavy Weapons Teams treat all weapons without the rapid fire special rule as Heavy, taking the higher number in regards to a Salvo weapon.

Hmmm.

My favorite options so far:
Salvo 2/4, 48" range for 'Astrates' Heavy bolter (for the epicness of space marines walking around and firing heavy bolters on the move (at the same range as their bolters).
EASIEST OPTION, least impact on meta/units with HB as standard: Simply reduce the price of heavy bolters to 5p (in line with Ork big shootas, which are S5 AP5 36" assault 3).

What do you think of this other option to fit the performance expectations.
Heavy bolter = S6 AP4 heavy 3
but then make Multi-laser S5 AP6 heavy 4 (or 5?)

Makari wins wrote:

What do you think of this other option to fit the performance expectations.
Heavy bolter = S6 AP4 heavy 3
but then make Multi-laser S5 AP6 heavy 4 (or 5?)

Not a fan of that one, you're still left with Tactical squads having no mobile heavy weapons and you're encroaching a lot onto auto-cannons and assault cannons, the assault cannon at lest costs 3-4 times as much.

I think if it's kept as-is it should be cheaper, such as for the Imperial Guard, or atleast increase the cost of their auto-cannons.

The moment you increase the cost of the Autocannon it will become useless. It is at the perfect sweet spot at 10 points. Make it 15 and you have no reason to take it over a Lascannon for 5 more points or a ML for the same price.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Issues however include Guard heavy weapons lugging and firing a heavy bolter on the got. Perhaps their heavy bolters could instead be heavy 4? Would set Astartes apart. Or maybe a special rule like 'fixed positions' or something, Heavy Weapons Teams treat all weapons without the rapid fire special rule as Heavy, taking the higher number in regards to a Salvo weapon.

i thought in the fluff guardsmen used slightly lower calibre bolters and heavy bolters?

Also seeing that they have two people for one heavy weapon, would kind of help make up for the disparity. The Imperial Guard already pay the same upgrade costs to field their HW's as space marines do, only to equip them onto far less durable units.

Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Even judges make mistakes - pretty sure they're more than familliar.

Then why are you treating them as if they are not?

Because my familiarity with that rule was just as I described it and I'd never seen anything to suggest I might need to look further into its wording.

So its so familiar that you never thought to look it up, but not so familiar that you didn't know it has been a low rate of fire constant for the last 4 Editions like Canisfish? Very interesting.

Dakka Wolf wrote:Just the fact the Sisters can carry a Heavy Bolter is pretty telling. Power Armour only adds to strength, it doesn't make up for the "natural" strength difference between a Sister and a Marine. If there's any reason a Marine would carry this weapon the way they do I'd blame it on a lousy weapon design - it's DESIGNED to be carried underslung - it's also hardly a design that would stop a person holding the trigger a little longer.

Again, an underslung carrying and firing position is not the same position that someone uses with an assault rifle. Rapid Fire Weapons are not used underslung as they are aimed down iron sights. While being underslung does allow a person to hold on to the trigger a little longer, which is why Heavy Bolters are currently Heavy 3, instead of 1 shot at range.

kirotheavenger wrote:I agree with Martel, there is no justification for the heavy bolter to fire faster or stronger than am assault cannon.
If the heavy bolter is like an Apache's 30mm the assault cannon is like the Thunderbolts GAU-8 minigun.

Martel's overreacting. Heavy 4 does not make a Heavy Bolter an Assault Cannon, nor does giving it Rending (alone). Assault Cannons are also Str 6 on top of both of those, which adds in a lot more to the scope of targets of the Assault Cannon than would be for the Heavy Bolter.

I do agree with the rest of your points, though.

Makari wins wrote:Hmmm.

My favorite options so far:
Salvo 2/4, 48" range for 'Astrates' Heavy bolter (for the epicness of space marines walking around and firing heavy bolters on the move (at the same range as their bolters).
EASIEST OPTION, least impact on meta/units with HB as standard: Simply reduce the price of heavy bolters to 5p (in line with Ork big shootas, which are S5 AP5 36" assault 3).

What do you think of this other option to fit the performance expectations.
Heavy bolter = S6 AP4 heavy 3
but then make Multi-laser S5 AP6 heavy 4 (or 5?)

Str 6 would make it too close to the Assault Cannon. One thing I do think that IG needs is a Salvo SAW-like weapon. Consider the placements of the Multi-laser, I don't think that this would fit it without making up another pintle weapon for them.

Upgrading it to 4 shots should do the trick. On the subject assault cannons, they should not have a higher S than heavy bolters. They're a little bit too good at everything.

On a related note, it's always baffled me how some weapons and wargear (plasma pistols, teminator armour to name but a few) get shafted for edition after edition, while others remain op'd. If I didn't know better, I would swear there's some serious discrimination going on in the rules department

 Charistoph wrote:

kirotheavenger wrote:I agree with Martel, there is no justification for the heavy bolter to fire faster or stronger than am assault cannon.
If the heavy bolter is like an Apache's 30mm the assault cannon is like the Thunderbolts GAU-8 minigun.

Martel's overreacting. Heavy 4 does not make a Heavy Bolter an Assault Cannon, nor does giving it Rending (alone). Assault Cannons are also Str 6 on top of both of those, which adds in a lot more to the scope of targets of the Assault Cannon than would be for the Heavy Bolter.

I do agree with the rest of your points, though.

I'm okay with it reaching 4 shots, but never 5 shots. It shouldn't fire faster than a minigun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Upgrading it to 4 shots should do the trick. On the subject assault cannons, they should not have a higher S than heavy bolters. They're a little bit too good at everything.

Assault cannons also cost ~3 times as much and are only available in limited numbers on certain chassis's.

I think HB should be a free option for devastator squads and vehicles. Since they are at the moment a bit in the wilderness, make them the initial choice for devastators and vehicles.

Gets around the need to give them points values, as they are the initial choice. Points values for other weapons stay the same to make you choose what is more effective for the situation. People might say "oh that is broken because 9 marines with HB is 27 shots!" But is it really? As many have pointed out HB only become effective with massed shots, as their strength and AP is beaten or bested by all other heavy weapon options. Vehicles then become auto infantry hunters, who need to be upgraded to be all rounders or dedicated tank hunters/MC smashers.

I'd personally take 9 HB marines in a devastator squad. Because the amount of dakka would be hilarious!

Making them free for dev squads just makes their cost 0.

Hmm. I think making hb's 5p is the way. Makes them equivalent orice to IG mortar s4 large blast barrage which it competes with for anti inf. In this case it must logically lead to all imperial guard vehicles reducing point cost by 5p. Agreed?

Makari wins wrote:
Making them free for dev squads just makes their cost 0.

Hmm. I think making hb's 5p is the way. Makes them equivalent orice to IG mortar s4 large blast barrage which it competes with for anti inf. In this case it must logically lead to all imperial guard vehicles reducing point cost by 5p. Agreed?

I think he means make it their default weapon.
So all those 5 extra bodies you can stick to the squad get some extra wounds? They're now packing heavy bolters instead of bolters.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Assault cannons also cost ~3 times as much and are only available in limited numbers on certain chassis's.

True. But I'd advocate balancing weapons better, rather than having expensive decent weapons and cheap cruddy ones.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Assault cannons also cost ~3 times as much and are only available in limited numbers on certain chassis's.

True. But I'd advocate balancing weapons better, rather than having expensive decent weapons and cheap cruddy ones.

I think we should have cheaper, worse weapons and costlier, better weapons.
But it should all be proportional to cost.