Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've noticed in the new 5e SM codex that missile launchers and heavy bolters are now equal in points. With 4e blast rules, this makes more since, but I've noticed in practice that heavy bolters are actually outperformed by missile launchers in most roles. For the purposes of mathhammer, we'll assume small blast markers hit 4 models against horde units and that against MEQs and vehicles Krak missiles are used.

Vs. GEQ in 4+ cover
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 10/6 wounds, 5/6 (.83)unsaved---missile launcher 4 hits, 8/3 wounds, 4/3 (1.33)unsaved
Vs. GEQ outside of cover
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 10/6 wounds, 10/6 (1.66)unsaved---missile launcher 4 hits, 8/3 wounds, 20/9 (2.22)unsaved
Vs. Orks in 4+ cover
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 4/3 wounds, 2/3 (.66) unsaved---missile launcher: 4 hits, 2 wounds, 1 unsaved
Vs. Orks outside of cover
heavy botler: 2 hits, 4/3 wounds, 4/3 (1.33) unsaved---missile launcher: 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 wounds
Vs. MEQ in 4+ cover
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 4/3 wounds, 4/9 (.44) unsaved---missile launcher: 2/3 hits, 5/9 wounds, 5/18 (.27) unsaved
Vs. MEQ outside of cover
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 4/3 wounds, 4/9 (.44) unsaved---missile launcher: 2/3 hits, 5/9 wounds, 5/9 (.55) unsaved
Vs Terminator equivalent
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 4/3 wounds, 2/9 (.22) unsaved---missile launcher: 2/3 hits, 5/9 wounds, 5/54 (.09) unsaved
Vs. AV 10
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 1/3 (.33) glance, 1/3 (.33) penetrate---missile launcher: 2/3 htis, 1/9 (.11) glance, 4/9 (.44) penetrate
Vs. AV 11
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 1/3 (.33) glance---missile launcher: 2/3 hits, 1/9 (.11) glance, 1/3 (.33) penetrate
Vs AV 12+
heavy bolter: no effect---missile launcher: 2/3 hits, 1/9 (.11) glance, 2/9 (.22) penetrate vs 12, 1/9 (.11) penetrate vs 13 and no penetrate vs 14

So heavy bolters only outperform missile launchers VS armor 10, MEQs in +4 cover and anything with a 2+ save. Does anyone think this means a decreased use of heavy bolters is in the future for SM infantry units?

ML's longer range is also a plus to consider.

I like ML way more :"P

Two quick problems with your analysis. You assume hitting four GEQs each turn with the blast template. That seems a little high, given how most armies are spread out and the tendency of the blasts to scatter. Knocking that down to three is still generous but at least more realistic.

Second, why not give the resutls for frag against meqs? Assuming 3 hit, that's 3/2 wounds or 1/2 of an unsaved wound. That outpeforms anything else against marines in cover.

I prefer to quote the killiness of blast templates, not in terms of how many each blast will kill, but in terms of how many the template needs to cover to clear any given threshold. For example, against orks out of cover, the HB kills 1.5 a turn. For the frag, 1.5 wounds = 3 hits, so the frag needs to average three hits a turn to beat the heavy bolter. odds are, the HB comes ahead due to the difficulty in getting that many hits.


This probably explains the reduced performance in game as well: blasts simply scatter a lot, and even when they don't they can't always hit your target number of models.

Polonius wrote:Two quick problems with your analysis. You assume hitting four GEQs each turn with the blast template. That seems a little high, given how most armies are spread out and the tendency of the blasts to scatter. Knocking that down to three is still generous but at least more realistic.

Second, why not give the resutls for frag against meqs? Assuming 3 hit, that's 3/2 wounds or 1/2 of an unsaved wound. That outpeforms anything else against marines in cover.

I prefer to quote the killiness of blast templates, not in terms of how many each blast will kill, but in terms of how many the template needs to cover to clear any given threshold. For example, against orks out of cover, the HB kills 1.5 a turn. For the frag, 1.5 wounds = 3 hits, so the frag needs to average three hits a turn to beat the heavy bolter. odds are, the HB comes ahead due to the difficulty in getting that many hits.


This probably explains the reduced performance in game as well: blasts simply scatter a lot, and even when they don't they can't always hit your target number of models.

Against GEQ, I admit, that's a high number, but in my experience against my 30 ork boys squads I rarely get hit less than 4 times (sometimes 5) with 100% accuracy. This is mainly due to terrain forcing them closer than 2" apart and the fact I don't wish to annoy my opponent by spending 45 minutes in my movement phase trying to get them all 2" apart. IG squads are much smaller, but typically are packed into cover to avoid wholesale slaughter. They would have a greater chance of getting at that perfect 2" apart due to the fact that after deploying most people won't move them out of cover unless pressed by a close combat threat. That, and guant squads (which I consider GEQ) also tend to have very large squads as well Also, I didn't bother with fragging marines just because I simply forgot it. Your point about averaging 3 hits versus GEQ is still a valid one and due to the smaller size of IG units you may not hit them at all, but that makes mathhammer a headache..
How's about these revised numbers vs GEQ and frag vs MEQ:
Vs. GEQ in 4+ cover
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 5/3 wounds, 5/6 (.83)unsaved---missile launcher 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 unsaved
Vs. GEQ outside of cover
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 5/3 wounds, 5/3 (1.66)unsaved---missile launcher 3 hits, 2 wounds, 5/3 (1.66) unsaved
Vs. MEQ
heavy bolter: 2 hits, 4/3 wounds, 4/9 (.44) unsaved--- missile launcher 3 hits, 3/2 wounds, 1/2 (.5) unsaved

I like one Dev squad with 4x HB and another with 4x ML. For tactical squads I would take an ML over the HB.

G

If you are facing an infantry heavy guard or ork player who actually spreads their squads out, then you have a much easier time concentrating your army against them. Most good guard and ork players I've seen keep their guys fairly well bunched up because although it does make them more vulnerable to blasts, it also makes it so they can't easily be countered by enemy castle formations or mobility.

willydstyle wrote:If you are facing an infantry heavy guard or ork player who actually spreads their squads out, then you have a much easier time concentrating your army against them. Most good guard and ork players I've seen keep their guys fairly well bunched up because although it does make them more vulnerable to blasts, it also makes it so they can't easily be countered by enemy castle formations or mobility.

I must be having a hard time visualizing what you mean in a game. If your opponent is trying to capitalize on your lack of mobility (really, not that much of a disadvantage as it was in 4e, especially with orks having fleet on their waagh! turn), wouldn't spreading out and covering more of the table make it harder for them to evade you?

No, it just makes it easier for your mobility to allow you to concentrate forces, especially if your opponent had the reactive setup.

Bunching up means that if you want to fight SOME of his army, you have to fight ALL of it.

Wouldn't it be win-win for a scattering blast template regardless of how the target's set up?

Clumped together = greater number of hits

Spread out = greater chance of hitting

willydstyle wrote:No, it just makes it easier for your mobility to allow you to concentrate forces, especially if your opponent had the reactive setup.

Bunching up means that if you want to fight SOME of his army, you have to fight ALL of it.

Ah.. I see what you're talking about. You're saying that each unit stays close to neighboring units to support each other with counter charges and joint charges. I thought you were saying that the units were packed together. I know that typically, there is no sneaking around my foot slogging orks unless my opponent first punches a hole in them to slide through by the sheer fact the units are loosely packed, but still side by side almost from table edge to table edge and what gaps there are are typically within the threat range of my orks' charge.
In fact, to prove to my nephew that they could be beaten, we switched armies for a game and I piled all of his space marine units (mostly AOBR stuff) on one side of the board and poured all my fire into one flank. I toasted 1 unit and managed to reduce another by half by the time he got to me, then I moved up into the hole and rapid fired on the depleted unit and let him try to bring each unit 1 at a time to me versus my whole army. It made the game very close but I managed a narrow win. After the lesson I gave him enough missile launcher bits to build 2 devastator squads.. I haven't been able to beat him since, lol

Build and Ork list with a Kill-Kannon BW and a SAG bigmek, and then watch your opponent sweat as he has to figure out whether to spread himself out to defend from blasts, or pack together to have a more viable winning strategy.

willydstyle wrote:Build and Ork list with a Kill-Kannon BW and a SAG bigmek, and then watch your opponent sweat as he has to figure out whether to spread himself out to defend from blasts, or pack together to have a more viable winning strategy.

LOL, it's my nephew.. and I play my orks with my brain in neutral. I just roll my run dice for my boyz and let my lootas fire. Once I get in close combat I roll buckets of dice and hope the units I hit hold this turn but break in my opponent's. If I just wanted to win outright, I'd field Snikrot and company.

ML definetly! It's rare for marines to score 3 hits with the HB.

ML all the way sorry but it's true... well imo

They are both good in different ways. For the most part, I think that missile launchers are a bit better due to the extended range and multiple fire modes. There will be places where the heavy bolter is the superior weapon (like shooting at fire warriors out of cover) but I think that these situations will occur less often than ones where the missile launcher will be better.

I prefer the missile launcher in many capacities but find myself gravitating towards the heavy bolter a lot just simply because of AP4 against infantry...

I know thats not a huge thing but it just seems superior to me, although it depends what use were talking Devastators or Tac squads?

Tac squads i would probably go with missile, because they are the "jack of all trades" unit and the multi-use of the missile launcher fits this.
Devastators, I would have to say heavy bolters, as per stated above.

Consider the fact that an opponent could simply place his models with 2" between them.. this would make it very hard to hit more than 1 model with a blast while the heavy bolter would remain unaffected. (this could be hard with orks or other swarm armies, but would easy with elite armies)

The thing is if you want to be effective with heavy bolters you have to take a lot of them... This Is the beauty of devastators.

G

You can always take two Missile Launchers and two Heavy Bolters, and split the squad in two.

Sharik wrote:Consider the fact that an opponent could simply place his models with 2" between them.. this would make it very hard to hit more than 1 model with a blast while the heavy bolter would remain unaffected. (this could be hard with orks or other swarm armies, but would easy with elite armies)

That only remains true against smaller squads. Against a 20-30 member squad of anything, if you aim in the middle you're still likely to hit 2-3 even against a well dispersed squad. 2" apart does a lot, but it is a 3" marker.. Plus Missile Launchers can still be used as effective AP3 weapons and can actually effect armor value 12+, neither of which a heavy bolter can do.

Nurglitch wrote:You can always take two Missile Launchers and two Heavy Bolters, and split the squad in two.

That's true, you would limit the team's effectiveness against medium armor, but you would definitely have a very effective and flexible anti-infantry unit.

I think Missile Launchers are definitely better overall. It would be a close run thing if both guns had the same range, but the extra range on the ML tips it for them.

The SM heavy weapons list is basically just Missile Launchers and Multimeltas now.

For Guard, missile launchers are even better relatively becuase of the lower HB hit rate. I coul dse emyself fielding a Guard army with missile launchers as the only heavy weapon (pending what happens in the new codex, of course).

Neil wrote:
For Guard, missile launchers are even better relatively becuase of the lower HB hit rate. I coul dse emyself fielding a Guard army with missile launchers as the only heavy weapon (pending what happens in the new codex, of course).

Autocannons do anti-tank/anti-meq in cover better than missile launchers.

But for marines, missile launcher > heavy bolter in a tac squad.

Actually, I've always wondered "what does IG do to AV 14?" Most IG players do prefer the 2 shots averaging 1 hit with an autocanno to the 1 shot averaging .5 hits with a missile launcher, but what do you do when your autocannons are just baning off the hull and annoying the occupants? Focus that fire elsewhere and ignore the unit? The KP system doesn't really lend itself to suicidal melta stormtrooper deepstrikes any more.
What unit takes care of heavy armor if weapon teams are all used as anti-infantry/light armor autocannons? Lascannon Leman Russes? I thought those were typically taken with as much anti-infantry power as possible.
Basalisks maybe?

I keep my heavy bolters on Scout Squads & Razorbacks. Missile launchers have great range & two modes of fire so I'll generally go with them over a heavy bolter.

Multimelta is my fav, but lacks range for a totally static unit. If I have a Tac Squad that I want to stay put I give them a plasma cannon and hope I don't role a one each turn.

I almost never use devistators so I can't coment on the load out for them.

Oh and in general when I play against IG the answer they have for AV14 is lascannons, at least 3.

Missile Launchers all the way!

Green Blow Fly wrote:The thing is if you want to be effective with heavy bolters you have to take a lot of them... This Is the beauty of devastators.

G

Heavy Bolters in a devastator squad? Why in the world would someone want to do that?

The only weapons to take (from a cost effectiveness point of view) in a devastator squad is ml's, pc's and lascannons.

Or better yet: take an autocannon/heavy bolter pred for half the price, and more versatility.

willydstyle wrote:Or better yet: take an autocannon/heavy bolter pred for half the price, and more versatility.

where do you get your dedicated anti-tank from then? I know there's other FOC choices capable, but what do you choose instead if you're taking the dakka pred? Also, you don't have to worry about a devastator squad getting one-shotted like a vehicle.. it's not as likely in 5e, but with the emphasis on movement and the power of melta weapons, getting hit in exposed side armor is still a distinct possibility.

Space marines have their fast attack slots full of anti-tank with cheap multi-melta land speeders and attack bikes.

Missile launchers are NOT good at a dedicated anti-tank role. They're good for anti-infantry with a secondary role of "oh shiz there's a tank, lets take a go at it." They're not strong enough, and they don't have AP1, so they won't reliably destroy enemy vehicles for you.

This is supported both by mathematics and by the fact that I fairly frequently run a 4 missile launcher 8 man havoc squad. But, IMO havocs are far superior to dev squads because they're not nearly as vulnerable to assault with two attacks each.

meh, IMO attack bikes and land speeders typically just buy my opponents' KP.. I used them a lot in 4e, but not so much now. I used to be able to keep them low on my opponent's target priority until I got them in position and punished them for ignoring them, now they go full bore at them to prevent them from getting any worthwhile kills AND so they can have the KP that comes with them. Small, semi-fragile units FTL...
Personally, I like meltaguns in my squads of objective grabbers. They're typical enough to smoke a marine before I charge and they do a good enough job of scaring away tanks that like to tank shock them off of objectives..
I agree with you about CSM withstanding much better in close combat that just about any non CC space marine unit.