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.

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

What about this...

Leave the autocannon as is

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

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

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

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

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

Griever wrote:

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

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

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

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

Most armies are mechanized these days.

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

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

Like I said, Rending against non-vehicle units.

Kanluwen wrote:

Griever wrote:

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

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

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

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

Most armies are mechanized these days.

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

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

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

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

IMHO the HB is fine as it is

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

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

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

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

IMHO the HB is fine as it is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To put it in perspective:

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

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

There's the issue.

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

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

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

I think heavy bolters suffer from being in the middle.

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

They have to be weaker than autocannon.

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

Cannot be the exact same as a multilaser.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kenshin620 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems fair to me.

L. Wrex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm with Melissa here(unusually)

Well, if Infantry HBs need a boost...

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

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

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

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

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

defensive grenades only fills out one of these requirements