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.

Then make it simpler: any unit hit by a weapon with suppressing fire counts as being in difficult terrain.

I think HB are fine-they're more effective across the board than missile launchers against most Xenos.

However, if you think an upgrade is necessary, why not look at something that doesn't make them even better against the armies they're already good against?

Move 'em to AP 3. It doesn't affect most Xenos much, and it makes them better against the ever-present MEQ hordes.

You do realize that hitting three orks with a frag missile does more damage than a BS4 heavy bolter, right?

The problem is that the heavy bolter isn't even good against the stuff it's good against.

What makes you think that a BS 3 guardsman is going to hit 3 Orks with a frag missile? One of the most commonly missing items when people evaluate missile launchers is the fact that the (frag) missile is going to scatter 2/3 of the time.

If you average hitting two orks with your frag missile, you're better off with the HB. If you're averaging more than two hits with the missile launcher, I think your Ork opponents need to work on their spacing.

But a BS3 guardsman only needs to hit two orks for the frag to be as effective as the heavy bolter.

Yes frag missiles scatter, but hordes have two choices: clump up and present a tempting target for hits, or spread out and give up hits even on large scatters.

When a secondary fire mode is still almost as good as a dedicated anti-horde weapon, how good is the horde weapon, really?

2 frag missilie hits at st4 aren't as good as 1.5 HB hits at st 5.

HB is better against armor 10 than the krak missile.

When a horde weapon is better at killing your primary transport than a dedicated anti-tank option, how good is the anti-tank option?

Ordznik wrote:2 frag missilie hits at st4 aren't as good as 1.5 HB hits at st 5.

Against t4? 2 Hits at S4 = 1 wound. 1.5 hits at S5 = 1 wound.

HB is better against armor 10 than the krak missile.

HB @BS4: 2 hits = 1/3 glance, 1/3 pen.
ML @BS4: 2/3 hit = 4/9 pen, 1/9 glance

So, the HB will do more overall damage, the ML will penetrate more. Each pen had a 5/6 chance of stunning, immobilizing, or wrecking a Trukk, while each glance has a 1/2 chance of the same. So the total "stops" are:
HB: 1/3*1/2 + 1/3*5/6 = 1/6 + 5/18 = 8/18 = 24/54
ML 1/9*1/2 +4/9*5/6 = 1/18 + 20/54= 23/54

So yes, the HB is ~5% better against the TRukk than the ML. Of course the ML is substantially better against AV11 and up.

When a horde weapon is better at killing your primary transport than a dedicated anti-tank option, how good is the anti-tank option?

Lol. It's still pretty good against AV11 and up. And almost as good against the trukk.

No, I'll gladly admit that if you play trukk boy orks almost exclusively, the HB is a great option.

Fair enough, the HB is as good as frag missiles against boys-based on that set of assumptions, which seem reasonable to me. And better against truks.

The same (or at least very similar) math will get you to the conclusion that HB are better against Dark Eldar than Missile launchers.

Against Tau? You lose the ability to consistently damage vehicles (except for the piranha), but Tau get armor saves against frag missiles which they won't get against HB rounds.

Eldar are actually similar to Tau-HB can't handle their vehicles, but big chunks of their army get armor saves against frag missiles that they won't get against HB.

HB are a better weapon in general than missile launchers against most Xenos. There's absolutely no reason to turn them into screw the Ork charge weapons. If you want to improve them, make them better against what they're weak against.

Make them AP 3.

think about it, ap three does too much for it,

make it ap 3 and you deny all of meq their armour saves at 36"

make it ap3 and you deny the armour saves and res of necrons at 36" with something that can be bought more cheaply than a basic warrior (i mean the upgrade not the upgrade and the model this is assuming that the model was already there and your switching the weapon he had out for a HB)

and additionally it does one important thing,

it makes the HB better at AP than a Autocannon

which i think is absurd

Indeed, we have to preserve some sense of there being a definite hierarchy in terms of an autocannon being a better "heavy heavy weapon" option

You guys are the ones saying HB need an upgrade-as I said, I'm think they're fine as they are. I'm just pointing out that in the game as it's played, there's no reason at all to make the HB better at the things it already does sufficiently well.

HB are only really questionable against MEQ. If they need a boost at all-and I'll say again, I don't think they do-it's only against MEQ.

and even then the only real boost they could be given is to make them ap three which is daft

although there is something to be siad about making them s6 like the destroyer gun for necrons (not sure of actual name)

Tyranic Marta wrote: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

Fire Warriors are terrible, and Tau in general are rarely seen in competitive play. While heavy bolters are indeed good against Fire Warriors, that doesn't make them strong in an all-comers environment.

*facepalm* just because you dont see them doesnt mean everyone doesnt see them

If you up the ROF then they compete with Assault Cannons too much, up the strength and they outclass Autocannons, drop the AP and they become too good against MEQ. These fixes all fail because they actually change things too much, in reality the Heavy Bolter is very close to being usable.

Imo the easiest fix would be to simply make it an assault weapon, or maybe give it a dual profile like the Splinter Cannon (that makes them pretty awesome on vehicles though which would need a big points shift notably for the Razorback). That by itself would mean people who want to run aggressive Marine lists start taking them because it gets you two assault weapons (even if one of them is always anti infantry). It would also give it an edge over the Missile Launcher vs infantry because it can move and fire, without giving much more effect against vehicles. It not an unprecedented rule either, Deathwatch had suspensors to let them fire Heavy Bolters as assault and fluff wise you can say that the Marine armour can handle the recoil on the move.

The other easy fix would be to make the Heavy Bolter the only free heavy weapon for Tacticals, and increase the cost of the others by 5pts. I'm not such a fan of this though, because a) its a boring cheap way out and b) most people will still just pay the 5pts for the Missile Launcher and the duality it gives you.

You don't need to make it a better weapon at all. I think it's just not meant as an infantry-mounted weapon, because just because you have the option to take it does not mean you are in any way commited to taking it.

HBs on vehicles are fine as they are, I think there has been a general consensus on this across the thread. The only reason they are given as infantry options IMHO is because they "have to" be... It just works fluff-wise.

Leave them as they are.

Fetterkey wrote:

Tyranic Marta wrote: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

Fire Warriors are terrible, and Tau in general are rarely seen in competitive play. While heavy bolters are indeed good against Fire Warriors, that doesn't make them strong in an all-comers environment.

i completely disagree, FW are not terrible and nither are the Tau. You will rarly find a weapon that is good in all areas but the HB is not good against just tau the are good against everything but MEQs

If you want to give them a little buff, not too much, then maybe add this;

HB S:5 AP:4 Heavy3

Tracer fire. The Heavy bolter is one of the most ubiquitous weapons that the Imperium uses. It's STC design is amongst the oldest and most revered. It is usually one of the first heavy weapons to witness the front line and thus it is always prepared; every third bolt is a tracer round.
A model, sponson or turret that is equipped with the heavy bolter is subject to the universal special rule night vision.

Any good?

HB are going to shine against AC 4 or worse targets, dark eldar vehicles, etc.

The problem is cost and effectiveness. Yes a HB is better than a ML frag blast but a HB cannot match a ML krak for effectiveness at taking out a vehicle. When they cost the same, it is a no-brainer to take a ML over a HB.

A HB needs to be superior to a ML at anti-personnel not a push for effectiveness. The problem is ROF 4 or 5 would provide that effectiveness but then that skews a lot of other weapons. For example if a HB has a ROF of 4 then should and Assault Cannon be ROF 5? Or a Scatter Laser ROF 5?

My choice would be to lower the cost of a HB to 5 or even free and then it might make it an effective choice as opposed to a ML.

Polonius wrote:

Ordznik wrote:2 frag missilie hits at st4 aren't as good as 1.5 HB hits at st 5.

Against t4? 2 Hits at S4 = 1 wound. 1.5 hits at S5 = 1 wound.

And then the S4 wound gets absorbed by the nob with 'eavy armor, but the S5 wound doesn't because it ignores 'eavy armor anyway.

Rinkydink wrote:If you want to give them a little buff, not too much, then maybe add this;

HB S:5 AP:4 Heavy3

Tracer fire. The Heavy bolter is one of the most ubiquitous weapons that the Imperium uses. It's STC design is amongst the oldest and most revered. It is usually one of the first heavy weapons to witness the front line and thus it is always prepared; every third bolt is a tracer round.
A model, sponson or turret that is equipped with the heavy bolter is subject to the universal special rule night vision.

Any good?

More sensibly, make it count as a Search Light.

Personally, what I think needs to happen first is an upgrade to the Autocannon. It's a Tank's main gun, it should be a bit more powerful than a plasma pistol.

ikr, the autocannon is a little bit too weak in my opinion, ive always thought it shouold have something to make it slightly better against infantry, maybe give it a secondary fire like the railgun submunition? a s6 ap4 small blast??


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(but perhaps only on the predator??)

Rinkydink wrote:If you want to give them a little buff, not too much, then maybe add this;

HB S:5 AP:4 Heavy3

Tracer fire. The Heavy bolter is one of the most ubiquitous weapons that the Imperium uses. It's STC design is amongst the oldest and most revered. It is usually one of the first heavy weapons to witness the front line and thus it is always prepared; every third bolt is a tracer round.
A model, sponson or turret that is equipped with the heavy bolter is subject to the universal special rule night vision.

Any good?

This is not how Heavy Bolters work, so no it's really not good.

Heavy Stubbers could use this though.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:
Personally, what I think needs to happen first is an upgrade to the Autocannon. It's a Tank's main gun, it should be a bit more powerful than a plasma pistol.

This is simply a case of the mechanics of 40k models causing issues. The autocannon on the Predator should be the same size as the infantry one.

It was beefed up because really, who wants a tiny gun on their tank?

the point is the gun is still a main gun which is why i like the idea of the weapon having a secondary fire mode whilst on the pred


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and who wants a tiny gun on their tank? blood angels baal predator

Why would the Predator have a secondary fire mode that the man portable, Vulture, or Sentinel versions don't?

If it's variant shells, then they could be carried by the loader or stored in a secondary hopper for the AC same as they could for the Predator.

Which brings me back to something I said earlier. The heavy bolter suffers in terms of being a choice simply because it doesn't have the flexibility that the ML has.
The mortar suffers similarily because it doesn't have variant ammo.

With the advent of the Dark Eldar 'dual mode Splinter Cannon' I would be surprised if we didn't see more stuff of that nature as time goes on.
My Guard'll take their HE and Smoke mortar shells in packs of 20 though.

Kanluwen wrote:Why would the Predator have a secondary fire mode that the man portable, Vulture, or Sentinel versions don't?

If it's variant shells, then they could be carried by the loader or stored in a secondary hopper for the AC same as they could for the Predator.

Which brings me back to something I said earlier. The heavy bolter suffers in terms of being a choice simply because it doesn't have the flexibility that the ML has.
The mortar suffers similarily because it doesn't have variant ammo.

three simple simple reasons

#1 The predator gun tends to be larger than the others, thus the man portable version wouldnt be able to fire the larder caliber rounds needed to house the explosives,
#2 only a predator or similar sized vehicle would be able to carry enough of these shells and the ordainary shells to last an engagement without haveing to restock every three shots
#3 for the same reason that the hammerhead gunship for tau has the submunition and the broadsides manta etc dont, because it adds depth to the game and it would be over powered to have such a powerful blast weapon on the likes of Havoks, which if you remember can take 4 of the things, 4 s6 ap4 blasts from an average cheap infantry squad is to overpowered for words.

Tyranic Marta wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Why would the Predator have a secondary fire mode that the man portable, Vulture, or Sentinel versions don't?

If it's variant shells, then they could be carried by the loader or stored in a secondary hopper for the AC same as they could for the Predator.

Which brings me back to something I said earlier. The heavy bolter suffers in terms of being a choice simply because it doesn't have the flexibility that the ML has.
The mortar suffers similarily because it doesn't have variant ammo.

three simple simple reasons

#1 The predator gun tends to be larger than the others, thus the man portable version wouldnt be able to fire the larder caliber rounds needed to house the explosives

The Predator gun, as per IA2, is the standard autocannon--just essentially given a 'longer barrel'.
If the Predator gets that ammo, then it would be stupid not to put it on the Hydra--especially considering the Hydra's role as an AA vehicle. It'd also be dumb for it to not be on the Leman Russ Exterminator.

#2 only a predator or similar sized vehicle would be able to carry enough of these shells and the ordainary shells to last an engagement without having to restock every three shots

Fallacy. Any vehicle (or infantry for that matter) could feasibly carry the 'explodey' shells--just like the Imperial Armour Volume 1 rules for unique Leman Russ ammunition. You just have to 'swap' fire modes and suffer a turn of no shooting.

#3 for the same reason that the hammerhead gunship for tau has the submunition and the broadsides manta etc dont, because it adds depth to the game and it would be over powered to have such a powerful blast weapon on the likes of Havoks, which if you remember can take 4 of the things, 4 s6 ap4 blasts from an average cheap infantry squad is to overpowered for words.

Because 3x Predators with ACs and the fittings isn't possibly OP with it?

(facepalm) your looking at this the wrong way, admittedly the first point you made is valid, the second is daft and the third even more so, (no offense i just get a bit agitated sometimes)

this has nothing to do with gameplay, think about it, in a real environment an ordainary warrior probably would only have enough room in his backpack to carry tenough ammo for the autocannons main fire mode, remembering that the rounds are described as "Fist sized" and thats not teenager fist sized or ordainary man fist sized, thats massive military man (possibly even marine) fist sized.
there is no way that an ordainary soldier, or even a marine would be able to carry enough ammunition to last through a fire fight with BOTH ammo types, just not possible

sure 3x predatorws with ac and fittings isnt op, you pay for it, that rounds in at about 600ish points, correct me if im wrong, but a squad of havoks with 4 autocannons is just over or under 200, thus a third of the price for the smae number of autocannons, and lets not count the heavy bolter sponsons here considering that infantry cant take those, otherwise this argument become who has more guns


Automatically Appended Next Post:
huh actually scratch that it only comes in at around 400, ah well half the cost for the same number of guns

Tyranic Marta wrote:(facepalm) your looking at this the wrong way, admittedly the first point you made is valid, the second is daft and the third even more so, (no offense i just get a bit agitated sometimes)

The second and third are far from being 'daft'. More in a moment.

this has nothing to do with gameplay, think about it, in a real environment an ordainary warrior probably would only have enough room in his backpack to carry tenough ammo for the autocannons main fire mode, remembering that the rounds are described as "Fist sized" and thats not teenager fist sized or ordinary man fist sized, thats massive military man (possibly even marine) fist sized.

Since when does being a military man give you a "massive military man fist" size?

there is no way that an ordinary soldier, or even a marine would be able to carry enough ammunition to last through a fire fight with BOTH ammo types, just not possible

You neglect the concept of 'stowage space' on transports. Do you think all of that space is simply for the troops inside? There'd be housing for extra ammo, spare weapons, comms gear, etc.

sure 3x predators with ac and fittings isnt op, you pay for it, that rounds in at about 600ish points, correct me if im wrong, but a squad of havoks with 4 autocannons is just over or under 400, thus a third of the price for the same number of autocannons, and lets not count the heavy bolter sponsons here considering that infantry cant take those, otherwise this argument become who has more guns

Your argument assumes that this idea doesn't balance out Havocs with the 'new' rules in mind.
Just like Predators, Sentinels, etc aren't rebalanced with this concept rebalanced.

You're also neglecting in your argument that Predators are a smidge more y'know...survivable than 4x autocannon equipped havocs.

Tyranic Marta wrote:*facepalm* just because you dont see them doesnt mean everyone doesnt see them

Fetterkey wrote:in competitive play