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.

This has been bugging me for some time

As a long term 40k player, in 5th ed what is the difference between a HB held by a IG, SM or mounted on a tank?

there seems to be no difference

all three weapons have the same effect in the game

IG with generic HB, space marine with advanced self loading HB and a tank with MASSIVE turret mounted HB

anyone else thinks this strange?

BS is linked to the operator not weapon

Not at all, their all on the same side, being supplied by the same people.
Does a M4 carried by an American do anything different than an M4 carried by a Brit?

yea, it shoots straight in the hands of a brit

lmao

The only difference is that (fluff-wise) a Space Marine's heavy bolter is carried in his hands instead of being set up by a gun team. It's the same gun regardless, and I fail to see the dilemma the OP is presenting.

im suggesting there should be a difference

4getting the example for a min

shouldnt a tank mounted weapon have some sort of bonus over a weapon of the same type being carried by a trooper?

I don't see any reason why. You're saying it yourself, "a weapon of the same type". 40k is a game, and a lot of generalisations have to be made. Your boltgun may be better than my boltgun, but your boltgun isn't a pulse rifle. The game doesn't allow these minute differences in weapons to be represented.

Also, please make an effort to type properly. You look rediculous.

Instead of the M4 in use by British and US troops, a better analogy would be the 7.62 GPMG mounted on a vehicle, or used as a section support weapon by infantry. It's the exact same weapon, it has exactly the same effect upon it's targets. The only difference is that the infantry version has a bipod, and the the vehicle version is generally post mounted.

In the 40k universe, the heavy bolter used by the IG is a crew served weapon, the SM version is hand carried, due to the strength enhancement offered by power armour, and the vehicle version is mounted on a vehicle. Other than that, it's the exact same weapon, with the exact same effect. I fail to see why mounting it on a tank is going to make it behave any differently.

so, to answer your question

MOMUS wrote:im suggesting there should be a difference

4getting the example for a min

shouldnt a tank mounted weapon have some sort of bonus over a weapon of the same type being carried by a trooper?

No

MOMUS wrote:im suggesting there should be a difference

4getting the example for a min

shouldnt a tank mounted weapon have some sort of bonus over a weapon of the same type being carried by a trooper?

The Dreadnote wrote:Also, please make an effort to type properly. You look rediculous.

QFT. People might take you more seriously if you type properly. Typing broken sentences over 5 lines isn't a great way to gain respect.

As for your question, a tank-mounted weapon has a bonus already. It's mounted on a tank. It's far more resilient than the T3/4 model that lugs one around. Granted, in the current rules of wound allocation, a HWT with 10 extra guardsmen wounds might be more effective, but the point is that it's more likely for a soldier to take a fatal shot than it is for a tank to get blown to pieces.

Pebble Monkey wrote:Instead of the M4 in use by British and US troops, a better analogy would be the 7.62 GPMG mounted on a vehicle, or used as a section support weapon by infantry. It's the exact same weapon, it has exactly the same effect upon it's targets. The only difference is that the infantry version has a bipod, and the the vehicle version is generally post mounted.

In the 40k universe, the heavy bolter used by the IG is a crew served weapon, the SM version is hand carried, due to the strength enhancement offered by power armour, and the vehicle version is mounted on a vehicle. Other than that, it's the exact same weapon, with the exact same effect. I fail to see why mounting it on a tank is going to make it behave any differently.

so, to answer your question

MOMUS wrote:im suggesting there should be a difference

4getting the example for a min

shouldnt a tank mounted weapon have some sort of bonus over a weapon of the same type being carried by a trooper?

No

Yep, I was going to use the M2 .50 caliber machine gun as an example, but the GPMG (or our M240) is just as good.

@ the dreadnote

I look rediculous because i type differently to you? I didnt realise this was an english exam. +100 internet wins to you, with that kind of attitude you should be an ambassador to all new dakka users.

@ Locclo

Gain respect?!? LOL, I dont debate about little plastic men to gain respect. Do you?

It's far easier to lose respect than to gain it. You can't expect people to take you seriously when you display this much contempt for other users.

Sorry, Momus, I know they didn't necessarily get their point across in a nice way, but they are not entirely wrong. You are correct that that is not a nice way to greet new people.


At the same time, you put forth an impression of yourself that is not very flattering. Disparaging remarks against other nationality and difficult to read posts comes across as disrespectful and hostile. The way you type represents you just like the way you talk does. If you would like people to be polite and treat you with respect, be polite and treat others with respect. And weather you like it or not, writing in clear, complete sentences is part of that.

You are correct that no one is debating about "little plastic men" to GAIN respect, but that does not mean they do not WANT respect. Obviously you do, otherwise you wouldn't have taken offense at your own harsh treatment.

No one was asking you to be grammatically perfect, just...legible.

MOMUS, please read this post, especially point #5. You may not like what the other posters are saying about your writing style, but they are correct (if a bit snarky) about it.

Thank you.

Ok the M4 comment was a gentle jibe, i wouldnt want anyone to get too upset about that.

Difficult to read posts are hostile and disrespectful? I fail to see how my OP is difficult to read, in fact as an opening statement i laid it out this way to be easier to understand. It is also a common OP format.

The way i type and talk depends on the context of the conversation or corespondence, as this is only a internet forum i allow myself a bit of 'freedom'.

i shall now punish myself

Getting back to tank weapons, anyone remember targeters?

I think he was trying to ask shouldn't a HB mounted on a bi-pod or mounted in a hull of a tank be more stable and be more accurate than a person just holding it.

Ok, on topic...

Yes, the tank mounted one benefits from stability and a targeter.

The space marine mounted one has the same benefit however. Power armor assisted stability and targeting.

The guard version has similar benefits however, due to having a fire team and a bipod.

While you may see a, say, 5-10% increase in effectiveness, the gameplay mechanics seem to work on some sort of exponential scale. 5-10% is not represented.

A marine is BS4, a guardsmen is BS3. Is the marine only 33% better than the guardsmen at shooting? No, he is most likely 200-300% more effective. Likewise, str10 weapons are not twice as powerful as str5 weapons. They are several orders of magnitude more powerful.

Most likely a sponson mounted, computer aided weapon is significantly more effective than a guardsmen heavy weapons team. This is represented by a BS4 instead of a BS3. A sponson mounted weapon is probably slightly more effective than a devestator armed with the same, but not enough to warrant a BS5.

I would also argue that due to the targeting assistance and aiming assistance provided by their power armor a SM is significantly more accurate and deadly than a heavy weapons team with a bipod.

This is why the Emperor invented Twin Linked.

I think people are forgetting that vehicle-mounted heavy weapons do have a significant bonus: they may fire if the vehicle moves.

Three sets of rules for the same weapon just becasue:

A) IG need a two man team
B) SM are superhuman and can carry on themselves
C) Hull/Turret mounted HB are the same size, shoot the same type of rounds etc

If GW done that then they'd have to do the same for all the heavy weapons from Lascannons to DarkLances and heavy shootas, psycannons...
You see the dilema here?

The actual ability of the weapon is dictated by the owners BS / WS / Ld etc (as I'm sure your well aware) so the stats for the weapon shouldn't change because it'd be a disaster if the HB on my 3 chimeras, along with the HB in each squad fired on the same target but I had to roll seperately for either just becasue one is slaved to a man in a tank....

I fail to see why mounting it on a tank is going to make it behave any differently.

Well a weapon mounted on a vehicle is going to be more accurate do to reduced recoil. Compared to a Marine holding it in hand. Sure the Marines are super strong, but they can't compare to a weapon mounted directly to a vehicle. Mind you this is more based off of reality, and we all know that GW doesn't like that.

InfernalMajesty wrote:

I fail to see why mounting it on a tank is going to make it behave any differently.

Well a weapon mounted on a vehicle is going to be more accurate do to reduced recoil. Compared to a Marine holding it in hand. Sure the Marines are super strong, but they can't compare to a weapon mounted directly to a vehicle. Mind you this is more based off of reality, and we all know that GW doesn't like that.

Which is why they can shoot when the tank moves. [/discussion]

Which is why they can shoot when the tank moves. [/discussion]

True enough, true enough. In my mind that would allow a bonus to BS, but thats if I ran GW

The heavy bolter is especially not a good example to illustrate your point.

Bolter rounds are self-propeled, much like a rocket. The bolter itself is only a smooth tube (its not rifled) to guide it. The detonation when firing is rather small and only expel the bolter round out of the barrel, hence very low recoil. It start accelerating afterward. Having a small or a long barrel in those circumstances wont change a thing. The great strength Space marines need to lift the heavy bolter and the ammunition is provided in most part by the power armour, that incorporate in cases of devastator marines servo stabilisers to help keeping accuracy with the recoil.

But again, even if there is a benefit to BS it is not enough to bump it up to BS 5.

Lets say it allows for a 20% increase in accuracy, which is significant. That would not be represented by a move from bs4 to bs5. That would require a 200% increase in accuracy (or some such).

STR10 is not twice STR5 in strength, it is orders of magnitude more powerful.

Likewise BS5 is not 25% more effective than BS4, it is likely 100-200% more (on stationary targets at range). It also takes into account reflexes, experience, target choice, ability to anticipate, etc.

The improvement offered by mounting a weapon is simply not enough to justify an increase in BS.

This is why all guardsmen are BS3 and all marines are BS4. Certainly there are guardsmen who are 20-50% more effective at shooting, and SM are more than 33% more effective at shooting than any guardsmen. Certainly a krak missile is more than 2.66x more powerful than a guardsmens flashlight. They are exponential scales. Incremental improvements are not represented, only significant ones.

One other point. Any weapon mounted on a vehicle is immune to leadership checks, psy powers (Lash?), and sweeping advances.

Guardsmen are most certainly not.

Marines are less susceptible to these in interesting ways, but vulnerable nonetheless.

Vehicle mounted weapons usually also have a more commanding height, except for the case of the Predator sponson. In True LOS, this can mean the difference of cover or no cover, or simply shot or no shot.

willydstyle wrote:I think people are forgetting that vehicle-mounted heavy weapons do have a significant bonus: they may fire if the vehicle moves.

thread=over

I think what the OP mean's that the sizes of the models differs to what they actually represent I believe? Such as the space marine heavy bolter appears smaller to the IG heavy bolter and likewise with the tank version of the heavy bolter.

I could be wrong with this assumption but that's my two cents.

And I have no comments on the off topic gak that's going on.

Some interesting points. Alot of these benefits are to the model not the weapon, immune to lash, LD checks etc.

TheTrueProtoman, yes the size is drastically different. A lascannon held by a marine is smaller to a sponson mounted version. The turret AC on a pred is massive when compared to a SM portable version. Yes i know 40k is just a game, but a USR could easily added to differentiate between trooper carried and tank mounted.
As for durability i would take a SM squad with one heavy over a pred with one heavy anyday.

Ill put down the cranky replies to lonely valentines lol