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.

After thinking about it I would be more happy with a points reduction.

I don't know about for tank sponsons, but on a tac squad having the HB cost only 5 points would make them more appealing.

This way in terms of points they would be more comparable to a flamer instead of a melta.

Also, people might actually take them as the heavy weapon in a tac squad despite the fact that it will be snapfiring if moving. 3 str 5 snap shots is not all that worse than 1 str 4 bolter shot, and if the squad stays still the firepower is much better.

They wouldn't be as common as melta or plasma, but they would be a way to cheaply increase a tac squad's firepower.

There is really nothing that can be done to meaningfully help tac squads without fundamental changes to the game. The heavy bolter is garbage, and there is no room in the range of existing weapons to make it not garbage.

10pt heavy bolters on inquisition servitors are pretty frikkin sweet!
However on everyone else they are overpriced. Even guard are paying 20pts for them (10 for the 2 grunts).
Salvo 2/3 5pts would get my vote. (Maybe 7/8pts).

Just change the AP rules to something that bears some resemblance to reality (i.e. AP5+ to AP -2, actual armor reduction instead of absolute rock/paper/scissors where AP4 turns carapace to shreds like if it were paper but can't almost do a thing against power armor). That way not only Heavy Bolters, but even Boltguns themselves would look useful.

Nothing to do against cover. Cover rules are supposed to reward the player that moves his troops in an intelligent way, not leaving them in the open like idiots to be torn apart by enemy fire.

Sisters got the most recent heavy bolter price check, and they have them at 10 points each as well...

actually, no, thinking about it, Wolves and BA are both more recent, are they seriously paying 20 points for a heavy bolter?

EEEm, no?
Where did that 20 point thing come from? I am not aware of a single source where they are NOT 10 points.

Surely whether the HB, or any other weapon, is garbage depends on what you are shooting at and at what range?

Against MEQ it is indeed lackluster; only slightly more effective than an autocannon. Against GEQ, on the other hand, it is the most effective heavy weapon that there is -- 50% more effective than said autocannon.

Maybe part of the problem is that the game seems to be played mostly at shorter ranges, so the HB's range superiority over small arms doesn't come into play that much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you put an HB in a 5-man tac squad, it almost doubles its damage output against GEQ at 12"-24".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and literally doubles it against MEQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Triples it against T4 4+!

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Am I the only one bothered by the spent shell casings coming out of the Heavy Bolter?.

Really? I'd be more bothered about the fact that he still hasn't run out of ammo since before new year.

Korinov wrote:
Just change the AP rules to something that bears some resemblance to reality (i.e. AP5+ to AP -2, actual armor reduction instead of absolute rock/paper/scissors where AP4 turns carapace to shreds like if it were paper but can't almost do a thing against power armor). That way not only Heavy Bolters, but even Boltguns themselves would look useful.

Nothing to do against cover. Cover rules are supposed to reward the player that moves his troops in an intelligent way, not leaving them in the open like idiots to be torn apart by enemy fire.

I'm in favour of save modifiers, but they have to be applied very moderalely otherwise armour becomes rubbish like it was in 2nd ed when power armour only afforded a 5+ save against a shuriken catapult, 4+ aginst lasgun.

As it is I think there's too much AP on small arms. Mesh, flak and any other 5+ armour is of questionable value, -ts negated by even the rank and file weapons that most other armies carry. If we're to stick with the current AP system, I'd actually like to see some rifles drop from AP5 to AP6, so those poor guardsmen and eldar are shown to be wearing something a little more protective than cardboard!

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I'm in favour of save modifiers, but they have to be applied very moderalely otherwise armour becomes rubbish like it was in 2nd ed when power armour only afforded a 5+ save against a shuriken catapult, 4+ aginst lasgun.

As it is I think there's too much AP on small arms. Mesh, flak and any other 5+ armour is of questionable value, -ts negated by even the rank and file weapons that most other armies carry. If we're to stick with the current AP system, I'd actually like to see some rifles drop from AP5 to AP6, so those poor guardsmen and eldar are shown to be wearing something a little more protective than cardboard!

I agree about the need of being moderate with the modifiers. Right now lasguns/autoguns are almost the only things that do not have some armor penetration. If I were to convert things to a save modifier system (actual "armor penetration", lol) AP6 would translate into nothing and AP5 probably into just -1... which perhaps could even be lost if firing at long range (projectiles tend to lose speed and power the longer they have to travel).

In any case the problem with the current system is that it turns everything into a rock/paper/scissors challenge. You have a 4+ save and have to face autocannon/heavy bolter spam? Better hide out among some ruins or you'll be torn to shreds in no time. You happen to have a 3+ save? (which by all accounts should be just a bit better than a 4+, as indeed simply protection-wise power armor does not outclass carapace that much) Then you can walk around in the open like nothing. It shouldn't work like that.

In short, it's not that difficult to make Heavy Bolters a decent option, you just need to tweak the base rules in order for medium-power weapons to be effective. Right now it's either no AP spam (you kill by pure mass of fire) or a few shots of AP2 lascannons. Everything in the middle is just not worth its points.

No armor penalties. That can of worms was closed after 2nd and it should stay closed. The answer is to make the game a D10 game or even D20 and have the APs range from 10-1.

Korinov wrote:
You happen to have a 3+ save? (which by all accounts should be just a bit better than a 4+, as indeed simply protection-wise power armor does not outclass carapace that much

Oh, but it does.

As long as anything AP4 or worse competes with something that is AP3 or better, and it isn't free, it wont see any action.

Half the armies in the game, and greater than half of the playerbase run 3+ or better.

Statistically, it wont even draw one wound from a space marine, so its really not worth 10p. Sure it rips orks, nids, guard, etc apart. But so does everything else.

I think the solution is to give the weapon an actual roll...Right now It's a wanna be assault cannon...it needs to be a squad automatic weapon. Str4 AP4 salvo 3/5 pinning range 36. I would use that.

Gragga Da Krumpa wrote:As long as anything AP4 or worse competes with something that is AP3 or better, and it isn't free, it wont see any action.

Half the armies in the game, and greater than half of the playerbase run 3+ or better.

Statistically, it wont even draw one wound from a space marine, so its really not worth 10p. Sure it rips orks, nids, guard, etc apart. But so does everything else.

And it's this is a problem of only marines, because eldar, tau, and necrons have many 3+ saves. I'm not going to plonk away at them ineffectually with I can, you know do something else.

Xenomancers wrote:I think the solution is to give the weapon an actual roll...Right now It's a wanna be assault cannon...it needs to be a squad automatic weapon. Str4 AP4 salvo 3/5 pinning range 36. I would use that.

Yeah you have said that. Probably, I think. The actual response is this, I'm going to quote it:

Gragga Da Krumpa wrote:As long as anything AP4 or worse competes with something that is AP3 or better, and it isn't free, it wont see any action.

Half the armies in the game, and greater than half of the playerbase run 3+ or better.

Statistically, it wont even draw one wound from a space marine, so its really not worth 10p. Sure it rips orks, nids, guard, etc apart. But so does everything else.

Does that seem familiar?


Actually, hold on, you are saying something you have to own up to.

.it needs to be a squad automatic weapon. Str4 AP4 salvo 3/5 pinning range 36.

A Squad Automatic Weapon uses the same rounds as the other weapons in the squad, and is usually just a modded version of the other weapons.

pelicaniforce wrote:

Gragga Da Krumpa wrote:As long as anything AP4 or worse competes with something that is AP3 or better, and it isn't free, it wont see any action.

Half the armies in the game, and greater than half of the playerbase run 3+ or better.

Statistically, it wont even draw one wound from a space marine, so its really not worth 10p. Sure it rips orks, nids, guard, etc apart. But so does everything else.

And it's this is a problem of only marines, because eldar, tau, and necrons have many 3+ saves. I'm not going to plonk away at them ineffectually with I can, you know do something else.

Xenomancers wrote:I think the solution is to give the weapon an actual roll...Right now It's a wanna be assault cannon...it needs to be a squad automatic weapon. Str4 AP4 salvo 3/5 pinning range 36. I would use that.

Yeah you have said that. Probably, I think. The actual response is this, I'm going to quote it:

Gragga Da Krumpa wrote:As long as anything AP4 or worse competes with something that is AP3 or better, and it isn't free, it wont see any action.

Half the armies in the game, and greater than half of the playerbase run 3+ or better.

Statistically, it wont even draw one wound from a space marine, so its really not worth 10p. Sure it rips orks, nids, guard, etc apart. But so does everything else.

Does that seem familiar?


Actually, hold on, you are saying something you have to own up to.

.it needs to be a squad automatic weapon. Str4 AP4 salvo 3/5 pinning range 36.

A Squad Automatic Weapon uses the same rounds as the other weapons in the squad, and is usually just a modded version of the other weapons.

Correct, a squad automatic weapon uses the same rounds hence str 4. Having more shots you have a higher chance of hitting the same spot twice which is why AP should go up. This is actually how machine guns work today. Which is all I am suggesting - make the thing a machine gun. For an infantry killer...AP is kinda just a bonus - everything it's shooting at is going to have cover anyways - more shots is always better in this situation - making shots count (pinning) this gun would get use.

There is no mathematical room for the heavy bolter while we are using a D6 system. All the sweet spots are taken.

Martel732 wrote:
There is no mathematical room for the heavy bolter while we are using a D6 system. All the sweet spots are taken.

Agree it has no sweet spot. So in order to give it a roll it needs to have a higher rate of fire - because the d6 system isn't going anywhere.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There is no mathematical room for the heavy bolter while we are using a D6 system. All the sweet spots are taken.

Agree it has no sweet spot. So in order to give it a roll it needs to have a higher rate of fire - because the d6 system isn't going anywhere.

It should, though. It would make for a much better game. D6 is so limiting.

Korinov wrote:

I agree about the need of being moderate with the modifiers. Right now lasguns/autoguns are almost the only things that do not have some armor penetration. If I were to convert things to a save modifier system (actual "armor penetration", lol) AP6 would translate into nothing and AP5 probably into just -1... which perhaps could even be lost if firing at long range (projectiles tend to lose speed and power the longer they have to travel).

Good thinking. If you manage to put together a system that works, please post it up.

Another idea that I'm toying with is to retain the current D6 based AP system, with the following alteration:
-If a weapons AP equals the armour save then it halves the armour save, rounding down. (So power armour would afford a 5+ against an AP3 weapon)
-If AP is lower than the armour then it negates it entirely.
It could be a good compromise between the current "all or nothing" system, and the more reallistic, but imbalanced system in 2nd ed.

Maybe drop the point of a heavy bolter by 5 and give it pinning.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Korinov wrote:

I agree about the need of being moderate with the modifiers. Right now lasguns/autoguns are almost the only things that do not have some armor penetration. If I were to convert things to a save modifier system (actual "armor penetration", lol) AP6 would translate into nothing and AP5 probably into just -1... which perhaps could even be lost if firing at long range (projectiles tend to lose speed and power the longer they have to travel).

Good thinking. If you manage to put together a system that works, please post it up.

Another idea that I'm toying with is to retain the current D6 based AP system, with the following alteration:
-If a weapons AP equals the armour save then it halves the armour save, rounding down. (So power armour would afford a 5+ against an AP3 weapon)
-If AP is lower than the armour then it negates it entirely.
It could be a good compromise between the current "all or nothing" system, and the more reallistic, but imbalanced system in 2nd ed.

This is a pretty dang awesome Idea if you ask me.

But with a D10 system, we could do so much more. We could have armor from 2+ to 10+ and all the corresponding APs. We could have real differentiation between weapons.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Correct, a squad automatic weapon uses the same rounds hence str 4. Having more shots you have a higher chance of hitting the same spot twice which is why AP should go up. This is actually how machine guns work today. Which is all I am suggesting - make the thing a machine gun. For an infantry killer...AP is kinda just a bonus - everything it's shooting at is going to have cover anyways - more shots is always better in this situation - making shots count (pinning) this gun would get use.

Yeah I'm not going to fight this. In principle it's a good idea. The heavy bolter has always been supposed to have a larger caliber bolt, but I think I can get over that pretty easily, I think anyone who's attached to it needs to not be.

The rules you have are a little problem, because "more shots raises AP" has been handled on other weapons as rending and bladestorm.

For a "bolt gun SAW," the fixed AP higher than the bolter's would come from "barrel length" - in quotes because I don't know that it would have the same effect on a self-propelled bolt as it does on like the AKM.

But with a D10 system, we could do so much more. We could have armor from 2+ to 10+ and all the corresponding APs. We could have real differentiation between weapons.

Look, let's just handle this now. Explain to me how you solve the problem I'm going to give you. In this d10 system, just say for example a guardsman hits 50% of the time. When you are playing a game or writing an army list, what would make you wish that you had a "better guardsman" to do the job instead, like a vet squad or a storm trooper? It's not a unit that hits 60% of the time, I'd just take more regular 50% guardsmen. That unit wouldn't even exist, there wouldn't be a point to that increase in skill. So if you were going to have a vet guard unit, you'd need it to step up its hits to 70%. All that leaves you is 80% and 90% to cover the entire range of basic space marines to vindicare assassins.

For an AP system, maybe there would be some point. It'd be like having a special kind of armor where your opponent brings ap4, and you're like no, no, my saves aren't 4+, they're 3.6+. I get basically the same odds of saving but you can't ignore it with your gun.

You're getting as persistent as Lanrak.

You don't have differentiation. You have the same pie to divide up, and it doesn't net you anything to make smaller pieces.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Korinov wrote:

I agree about the need of being moderate with the modifiers. Right now lasguns/autoguns are almost the only things that do not have some armor penetration. If I were to convert things to a save modifier system (actual "armor penetration", lol) AP6 would translate into nothing and AP5 probably into just -1... which perhaps could even be lost if firing at long range (projectiles tend to lose speed and power the longer they have to travel).

Good thinking. If you manage to put together a system that works, please post it up.

Another idea that I'm toying with is to retain the current D6 based AP system, with the following alteration:
-If a weapons AP equals the armour save then it halves the armour save, rounding down. (So power armour would afford a 5+ against an AP3 weapon)
-If AP is lower than the armour then it negates it entirely.
It could be a good compromise between the current "all or nothing" system, and the more reallistic, but imbalanced system in 2nd ed.

Don't agree, AP3 is something you pay a lot for, not mentionning it would make any AP3 infantry unit even more irrelevant than they already are.

pelicaniforce wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Correct, a squad automatic weapon uses the same rounds hence str 4. Having more shots you have a higher chance of hitting the same spot twice which is why AP should go up. This is actually how machine guns work today. Which is all I am suggesting - make the thing a machine gun. For an infantry killer...AP is kinda just a bonus - everything it's shooting at is going to have cover anyways - more shots is always better in this situation - making shots count (pinning) this gun would get use.

Yeah I'm not going to fight this. In principle it's a good idea. The heavy bolter has always been supposed to have a larger caliber bolt, but I think I can get over that pretty easily, I think anyone who's attached to it needs to not be.

The rules you have are a little problem, because "more shots raises AP" has been handled on other weapons as rending and bladestorm.

For a "bolt gun SAW," the fixed AP higher than the bolter's would come from "barrel length" - in quotes because I don't know that it would have the same effect on a self-propelled bolt as it does on like the AKM.

But with a D10 system, we could do so much more. We could have armor from 2+ to 10+ and all the corresponding APs. We could have real differentiation between weapons.

Look, let's just handle this now. Explain to me how you solve the problem I'm going to give you. In this d10 system, just say for example a guardsman hits 50% of the time. When you are playing a game or writing an army list, what would make you wish that you had a "better guardsman" to do the job instead, like a vet squad or a storm trooper? It's not a unit that hits 60% of the time, I'd just take more regular 50% guardsmen. That unit wouldn't even exist, there wouldn't be a point to that increase in skill. So if you were going to have a vet guard unit, you'd need it to step up its hits to 70%. All that leaves you is 80% and 90% to cover the entire range of basic space marines to vindicare assassins.

For an AP system, maybe there would be some point. It'd be like having a special kind of armor where your opponent brings ap4, and you're like no, no, my saves aren't 4+, they're 3.6+. I get basically the same odds of saving but you can't ignore it with your gun.

You're getting as persistent as Lanrak.

You don't have differentiation. You have the same pie to divide up, and it doesn't net you anything to make smaller pieces.

Well, you are mistaken from one simple reason
You assume that a new system will not include new values to begin with.
Who said a regular guardman will have 50% to hit on new system? maybe they got 40% and vets got 50%? marines at 60%? chapter masters at 70%? assassins on 90%?
A new dice numbering means that every single statline in the game needs to be reworked, and with a bigger scope to work with on the new version, you can make more steps between the lame troopers and the good troopers, by making the lame troopers "worse"
Not only that, but every single weapon profile in the game will also change. as will most wargear and sepcial rules.
The consequences of changing dice are inconceivable, you might as well make a whole new system from scratch.



BAAACK TO TOPIC.
The whole "all sweetspots taken" mentality is exacly why I say we need to step out of the "weapon=S/AP/shotcount" line of thought.
Weapons can have so much more in them.
Pinning exists as a rule that alters a weapon without changing its damage output and fits greatly into weapons like heavy bolters thematically, blind is even more exterme and might fit blast-type weapons.
You want to expand weapon choices, make them have incomparable special effects rather than a balancing act of pure damage output.
You could have concussive on an assault-type gun, strikedown on artillery-type guns, and add plenty of other special rules that effect the game in ways other than pure lethality.
Various debuff effects with weapons is the way to make them truly unique from each other, especially because there is rarely a correct answer to the "what debuff is better" question.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Well, you are mistaken from one simple reason
You assume that a new system will not include new values to begin with.
Who said a regular guardman will have 50% to hit on new system? maybe they got 40% and vets got 50%? marines at 60%? chapter masters at 70%? assassins on 90%?
A new dice numbering means that every single statline in the game needs to be reworked, and with a bigger scope to work with on the new version, you can make more steps between the lame troopers and the good troopers, by making the lame troopers "worse"
Not only that, but every single weapon profile in the game will also change. as will most wargear and sepcial rules.
The consequences of changing dice are inconceivable, you might as well make a whole new system from scratch.

I think you've just highlighted yourself the main issue against changing to D10 - it would be essentially like coming up with a new system from scratch and would be a logistical nightmare to implement. In one fell swoop, you'd make every codex and army out there unplayable until a new codex can be published for them. Which could take years. Meaning; the new system in and of itself wouldn't gain much traction; making the whole move financially unviable. From the player-side, I can see it annoying a lot of people as they'd have to go out and buy a lot of new dice - a dice, I might add, that isn't all that common and a pain to store. All in all, while the notion that switching to D10 potentially improving balance in the long run does carry some merit, the short term disadvantages far outweigh this.

 BoomWolf wrote:
BAAACK TO TOPIC.
The whole "all sweetspots taken" mentality is exacly why I say we need to step out of the "weapon=S/AP/shotcount" line of thought.
Weapons can have so much more in them.
Pinning exists as a rule that alters a weapon without changing its damage output and fits greatly into weapons like heavy bolters thematically, blind is even more exterme and might fit blast-type weapons.
You want to expand weapon choices, make them have incomparable special effects rather than a balancing act of pure damage output.
You could have concussive on an assault-type gun, strikedown on artillery-type guns, and add plenty of other special rules that effect the game in ways other than pure lethality.
Various debuff effects with weapons is the way to make them truly unique from each other, especially because there is rarely a correct answer to the "what debuff is better" question.

This, on the other hand, is something I can agree with. Though, I suspect an addendum to pinning rules so that it doesn't only apply on a successful wound (perhaps on a successful hit) since the main complaint about the Heavy Bolter is its current low damage output. Basically, since the issue is that it can't reliably wound against the armies out there, modifying the outcome of said potential wound isn't going to be particularly appealing.

How's heavy bolter pinning and an assault cannon ain't?

Ashiraya wrote:

Korinov wrote:
You happen to have a 3+ save? (which by all accounts should be just a bit better than a 4+, as indeed simply protection-wise power armor does not outclass carapace that much

Oh, but it does.

Does it really?

The fluff tends to be inconsistent about how good power armor truly is at protecting users against projectiles, and it also depends a lot on points of view, etc. In any case as I said protection-wise I don't think power armor is vastly superior to carapace, the thing with power armor is that it's much more than a mere armor suit. It enhances mobility, allows the user to fight at his complete ability in hostile environments, etc. Currently those issues are not represented in the rules, perhaps mostly because all infantry moves the same ingame, while it would make much more sense for space marines to move at least 1'' quicker than your average guardsman. Iirc there are even some fluff pieces from a guardsman PoV where space marines are stated to move so quickly they look "blurry" to a normal human eye.

But I guess that's material for a different discussion.

thegreatchimp wrote:Good thinking. If you manage to put together a system that works, please post it up.

Another idea that I'm toying with is to retain the current D6 based AP system, with the following alteration:
-If a weapons AP equals the armour save then it halves the armour save, rounding down. (So power armour would afford a 5+ against an AP3 weapon)
-If AP is lower than the armour then it negates it entirely.
It could be a good compromise between the current "all or nothing" system, and the more reallistic, but imbalanced system in 2nd ed.

That's a nice sounding idea as well. I see someone already complained that "AP3 weapons cost too much for that"... well we're talking about tweaking a base mechanic here, I'm sure related issues (like weapons point cost) would be tackled as a result too.

The 2nd edition system is actually the system I'd implement in a game like this. It just needs to be tweaked in a way that doesn't make armor completely useless against anything with a bit of real firepower, and at the same time encouraging a tactical approach to the game and the extensive use of cover (real battlefields tend to be anything but an open field where infantry happily jogs around to be gunned down mercilessly). So the cover system would have to be revamped as well, because the current cover mechanics do not make any kind of sense (why does a heavily armored soldier hiding behind a thick wall of concrete need to choose between his armor and the wall to protect himself against enemy fire?).

 koooaei wrote:
How's heavy bolter pinning and an assault cannon ain't?

You make a good point. Every high rate of fire weapon should be pinning but then the game would be a nightmare.