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'd like to see HB's be allowed to be used by single IG troops without a second team member, like Sgt. Harker.
Keep the HB stats the same, but reduce the Heavy weapons cost make them more attractive to purchase.
Re-classify them as sqaud support weapons, like a M60, instead of a heavy weapon, as in .50 Ma Deuce

A rapid fire fist sized armor piercing grenade launcher gyrojet is a heavy weapon, no question about it. But, with a separate ammo operator and a tripod, you could have a twin linked one.

Heavy Weapons Teams should take twin linked HBs. Not Space Marines or the like, who can't carry so much ammunition.

Commissar Typhus wrote:
Giving them HB Assault 2 or Heavy 3 would not be right. Ever heard of noise marines with blastmasters? They have an assault 3 pinning HB or Heavy 1 small blast BC, but then agian you can only have 1 per squad and that one gun is 40 points (as much as a termie)

IMO if you make it Heavy 4, you would have to make the AC (assualt cannon) Heavy 6 in order to keep a sense of ROF among weapons.

I have heard of noise marines. Frankly they universally suck and need to be completely redone whether Heavy bolters change or not.

Assault Cannons are already good, making them Heavy 6 would be OP.
As would making vehicle HBs heavy 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:I'd like to see HB's be allowed to be used by single IG troops without a second team member, like Sgt. Harker.
Keep the HB stats the same, but reduce the Heavy weapons cost make them more attractive to purchase.
Re-classify them as sqaud support weapons, like a M60, instead of a heavy weapon, as in .50 Ma Deuce

heavy bolters are much bigger than .50 calls. The M60 equivilent is the heavy stubber, which is sometimes fielded by 1 man.

A heavy bolter is 1.0 caliber. (The more you know!)

CrazyThang wrote:A heavy bolter is 1.0 caliber. (The more you know!)

In layman terms I believe fluffwise each "bolt" of a heavy bolter is the size of your fist

I can see why anything under a marine would fear such a weapon without a metal box to protect them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.950_JDJ a bit smaller than a heavy bolter bolt

Ailaros wrote:Honestly, I'd remake the heavy bolter so it was more of a machine gun. I mean, as mentioned, the heavy bolter is an automatic cannon that fires a slightly smaller round slightly faster. That's not a machine gun.

I'd switch it's profile to S4 AP5 Heavy 6 36".

I like this suggestion. I reckon the HB would better fill its niche role as a cost effective anti infantry weapon if it had a lower strength but a higher rate of fire.

I remember Nurglitch posted pretty good suggestion a while back which was along the lines of [Str 4 AP 5 Heavy 2 Blast]. This was based on the idea that template weapons out compete heavy bolters as anti infantry tools. The blast effect is justified under the idea that the Heavy Bolter bears more resemblance to an MK19 Grenade launcher than a higher calibre machine gun.

So basically a missile launcher but better?

It's seriously fine as it is... it's mostly the lazy cover save assignment from the players and the meta that involves lots of mechanization that is the problem.

I don't get how the bolts explode with enough force to justify a blast marker. Especially since they are designed to penetrate and THEN explode. I highly doubt they have airburst built in in case the marine misses the target.

For a machine gun profile I would like Heavy 6 range 36 STR 4 AP 5. This would Make it better at it's job whilst taking away you foolish notions that you can kill a light tank with it. Typically Squad Machine guns fire the same round a lot faster down a longer barrel - that suggest a profile like this i think.

It would make the HB usable for infantry squads without unbalancing its use on vehicles as well. It would still be the worst overall weapon when compared to rockets, auto-cannons, assault cannons, ect - So it should indeed be the cheapest.

No, the heavy bolter does NOT fire more shots than an assault cannon.

Furthermore, the heavy bolter is .25 caliber larger than the normal bolter (the normal bolter being .75, while the heavy bolter is 1.00).

I also want to make a vote for heavy 4, pinning.

I think we may be going overboard with this concept. What if Heavy Bolters just got pinning? They could be used to surpress enemy squads, rather than outright massacre them. Besides, pinning is under appreciated and under used. I'd like to see more weapons use it.

TBH, I think GW fudged up and completely missed another golden opportunity to put pinning to use with the psilencers. High rate of fire, but low mortality rate (no AP), and potentially horrifying against hordes. Considering that a heavy bolter in a 'nilla tactical squad is free, 10-35 points for a heavy 6 str 4 pinning weapon sounds like a sweet deal, and one that I'd be more willing to take. Even if the weapon is being used on an enemy it's less likely to kill, it can still adversely affect the behavior of it. Say it's dakka dakka dakka Grey Knights vs. Blood Angels assault squads. Chances are (49.327%, to be exact) precisely zero wounds will be inflicted. However, the Blood Angels assault squad may fail their leadership test, slowing their 12" movement phase (up to 18" with a run) down to 3" per turn, IIRC, giving the Grey Knights the opportunity to smash shoot everything up.

I'll admit that Space Marines are NOT my area of expertise, ever since the Space Wolves codex left me dazed and confused (these days I mostly play Daemons) but a Heavy Bolter seems to have much more potential for lethality, having an AP value and all, so I assume it should have a similar potential effect. Those it can't kill, it may daze and frighten, and that makes it valuable.

purplefood wrote:Heavy 4 pinning would make it more anti-infantry which would further seperate it from the Autocannon...
Good idea...

What? Are you insane? First of all, Str 5 Ap 4 Heavy 4, Pinning would cost what exactly in points? Give GW's recent trend in costing on epic guns, I'm willing to be this would be at least a 20-point or more gun.

Secondly, you are forgetting what the heavy bolter actually does and what it does very well. It cuts down light armor troops like butter. As a Dark Eldar player, I'd be more terrified to devastators or even tactical marines with heavy bolters. Missile launchers? I laugh at them. I'm never stupid enough for you to get the multi-wounds on the frag blast.

Exergy wrote:If any change is nessisary I would give them a on the move fire mode. Fire it from the hip with less accuracy(less shots)

Str5 AP4 Heavy 3 or Assault 2

It would make them completely different from autocannons, more inline with DE splinter cannons(Heavy6 or Assault4) while not making them any more powerful on vehicles.

IMHO they are fine on vehicles. Especilly the twinlinked ones on razorbacks. TL Heavy 4 razorbacks would be too strong.

They don't need to be inline with Dark Eldar or any other army. Bolter weapons maintain the roles the roles they were designed for which is light armor killing. You don't need to buff them. Try playing a non-MEQ army and witness the bolter destruction on everyone not in power armor.

Roll to hit with Heavy Bolter. If roll is successful, place one small blast template at target squad. Done.

My thoughts are that IoM armies already have more than a fair share of toys.

Instead of boosting the Heavy Bolter, add a few points of cost to the other weapons.

I think it should not change but it should be a freebie. As in devastators get HB free. Tacs if they qualify get HB free.
The problem with HB is they made it the same cost as a ML and only an idiot is going to take a HB over a ML. Better range, almost as good anti-hoard with the small blast and superior AT with a krak missile. The long fangs have it about right 115 for 5 hb 140 for 5 ml.

Kilkrazy wrote:My thoughts are that IoM armies already have more than a fair share of toys.

Instead of boosting the Heavy Bolter, add a few points of cost to the other weapons.

Like what? The already heavily priced IG ML? I think when it comes to IG weapons, HB should be at or near mortar price and ML should be at or near autocannon price. Maybe even make squad mortars free since you'd have to be insane to use one

The answer is simple:

Heavy Bolter Range 36'', AP 4, Strength 5, Heavy 3, Pinning.

It will make it more Anti-infantry and won't make it OP.

Aaah.. I love it when people mix real life weapon operation with games mechanics

Heavy bolters do not fire 3 rounds per turn any more than autocannon and assault cannon fire 2 and 4 respectively. It is never stated anywhere how many rounds each weapon fires to make the in-game effect as the to-hit and to-wound rolls are merely game mechanisms to gauge the combat effectiveness of a squad. You could easily say that HBs use a blast marker due to the high rate of fire and exploding shells kicking up a lot of shrapnel and debris.

Personally I think just adding the pinning rule would make an interesting difference to the use of HMGs in 40k. however there is a huge list of units that just ignore such things that it might have limited utility.

kenshin620 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:My thoughts are that IoM armies already have more than a fair share of toys.

Instead of boosting the Heavy Bolter, add a few points of cost to the other weapons.

Like what? The already heavily priced IG ML? I think when it comes to IG weapons, HB should be at or near mortar price and ML should be at or near autocannon price. Maybe even make squad mortars free since you'd have to be insane to use one

Like the ones that people are complaining get used more than heavy bolters because heavy bolters are too expensive.

Which is mostly a Marine problem.

Raising the cost of other IoM weapons wouldn't increase the usage of the heavy bolter. If heavy bolters stayed free in tactical squads, while every other weapon went up 10pts, I'm not going to "save" 10 pts an buy a HB. I'm going to spend the points to make the tactical squad worth taking. Ditto IG.

The problem isn't the points cost: it's that every other heavy weapon can actually accomplish something, while the heavy bolter can't.

Now, in things like Long Fangs, heavy bolters are fine, it's just that Missile Launchers are too cheap. Four or Five heavy bolters can actually do something.

I'm also not sure arguing that the heavy bolter (a single, if common weapon) is fine, it's just the entire rest of the game that is broken is the best analysis. Fixing the heavy bolter is easier than redoing the entire core rules and 15 codices.

Make the heavy bolter Assault 2 or 3.

Polonius wrote:Raising the cost of other IoM weapons wouldn't increase the usage of the heavy bolter. If heavy bolters stayed free in tactical squads, while every other weapon went up 10pts, I'm not going to "save" 10 pts an buy a HB. I'm going to spend the points to make the tactical squad worth taking. Ditto IG.

The problem isn't the points cost: it's that every other heavy weapon can actually accomplish something, while the heavy bolter can't.

Now, in things like Long Fangs, heavy bolters are fine, it's just that Missile Launchers are too cheap. Four or Five heavy bolters can actually do something.

I'm also not sure arguing that the heavy bolter (a single, if common weapon) is fine, it's just the entire rest of the game that is broken is the best analysis. Fixing the heavy bolter is easier than redoing the entire core rules and 15 codices.

Actually I was just arguing that the meta and the laziness people have in applying cover saves is the problem.

Melissia wrote:Actually I was just arguing that the meta and the laziness people have in applying cover saves is the problem.

But the meta game doesn't spring from the forehead of Zeus. It's the product of the combination of core rules and codices.

I'm not sure what you mean by laziness in coversaves, but they're extremely common.

Either way, it's easier to fix one broken element, in this case the heavy bolter, than try to change the metagame.

The suggestions for pinning are actually good, if this were a real wargame where suppressive fire was a factor. Pinning is of far too little use in the current rules to be a major selling point. I'm not knocking the 40k rules, I just think that suppressive fire is a little too complex a matter to try to wedge in.

So you end up with a weapon that's best used against non-mechanized, non-power armored foes, that aren't in cover. It's a niche weapon at absolute best (in the context of a squad heavy weapon), and really isn't that great even in that role.

Changing the points isn't going to make it more appealing. Making it stronger is not feasible due to the wide vairety of uses (devestators, sponsons, etc.) that are currently proprely pointed. Changing the rate of fire or strenght also starts to crowd out similar weapons (assault cannon and autocannon most notably).

So, IMO, that leaves making a special rule that gives tactical and infantry squads a reason to take the heavy bolter. Making it mobile is one way. Another way would be to model suppressing fire as defensive: so any squad with a heavy bolter counts as having defensive grenades.

Polonius wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by laziness in coversaves, but they're extremely common.

What she's refering to is the fact that people slap 4+ cover on everything instead of actually using varied cover save values like the rulebook says.

Given numbers I will take "free" HB. Sure one is not worth all that much but give me devastators for 80 pts less with 4 HB and there is reason to take it. The volume of fire that heavy bolters can put out will ruin the day of every dark eldar or give them the current scout option of hellfire small blast template that auto wounds on a 2+ and we now have a value to HB that nothing else can match.

While not having ML leaves you less flexible for anti-tank use, an 80 pt reduction for dedicated anti-personnel makes sense. Heck I can take a las-plas razorback plus 6 devastators with HB if they were free for the same cost as 6 devs with ML .

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Polonius wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by laziness in coversaves, but they're extremely common.

What she's refering to is the fact that people slap 4+ cover on everything instead of actually using varied cover save values like the rulebook says.

Even a 5+ cover save really cuts into the effectiveness of the HB though, and if you look at the chart, most cover is actually 4+ cover, at least the terrain most game stores are stocked with.

DAaddict wrote:Given numbers I will take "free" HB. Sure one is not worth all that much but give me devastators for 80 pts less with 4 HB and there is reason to take it. The volume of fire that heavy bolters can put out will ruin the day of every dark eldar or give them the current scout option of hellfire small blast template that auto wounds on a 2+ and we now have a value to HB that nothing else can match.

While not having ML leaves you less flexible for anti-tank use, an 80 pt reduction for dedicated anti-personnel makes sense. Heck I can take a las-plas razorback plus 6 devastators with HB if they were free for the same cost as 6 devs with ML .

I agree that devestators with four HBs are worth taking for the proper price. Now, you give up a heavy support slot, but a lot of armies could swing that. Likewise, if the IG could take three HBs as a squad for 60pts, you'd see it a little more.

The problem lay with the nature of squad heavy weapons. I like, and I think most people like, anti-tank weapons as the lone heavy because while a Missile or Autocannon have a low chance of damaging a vehicle, they have a chance to destroy, damage, or at least stun a unit. A heavy bolter often has no chance for silencing an infantry squad.

Polonius wrote: Fixing the heavy bolter is easier than redoing the entire core rules and 15 codices.

Not that we don't need that anyways, right?

@Melissia: What you're saying about it being a marine problem is undeniably true, but nearly 1/3 of codexes produced are MEQ, and most armies played are MEQ. This is ABSOLUTELY a marine problem, which is why it's such a big deal.