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.

Taffy17 wrote:
Sorry but giving Heavy Bolters S6 would be terrible. You'd be insta-killing half the armies in the game. I will say that their 3 shots are a bit pathetic for a heavy machine gun. Heavy 4 might be more appropriate.

I think Storm Bolters are fine. Assault 2 makes them better than Bolters but not overpowered. Also anything they're shooting at is probably gonna get charged same turn by terminators which is pretty scary as is.

Agreed. Heavy 4 for heavy bolters is a good, solid fix, I'd probably combo that with a drop to the range to 30" or ap to 5 (I dont like the plethora of ap4 that invalidates most 4+ saves). S6 would be ridiculous and make multilasers beyond pointless and make autocannons a weak choice.

Right now storm bolters are literally only worse than heavy stubbers, which is really only important for IG vehicles. It'd be nice to have a reason to take them, assault 3, 18" range?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Yes, but none of those are on the profile.

My posts are about putting a special rule on the armor that gives +1 shots. I don't think anyone was very attached to changing the profile.

Tac marines need something. I don't know if this is it, though.

Taffy17 wrote:
. I will say that their 3 shots are a bit pathetic for a heavy machine gun.

That's ok since it isn't a heavy machine gun. Heavy machine guns are s4 ap6 heavy 3.

You have to compare these weapons not just against an idea of what they "should" do conceptually, but by their role in an army in the game.

As it is, the heavy weapons are organized more or less into roles -- anti-light infantry, anti-light vehicle. anti-monstrous critter, etc. As it is at present, the heavy bolter performs better than all other man-portable Imperial heavy weapoms against infantry. Albeit against some targets this superiority is marginal (while against GEQ a heavy bolter does 150% the damage of an autocannon, against MEQ it does only about 20% more).

If you make the heavy bolter fire four shots instead of three, you have not only increased its effectiveness against infantry considerably, but also against monstrous critters (it starts to do the same amount of statistically average wounds against a T6 AP3 target as does an autocannon), Something similar happens in the case of AV10.

This means that the battlefield roles of the heavy bokter and autocannon change; the heavy bolter is strictly better against all non-vehicle targets, and about the same against lght vehiclss. While lascannons still performs much better against heavy vehicles. Meaning that the autocannon becomes a niche weapon for use against AV12.

Alcibiades wrote:
You have to compare these weapons not just against an idea of what they "should" do conceptually, but by their role in an army in the game.

As it is, the heavy weapons are organized more or less into roles -- anti-light infantry, anti-light vehicle. anti-monstrous critter, etc. As it is at present, the heavy bolter performs better than all other man-portable Imperial heavy weapoms against infantry. Albeit against some targets this superiority is marginal (while against GEQ a heavy bolter does 150% the damage of an autocannon, against MEQ it does only about 20% more).

If you make the heavy bolter fire four shots instead of three, you have not only increased its effectiveness against infantry considerably, but also against monstrous critters (it starts to do the same amount of statistically average wounds against a T6 AP3 target as does an autocannon), Something similar happens in the case of AV10.

This means that the battlefield roles of the heavy bokter and autocannon change; the heavy bolter is strictly better against all non-vehicle targets, and about the same against lght vehiclss. While lascannons still performs much better against heavy vehicles. Meaning that the autocannon becomes a niche weapon for use against AV12.

The problem is that currently the heavy bolter costs the same as an autocannon with less range and only marginally better performance against its preferred target of T3 and T4. Personally I like the idea of making HBs S5 Ap5 Heavy 4. So that they excel against light infantry, but they are much less effective against 4+ armor (which I always imagine as the equivalent of a bomb squad's body armor). This will give the HB a distinct role and a reasonable trade off vs the autocannon or multilaser.

 TheSilo wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
You have to compare these weapons not just against an idea of what they "should" do conceptually, but by their role in an army in the game.

As it is, the heavy weapons are organized more or less into roles -- anti-light infantry, anti-light vehicle. anti-monstrous critter, etc. As it is at present, the heavy bolter performs better than all other man-portable Imperial heavy weapoms against infantry. Albeit against some targets this superiority is marginal (while against GEQ a heavy bolter does 150% the damage of an autocannon, against MEQ it does only about 20% more).

If you make the heavy bolter fire four shots instead of three, you have not only increased its effectiveness against infantry considerably, but also against monstrous critters (it starts to do the same amount of statistically average wounds against a T6 AP3 target as does an autocannon), Something similar happens in the case of AV10.

This means that the battlefield roles of the heavy bokter and autocannon change; the heavy bolter is strictly better against all non-vehicle targets, and about the same against lght vehiclss. While lascannons still performs much better against heavy vehicles. Meaning that the autocannon becomes a niche weapon for use against AV12.

The problem is that currently the heavy bolter costs the same as an autocannon with less range and only marginally better performance against its preferred target of T3 and T4. Personally I like the idea of making HBs S5 Ap5 Heavy 4. So that they excel against light infantry, but they are much less effective against 4+ armor (which I always imagine as the equivalent of a bomb squad's body armor). This will give the HB a distinct role and a reasonable trade off vs the autocannon or multilaser.

I'm not totally opposed to the idea, but it doesn't change that the HB's performance will increase to about equal the autocannon's performance against monstrous critters and light vehicles -- which are supposed to be the autocannon's prefered target.

I think heavy bolters should be heavy 6.

A big part of the problem is the limited range of numbers GW works with. If scores went to 20 instead of 10, and the game used D10s instead of D6s, one could much better differentiate between different units and different weaponry.

 Filch wrote:
I think heavy bolters should be heavy 6.

A heavy bolter that was Heavy 6 would do 150% as much damage against a carnifex as an autocannon, take 150% more hull points off of AV10, and be slightly more effective against AV11. The only targets that the autocannon would be superior to are AV12 and AV13, and a lascannon is superior against both of those. Autocannons would have no point in existing.

Then perhaps the solution is to make Heavy Bolters S4 AP4 Heavy 4 or 5. Still excellent against light and medium infantry, but starting to lose out against vehicles.

Alcibiades wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
You have to compare these weapons not just against an idea of what they "should" do conceptually, but by their role in an army in the game.

As it is, the heavy weapons are organized more or less into roles -- anti-light infantry, anti-light vehicle. anti-monstrous critter, etc. As it is at present, the heavy bolter performs better than all other man-portable Imperial heavy weapoms against infantry. Albeit against some targets this superiority is marginal (while against GEQ a heavy bolter does 150% the damage of an autocannon, against MEQ it does only about 20% more).

If you make the heavy bolter fire four shots instead of three, you have not only increased its effectiveness against infantry considerably, but also against monstrous critters (it starts to do the same amount of statistically average wounds against a T6 AP3 target as does an autocannon), Something similar happens in the case of AV10.

This means that the battlefield roles of the heavy bokter and autocannon change; the heavy bolter is strictly better against all non-vehicle targets, and about the same against lght vehiclss. While lascannons still performs much better against heavy vehicles. Meaning that the autocannon becomes a niche weapon for use against AV12.

The problem is that currently the heavy bolter costs the same as an autocannon with less range and only marginally better performance against its preferred target of T3 and T4. Personally I like the idea of making HBs S5 Ap5 Heavy 4. So that they excel against light infantry, but they are much less effective against 4+ armor (which I always imagine as the equivalent of a bomb squad's body armor). This will give the HB a distinct role and a reasonable trade off vs the autocannon or multilaser.

I'm not totally opposed to the idea, but it doesn't change that the HB's performance will increase to about equal the autocannon's performance against monstrous critters and light vehicles -- which are supposed to be the autocannon's prefered target.

They'd be equally effective against T6 and AV10. HB would be better against T3, 4, 5 and AC would be better against T7+.

AC still has better range.

Give HBs Shred, maybe? It increases their effectiveness against soft targets by 50% or so but does nothing to vehicles and the autocannon is still superior against T6. EDIT: whoops no it's not, an HB with Shred is better against that

Alcibiades wrote:
Give HBs Shred, maybe? It increases their effectiveness against soft targets by 50% or so but does nothing to vehicles and the autocannon is still superior against T6. EDIT: whoops no it's not, an HB with Shred is better against that

Shred is really, really powerful.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Filch wrote:
I think heavy bolters should be heavy 6.

A heavy bolter that was Heavy 6 would do 150% as much damage against a carnifex as an autocannon, take 150% more hull points off of AV10, and be slightly more effective against AV11. The only targets that the autocannon would be superior to are AV12 and AV13, and a lascannon is superior against both of those. Autocannons would have no point in existing.

I would like to see the calculations to your math hammer please.

Bolt weapons are fine; I thought that people wanted power creep to end as you guys are re-encouraging it.

SGTPozy wrote:
Bolt weapons are fine; I thought that people wanted power creep to end as you guys are re-encouraging it.

I agree that most bolt weapons are fine. The heavy bolter is in a weird place though, it costs the same as an autocannon but it's almost always inferior. It'd be good with a buff and a nerf. It would be better recast as an anti-light infantry weapon, one more shot, but worse range or AP.

For a long time storm bolters, like terminator armour itself, have been underpowered and poorly represented. As it stands their rate of fire is no better than a rapid firing bolter, in spite of possessing twice the number of barrels. Assault 3 storm bolters would befit terminators nicely. A point or 2 extra maybe. Wouldn't see it imbalancing things too much in power armour squads either.

I wouldn't suggest upping the rate of fire of a heavy bolter (or any heavy weapon) Its stats are adequate and representative of what it should be. From what I can see the problem is overly generous cover saves that are limiting the value of the HB. Increasing heavy weapon stats sets of warning lights for me -I remember 2nd ed, where the firepower of the rifle troops in a squad was somewhat relegated by the overwhelming damage output of heavy weapons.

 Filch wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Filch wrote:
I think heavy bolters should be heavy 6.

A heavy bolter that was Heavy 6 would do 150% as much damage against a carnifex as an autocannon, take 150% more hull points off of AV10, and be slightly more effective against AV11. The only targets that the autocannon would be superior to are AV12 and AV13, and a lascannon is superior against both of those. Autocannons would have no point in existing.

I would like to see the calculations to your math hammer please.

2/3 x 1/3 x 2 = 4/9

1/3 x 1/3 x 6 = 2/3

2/3 > 4/9




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheSilo wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
Bolt weapons are fine; I thought that people wanted power creep to end as you guys are re-encouraging it.

I agree that most bolt weapons are fine. The heavy bolter is in a weird place though, it costs the same as an autocannon but it's almost always inferior. It'd be good with a buff and a nerf. It would be better recast as an anti-light infantry weapon, one more shot, but worse range or AP.

The HB is not almost always inferior to the AC: it is always inferior vs. vehicles and always superior vs. infantry (with the exception of T5).

Now if you mean a better choice for the points, that depends on what kind of army you're fighting. If it's a wave of melee Orka with no tanks, the HB is absolutely better.

That said, I wouldn't really have a problem with lowering its cost.

I honestly think that making autocannons 5pts more expensive would be all the help that heavy bolters need.

Make heavy bolter Heavy 4 R 36" S4 AP5 pinning shred. Increase it's cost. Now it's a machine gun.
Boltgun - Just needs a range increase. 30" rapid fire. Now it's a rifle.
Storm bolter. Salvo 2/4 or assault 3. Now it's a sub machine gun.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Make heavy bolter Heavy 4 R 36" S4 AP5 pinning shred. Increase it's cost. Now it's a machine gun.
Boltgun - Just needs a range increase. 30" rapid fire. Now it's a rifle.
Storm bolter. Salvo 2/4 or assault 3. Now it's a sub machine gun.

The boltgun doesn't need extra range. Making it 30" range basically makes it a slightly weaker, more accurate pulse rifle on a more durable platform.

And, crucially, at a higher price.

I'm another fan of salvo 2/3 bolters and salvo 3/4 HB's.
And maybe give the standard bolters "only go to the lower number of shots when moving, but stay at full range unlike other salvo weapons."

All in all the newer guns have just gotten awesome, and the good ol' bolter has been left by the wayside in efficacy. I'd like to be kinda scared of getting shot with a bolter again.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
One other thing; just because CSM have something better than the Loyalist equivalent it doesn't make it poor design. Older things could be better than newer things, such as the AK47 is still used today, but not many armies use them but they are still powerful with large (I believe) calibre ammo.

I like how the combi-bolter is better.

7.62mm, if I remember correctly.

Most other comparable assault rifles use 5.56mm.

Though larger ammunition comes with the downside that it weighs more.

You remembered correctly. The 7.62 bullets have better AP and higher recoil than 5.56.

There are a lot of 5.56 AK's as well.

Marines with bolters will in fact outshoot equal points of every troop in the game (maybe not Dire Avengers -- haven't done the math on them), all other things being the same, unless my math is way off.

The bolter does not have a problem

HBs are maybe a different matter.

What, not Shoota Boyz. Due to the number of shots, shoota boyz are way shootier than 14-16pt bs4 bolters.

This is only up to a moderate amount of points, since at some point it may be difficult to get all the ork models in range and LoS of the target.

I'm another fan of salvo 2/3 bolters and salvo 3/4 HB's.
And maybe give the standard bolters "only go to the lower number of shots when moving, but stay at full range unlike other salvo weapons."

The Assault Cannon fires way faster than a heavy bolter, and the assault cannon has 4 shots. The Shuriken Cannon fires way faster than the heavy bolter, and it has 3 shots.

The heavy bolter does not fire very quickly, it cannot have four shots.

If you wanted to say that it landed both an s5 ap4 attack and an s3 ap- attack with every hit, that would be about right. However, nobody is interested in doing an extra round of rolling for that.

All in all the newer guns have just gotten awesome, and the good ol' bolter has been left by the wayside in efficacy. I'd like to be kinda scared of getting shot with a bolter again.

Bolters would be a little more scary if they weren't on 16pt models.

How about this for a fix?

All bolt weapons cause a -1 penalty on cover saves (bolt round being explosive and such).

Oh and make the damned Heavy Bolter Heavy4 as well, that thing's pathetic. I've converted all of mine to Autocannons for my Havocs

cbteom wrote:
How about this for a fix?

All bolt weapons cause a -1 penalty on cover saves (bolt round being explosive and such).

Oh and make the damned Heavy Bolter Heavy4 as well, that thing's pathetic. I've converted all of mine to Autocannons for my Havocs

The heavy bolter is fine, the autocannon is what needs to be nerfed.

pelicaniforce wrote:
What, not Shoota Boyz. Due to the number of shots, shoota boyz are way shootier than 14-16pt bs4 bolters.

They're not. Assuming they're both in double tap range. 14 shoota boyz kill 1.556 marines, while 7 marines (which is the same price as 14 shoota boyz) kill 4.667 shoota boyz. If they're not in double tap range, the marines kill 2.333 shoota boyz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I haven't looked at the math for every single troop. but I'm pretty sure that tactical marines win in a basic small-arms shootout with any other troop choice.

Except for Fire Warriors 25"-30" away for obvious reasons.