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.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I was meaning on heavy bolters not bolters. Rending will enable a heavy bolter to be able to damage vehicles up to AV14. It will also make them more effective against MCs. The reliability increases for heavy bolters due to the HRoF. Looking at Rapiers for instance, they will be getting you just under 3 rends on average a turn from a full unit. That's why rending on assault cannons is so nice - the HRoF. Raptors bolters become heavy 1, so lose any chance of even a mid RoF.

Eh...maybe. I've still never liked rending even on the handful of weapons I own that do have it, it's just not reliable enough.

Alcibiades wrote:They're supposed to have different functions. The HB is supposed to be primarily a light infantry killer which can if pressed do double-duty against MCs and light vehicles; the AC is supposed to be the opposite.

If you give the HB four shots, the AC becomes a superior weapon to other options only against AV12 -- the only category in which it would be superior to both HBs and lascannons.

This is exactly why it's so hard to change the HB. If you increase its ability against its supposed preferred target (light infantry), either by increasing RoF or strength or adding Shred, it starts to take over the roles of other weapons. Because an increase from 3 to 4 is a 33% increase, which is big, as is an increase from 50 to 75% (a 50% increase!) or 17 to 31% or 33 to 61% (almost 100%!) with Shred and so on. (Shred almost doubles its damage output against T6).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
actually what adding Shred would do is create a relatively small increase in lethality against light infantry (83% to 97%, only about 20%), but a very large increase against high-T units.(almost 100% agaiinst T6).

I'm really not seeing the issue. It's taking over the role of another weapon....that is barely being used as is. Auto cannons are on what, two models for the marines and like 3 in the IG? Honestly, I wouldn't mind dumping them entirely from the marine line and taking HBs away from the IG, so each group has there own distinctive set of weapons and gear (maybe tweak the stats on each a bit so the new armies don't have any holes in their armory). Marines get bolters of various sizes, IG has lasguns and autocannons.

Xenomancers wrote:HB can't have rending. It would just become an assault cannon then.

While I agree with not giving HBs having rending, I don't really think it would be such a big deal. It's not like marines have that many ways to get assault cannons on the field anyway.

As someone who plays Sisters of Battle, I regularly bring Retributors with Heavy Bolters. The whole squad gets rending a few times a game, and they're one of the most consistently underperforming units in my army.
So, yeah, there's that. Rending on Heavy Bolters doesn't make them cost effective.

Waaaghpower wrote:
As someone who plays Sisters of Battle, I regularly bring Retributors with Heavy Bolters. The whole squad gets rending a few times a game, and they're one of the most consistently underperforming units in my army.
So, yeah, there's that. Rending on Heavy Bolters doesn't make them cost effective.

I think that's really the issue with rending. Sure, it has some none-zero chance of hurting AV14. Good for it. The problem is if you pull your HB squad away from what they should be shooting at (light/medium infantry) to try and get that lucky rend on a heavy tank, you're odds of getting that rend are iffy and the target you should be attacking is rumbling along not being shoot at. Role confusion is an inherently bad thing and rending serves no purpose but to induce it.

Heavy bolters aren't even good vs light/med infantry once they have any kind of cover. Especially T4 infantry like orks. That AP 4 stat is a total waste of time. The approach of the multilaser or scatterlaser is much better. How much do those weapons care about your 4+ cover? They don't because sandpapering though saves was their plan to begin with.

Giving heavy bolters shred would help this, but maybe too much. The problem with the current D6 system is that a single point of Str on a gun makes an enormous difference that can't easily be compensated for. What do multilasers and scatterlasers get to kill IKs and heavy bolters can't?

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
As someone who plays Sisters of Battle, I regularly bring Retributors with Heavy Bolters. The whole squad gets rending a few times a game, and they're one of the most consistently underperforming units in my army.
So, yeah, there's that. Rending on Heavy Bolters doesn't make them cost effective.

I think that's really the issue with rending. Sure, it has some none-zero chance of hurting AV14. Good for it. The problem is if you pull your HB squad away from what they should be shooting at (light/medium infantry) to try and get that lucky rend on a heavy tank, you're odds of getting that rend are iffy and the target you should be attacking is rumbling along not being shoot at. Role confusion is an inherently bad thing and rending serves no purpose but to induce it.

I usually use it as a stopgap - If I have nothing else to fire at, I'll target something non-ideal with Rending. Problem is, I seem to inevitably end up going against armies with a bunch of 3+ and 2+, or else Daemons. Either way, it does no good. Even when it's something else, it's usually endless hordes, where HBs just don't have volume of fire.

Waaaghpower wrote:
I usually use it as a stopgap - If I have nothing else to fire at, I'll target something non-ideal with Rending. Problem is, I seem to inevitably end up going against armies with a bunch of 3+ and 2+, or else Daemons. Either way, it does no good. Even when it's something else, it's usually endless hordes, where HBs just don't have volume of fire.

Yeah, but that's more of a "eh, might as well take the shot since nothing else is in range" thing. Giving HBs rending as a core part of the profile doesn't seem to be something they really need or want.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
I usually use it as a stopgap - If I have nothing else to fire at, I'll target something non-ideal with Rending. Problem is, I seem to inevitably end up going against armies with a bunch of 3+ and 2+, or else Daemons. Either way, it does no good. Even when it's something else, it's usually endless hordes, where HBs just don't have volume of fire.

Yeah, but that's more of a "eh, might as well take the shot since nothing else is in range" thing. Giving HBs rending as a core part of the profile doesn't seem to be something they really need or want.

Which was my point in the first place. It's not great, it's barely good.

Rending is only good with high volume of fire.

Just give heavy bolters rapid fire.....

 CanisFish wrote:
Just give heavy bolters rapid fire.....

Sure, let's reduce its RoF to a third at range and two-thirds at half range. An excellent idea that would definitely not cause people to choose other weapons in their favor.

 Charistoph wrote:

 CanisFish wrote:
Just give heavy bolters rapid fire.....

Sure, let's reduce its RoF to a third at range and two-thirds at half range. An excellent idea that would definitely not cause people to choose other weapons in their favor.

Huh?
They would be normal at 36" 3 shot
But at 18" will have six shots

What are you on about?

Edit: oh you thought I meant make the heavy bolter into a regular bolt gun? no, just take the rule a bolt gun gets (Rapid fire: double shots at half range), and stick it on the heavy bolter.

It also would fire at full BS when moving because of no longer being heavy

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
It also would fire at full BS when moving because of no longer being heavy

Is that to my suggestion? why would it not still be a heavy because it has rapid fire?

Salvo seems more appropriate.

 CanisFish wrote:
Is that to my suggestion? why would it not still be a heavy because it has rapid fire?

As far as I know weapon classes are one or the other. There's no such thing as an assault rapid fire weapon, or a heavy salvo weapon.

Frankly, I think what would be nice is to just make them assault weapons (not exactly sure how this would work with IG, maybe drop them from the IG heavy weapon team list). with a little more mobility they can have their role as being basically the 40k version of a SAW, while autocannons are the heavier, fixed emplacement/vehicle mounted version.

 CanisFish wrote:

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
It also would fire at full BS when moving because of no longer being heavy

Is that to my suggestion? why would it not still be a heavy because it has rapid fire?

Please post your variant of heavy bolter's profile so we can better understand your exact proposal.
Like 'heavy 3, rapid fire' or 'rapid fire 3, heavy' or 'heavy 3, rapid fire 3' or something?

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 CanisFish wrote:
Is that to my suggestion? why would it not still be a heavy because it has rapid fire?

As far as I know weapon classes are one or the other. There's no such thing as an assault rapid fire weapon, or a heavy salvo weapon.

Frankly, I think what would be nice is to just make them assault weapons (not exactly sure how this would work with IG, maybe drop them from the IG heavy weapon team list). with a little more mobility they can have their role as being basically the 40k version of a SAW, while autocannons are the heavier, fixed emplacement/vehicle mounted version.

I believe Rapid fire is a special rule, not a weapon type

Sonic Keyboard wrote:

 CanisFish wrote:

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
It also would fire at full BS when moving because of no longer being heavy

Is that to my suggestion? why would it not still be a heavy because it has rapid fire?

Please post your variant of heavy bolter's profile so we can better understand your exact proposal.
Like 'heavy 3, rapid fire' or 'rapid fire 3, heavy' or 'heavy 3, rapid fire 3' or something?

S5 AP4 Heavy 3, Rapid fire

Normal heavy bolter in all accounts except at half range gets heavy 6

Rapid fire is it's own profile type.
What you are suggesting would be best represented by Salvo 6/3. They would also add mobility, but is too much imo.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Rapid fire is it's own profile type.
What you are suggesting would be best represented by Salvo 6/3. They would also add mobility, but is too much imo.

Ah yes my mistake, read the entry in the rulebook and it is indeed its own weapon type.
Strange, heavy and assault sounds like descriptive words for a weapon while rapid fire sounds like something it can do.

 CanisFish wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Rapid fire is it's own profile type.
What you are suggesting would be best represented by Salvo 6/3. They would also add mobility, but is too much imo.

Ah yes my mistake, read the entry in the rulebook and it is indeed its own weapon type.
Strange, heavy and assault sounds like descriptive words for a weapon while rapid fire sounds like something it can do.

Agreed, rapid fire holds the kind of middle ground. You can move with it, but no assault with it.
However it's now almost exactly just salvo 2/1. The only difference is that rapid fire can still move and fire at max range, salvo 2/1 couldn't. 5th ed rapid fire literally is current salvo 2/1.
That and salvo normally has the second number being bigger, but that's an irrelevant difference.

 CanisFish wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Rapid fire is it's own profile type.
What you are suggesting would be best represented by Salvo 6/3. They would also add mobility, but is too much imo.

Ah yes my mistake, read the entry in the rulebook and it is indeed its own weapon type.
Strange, heavy and assault sounds like descriptive words for a weapon while rapid fire sounds like something it can do.

To be fair, I do hope that Rapid Fire does get setup as you thought at some point. It should be a reverse Salvo in concept. Until then making Heavy Bolters Rapid Fire would be generally classified as a nerf.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
I think 4 shots isn't quite enough.

I'd say make it Heavy 4 but also -1 to cover saves. The idea here is that the heavier shells slam into cover and explode, shredding the target with debris anyway, so there's less benefit to being in cover against it.

This doesn't make the weapon suddenly an ideal anti-marine weapon or anything, but does give it a bit of a niche as a long-range weapon that can put extra hurt on targets in cover, compared against flamers which are better at that but need to get a lot closer first.

Neat idea, but I'm not sure I'd like the result in practice. I see this doing relatively little to improve the heavy bolter against most targets, but making it somewhat better against dark eldar vehicles or 'nids and orks trying to make their way towards you using cover. All of which are armies that don't need another kick in the geneseed right now.

Hmm, perhaps.

Another alternative that might help the anti-infantry credentials could be for each to-Hit roll of a 6 the target unit suffers two hits instead of 1. Combined with Heavy 4 this gives an average number of 3.333 hits at BS4, rather than 2.666 as normal, at BS3 it'd be 2.666 vs 2 and so-on. On average it works out the same as having an extra point of Ballistic Skill, however on a very good roll you're potentially hitting more targets than the higher BS.

Of course if that's too complicated, treating heavy bolters as +1 to-Hit could work too, such that it also affects Snap Shots?

[edit] That said, your criticism on the heavy bolter being more useful against DE vehicles, orks and 'nids, while I agree that these armies are woefully underpowered right now, aren't they exactly the types of targets that the Heavy Bolter should be good against? Personally I still prefer the cover penalty as a mechanic for the explosive shells, and remember, I'm only proposing this for the Heavy Bolter. I figure the regular boltgun and bolt pistol are already represented by their Strength and AP values, as the explosion presumably isn't as large as for the heavier rounds.

 Charistoph wrote:

 CanisFish wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Rapid fire is it's own profile type.
What you are suggesting would be best represented by Salvo 6/3. They would also add mobility, but is too much imo.

Ah yes my mistake, read the entry in the rulebook and it is indeed its own weapon type.
Strange, heavy and assault sounds like descriptive words for a weapon while rapid fire sounds like something it can do.

To be fair, I do hope that Rapid Fire does get setup as you thought at some point. It should be a reverse Salvo in concept. Until then making Heavy Bolters Rapid Fire would be generally classified as a nerf.

For foot sloggers yes.
For Bikes and Vehicles not so much.
Land Speeders would be amazing.
Could you imagine the damage a 95 point Predator could do at 18"? Twelve S5 shots followed by two S7 shots, that's going to hurt. 285 points gets the squadron with Killshot on top of the six S7 shots and thirty six S5 shots.
Space Mutts and Blood Angels both got short-changed on cheap flyers but Guard and Vanilla Marines would have some serious flying threat.

Or for that matter a line of chimeras with twin heavy bolters? Man, with them giving twelve shots each, AND being transports, AND 12 front armor... yikes. That'd certainly make mech guard players happy!

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
For foot sloggers yes.
For Bikes and Vehicles not so much.
Land Speeders would be amazing.
Could you imagine the damage a 95 point Predator could do at 18"? Twelve S5 shots followed by two S7 shots, that's going to hurt. 285 points gets the squadron with Killshot on top of the six S7 shots and thirty six S5 shots.
Space Mutts and Blood Angels both got short-changed on cheap flyers but Guard and Vanilla Marines would have some serious flying threat.

It would be a nerf no matter who was taking them in the current environment. The Rate of Fire for Rapid Fire Weapons is a constant based on the range to the target, 1 shot from half to full range, 2 from point blank to half range.

What he was suggesting is that Rapid Fire be a function that doubled fire at half range. This would be an improvement for EVERYONE that carried the Heavy Bolter, foot slogger or no, considering that Relentless does not affect this at all. Relentless only affects a model's ability to Charge after using a Rapid Fire Weapon.

I personally want to see it turn intop a 48 inch range with slavo 4/2 S5 Ap4 so it is just a better bolter.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
For foot sloggers yes.
For Bikes and Vehicles not so much.
Land Speeders would be amazing.
Could you imagine the damage a 95 point Predator could do at 18"? Twelve S5 shots followed by two S7 shots, that's going to hurt. 285 points gets the squadron with Killshot on top of the six S7 shots and thirty six S5 shots.
Space Mutts and Blood Angels both got short-changed on cheap flyers but Guard and Vanilla Marines would have some serious flying threat.

It would be a nerf no matter who was taking them in the current environment. The Rate of Fire for Rapid Fire Weapons is a constant based on the range to the target, 1 shot from half to full range, 2 from point blank to half range.

What he was suggesting is that Rapid Fire be a function that doubled fire at half range. This would be an improvement for EVERYONE that carried the Heavy Bolter, foot slogger or no, considering that Relentless does not affect this at all. Relentless only affects a model's ability to Charge after using a Rapid Fire Weapon.

Well there you go.
I've only really encountered Rapid Fire on Bolters and simply didn't care after finding out that you couldn't charge after using it - so, you got a cool name for this new mechanic?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Well there you go.
I've only really encountered Rapid Fire on Bolters and simply didn't care after finding out that you couldn't charge after using it - so, you got a cool name for this new mechanic?

It's on a lot of stuff besides Boltguns, like Lasguns and Plasma Guns, but that's neither here nor there.

I was stating that this be the version that Rapid Fire should be. It should either double shots at half range, or improve the stat by +1 or +half. It would require adding a number after Rapid Fire ala Assault or Heavy, but that's nothing new. The alternative is using a #/# system ala Salvo to indicate short/long range rates of fire.

Though, this has nothing to do with Heavy Bolters. Their fluff and setup is far better suited to either a Heavy or Salvo mechanic, such as it is.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Well there you go.
I've only really encountered Rapid Fire on Bolters and simply didn't care after finding out that you couldn't charge after using it - so, you got a cool name for this new mechanic?

It's on a lot of stuff besides Boltguns, like Lasguns and Plasma Guns, but that's neither here nor there.

Still double the shots and no charge without relentless.

I was stating that this be the version that Rapid Fire should be. It should either double shots at half range, or improve the stat by +1 or +half. It would require adding a number after Rapid Fire ala Assault or Heavy, but that's nothing new. The alternative is using a #/# system ala Salvo to indicate short/long range rates of fire.


Though, this has nothing to do with Heavy Bolters. Their fluff and setup is far better suited to either a Heavy or Salvo mechanic, such as it is.

Not like fluff doesn't get Retconned regardless of our feelings. Don't let that stop a rule improvement.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Well there you go.
I've only really encountered Rapid Fire on Bolters and simply didn't care after finding out that you couldn't charge after using it - so, you got a cool name for this new mechanic?

It's on a lot of stuff besides Boltguns, like Lasguns and Plasma Guns, but that's neither here nor there.

Still double the shots and no charge without relentless.

More to the point, there is little reason to not be familiar with it if you are familiar with the game, much less familiar with the Boltgun which is in the BRB nwo.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

I was stating that this be the version that Rapid Fire should be. It should either double shots at half range, or improve the stat by +1 or +half. It would require adding a number after Rapid Fire ala Assault or Heavy, but that's nothing new. The alternative is using a #/# system ala Salvo to indicate short/long range rates of fire.


Though, this has nothing to do with Heavy Bolters. Their fluff and setup is far better suited to either a Heavy or Salvo mechanic, such as it is.

Not like fluff doesn't get Retconned regardless of our feelings. Don't let that stop a rule improvement.

Really, you think that the in-universe equivalent of a M2 .50 caliber machine gun should be a Rapid Fire weapon like an M16?