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.

crazypsyko666 wrote:

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?

I think that the 5th edition rules, and all 5th edition codices, along with Orks and Daemons, all are pretty solid. There is room for improvement, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The game does what it tries to do very well, I think.

@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.

Yeah, I dunno, I mean, the only non-marine books that use heavy bolters are IG and Witchhunters, and as Melissa pointed out basic sisters can't take heavy bolters at all.

There's always the problem with the rule of three: any list of options longer than three will tend to have only three highly used options. That's less true, although you'll rarely see IG infantry squads with anything other than AC or LC.

Part of the problem is that they keep the same sets of options for multiple units, and not all choices are ideal in each realm. I mean, nobody considers infantry multi-meltas bad because nobody takes them in devestators. They are still used in tacticals, while heavy bolters can be used in long fangs and even devs, but not in tacs.

IG HBs are different, if only because they directly compete at the same cost with ACs, which are simply better 90% of the time. And even when HBs are better, it isn't by much. (1.25 dead GEQs for the HB, .8333 for the AC) IG might use HBs at 5pts, especially in blob platoons and the like. 60pt HB heavy weapon squads are also a nice buy.

I do think GW could kill two birds with one stone, however, but allowing tactical squad heavy weapons give a bonus to the squad, and make tacticals better. No matter how much you hate marines, it's hard to argue that tacticals are an underwhelming choice when compared to BA assault marines, Grey Hunters, and Chaos troops. Allowing a tactical HB to give defensive grenades would make a tactical squad a bit better. I bet you could come up with cool rules for each tactical heavy (to represent that tac squads are actually the most battle tested). Multi-meltas can always death or glory if the squad is tank shocked. Plasma Cannons get two shots. Lascannons can draw LOS from any squad member. Missiles are twinlinked.

Whoops, completely missed the 'Core Rules' part, there.

Tac Squads weren't too bad even compared with CSM's until BA's and SW's came out. The CSM's were better in CC and got double specials, but the Tac's had better morale rules, split squad abilities, and were a bit cheaper (10-25pts for similarly equipped units), along with having the Razorback option that CSM's don't. Then along came Grey Hunters are the signature best troop choice of 5th edition, especially amongst Space Marine armies, and then BA's got their assault marines with possible furious charge and heavily discounted Fast transports to play MSU with and special jump pack rules to make them very effective at DS'ing. The problem wasn't with Tac squads, it was that Phil Kelly apparently didn't actually do any math when costing Grey Hunters and their options after making them into "CSM's+1", and BA Assault Marines can take advantage of Combat Squads and MSU better.

IG HB's are just plain overcosted. The HB's increased infantry kill ratio is actually fairly significant (~50% higher) but it's the AC's ability engage medium armor and especially transports is what makes it the default choice.

Combined with the practically "always on" 4+ cover everywhere, and a core game system designed to make it so that Heavy Bolters don't present a huge threat to Marines, results in HB's being seen as fairly weak. The problem is if you make them better, they're on so many things that really don't need to be better, that you may end up causing as many or more problems as you hoped to fix.

What tactical squads really need is one defining capability. I understand that they try to excel at whichever task they're set to ('Tactical' squads and all) but because of that, they don't have any ground to stand on when tested other than 'We have the most standard bolters.' which is bland, and not as useful as some of the other options.

If they were a hard defensive unit, they could be consistent objective takers, since that's what troops do. As a Daemons player, I always find it absolutely vital to take plaguebearers, just because of their nature towards surviving almost any incoming fire (and being fairly cheap). Drop them in on objectives. Don't move. ??? Profit!

I would definetely use it more if it were Heavy 4, but I like the Flamer and a Multi Melta or Missile Launcher, for Anti swarm and anti armour respectively. Mowing down an extra model a turn would be very helpful

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

And general player stupidity.

Actually it's mostly just due to general player stupidity. The meta is defined by people latching on to what they think is successful, even if it isn't.

crazypsyko666 wrote:What tactical squads really need is one defining capability. I understand that they try to excel at whichever task they're set to ('Tactical' squads and all) but because of that, they don't have any ground to stand on when tested other than 'We have the most standard bolters.' which is bland, and not as useful as some of the other options.

If they were a hard defensive unit, they could be consistent objective takers, since that's what troops do. As a Daemons player, I always find it absolutely vital to take plaguebearers, just because of their nature towards surviving almost any incoming fire (and being fairly cheap). Drop them in on objectives. Don't move. ??? Profit!

Well, that's kinda the thing, SM Tac's were never intended to be the best at any one thing or have a defining job, they are consumate generalists, capable of anything, ultra effective at nothing, able to mostly outfight what they usually can't outshoot and generally outshoot what they can't outfight, outkill what they can't outlast and outlast what they can't match for killing power. The problem then became that every other Marine army needs to be "Space Marines...but Better!" instead of "Space Marines...but Different".

And that players who really should be playing more speceialized armies are playing Marines, whom are more generalist (even devastators are better at close combat than shooty armies).

Melissia wrote:And that players who really should be playing more speceialized armies are playing Marines, whom are more generalist (even devastators are better at close combat than shooty armies).

Or can just plain do everything as well or better (saying this having seen SW armies that can simultaneously nearly match IG gunlines for shooting and still outfight CSM's, and Blood Angels lists with as many battle tanks and IFV's as mechanized IG armies...)

It also doesn't help that these armies are generally far cheaper, in terms of $$$, than the non-SM armies as well. Most IG armies will run 150-200% the cost of most SM armies for example.

Melissia wrote:

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

And general player stupidity.

Actually it's mostly just due to general player stupidity. The meta is defined by people latching on to what they think is successful, even if it isn't.

Maybe a very small local metagame, but I don't think people use transports because we're all stupid. I think the rules currently favor vehicles, and modern codices price transports very aggressively. When the edition switched, do you really think everbody started running mech because they're dumb? Or was it the massive improvement to mech in the rules?

If you're arguing that heavy bolters are good when not everybody is mech, but being mech is stupdi... well, than why would not being mech be better if there's a commonly available weapon that can deal with footsloggers?

Outside of reflex contrariness, I can't really find a consistent point you're trying to make.

Polonius wrote:Maybe a very small local metagame

No, its the overall metagame.

People, individually, might be rather smart, but people, collectively, are utterly stupid. The herd mentality which creates the metagame isn't driven by intelligence and sound tactical reasoning, but "follow the leader" and trying to copy what they heard won some tournament or other. And then getting pissed off at why this isn't working.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Maybe a very small local metagame

No, its the overall metagame.

People, individually, might be rather smart, but people, collectively, are utterly stupid. The herd mentality which creates the metagame isn't driven by intelligence and sound tactical reasoning, but "follow the leader" and trying to copy what they heard won some tournament or other. And then getting pissed off at why this isn't working.

The irony is that your opinion seems just as based on internet gossip. Unless you're attending a lot of GTs or soemthing, you're knowledge of the tournament meta game is just as second or third hand.

And the fundamental nature of "mech is pretty good in 5th edition" isn't part of herd anything: it's a pretty tangible result of concious design decisions. Yes, running footsloggers directly as a counter to that expectation is often successful, but that doesn't make the decision to buy rhinos or chimeras simply the product of groupthink.

Now, you can make the argument that only a handful of people really lead innovations in the 40k meta, and the rest simply copy from that. I'd buy that, but it doesn't make either the original innovation or the copying stupid.

Groupthink isn't as common in 40k as many people think, for two major reasons. First, individuals can test new ideas with little risk. Second, success and failure are easy to determine. Groupthink is more dangerous in situations where success and failure are hard to link to a change, and the risk of a bad decision is great.

In 40k, any player can build a wacky list, and take it to a tournament. If it wins, by definition it succeeds. Which is why we get unorthodox lists like Foot Eldar, or nearly any demon list (which group think dismissed early on). Even nob bikers were seen as overly expensive when the book came out, and then quickly (albeit breifly) dominated.

The creamy middle of tournament players (the guys that finish in the middle of the pack), are often even less susceptible to groupthink. If anything, they keep chugging along with lists or armies that are past their prime, but like to use what they have.

So, unless or until you can really come up with some evidence to back up the claim that stupidity is the prime motivator to the metagame, I'm going to have to call BS on that claim.

Polonius wrote:The irony is that your opinion seems just as based on internet gossip.

No, my opinion is based off of my experiences with humanity as a whole, as well as my (admittedly rather laywoman) understanding of psychology and sociology from the basic classes I've had to take.

People exaggerate things, even in their own heads. I do it frequently, and have to stop myself or correct myself if I work off of those kinds of beliefs and reactions.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:The irony is that your opinion seems just as based on internet gossip.

No, my opinion is based off of my experiences with humanity as a whole, as well as my (admittedly rather laywoman) understanding of psychology and sociology from the basic classes I've had to take.

People exaggerate things, even in their own heads. I do it frequently, and have to stop myself or correct myself if I work off of those kinds of beliefs and reactions.

So, based on no knowledge of a field, you feel comfortable saying that the main factor in it's development is groupthink? That's what you've said, at least how I read it.

What's intersting is that I've given several articulations and reasons why army design decisions are made in the current metagame to support my argument. You've based your argument on some combination of intro psych and "experience with humanity as a whole." In other words, my conclusion is based on personal experience, reason, and analysis. Yours is based on stereotyping and trust in a ingrained belief. In other words, exactly what you're accusing 40k players of doing.

Imho, make it heavy one and small template, the things firing explosive rounds at a high rate so this would signify the area being shot at, at least in my mind

That would make it very similar to it's 2nd Edition incarnation, where IIRC it was in fact a blast weapon and not so much a machinegun (when HB carrying SM's had what looked like a gigantic bolt pistol slung over their shoulder instead)

I loved the look of those shoulder mounted HB's [b] I think heavy weaponry should all be shoulder mounted

You should probably enjoy looking at Lootaboyz then.

Mechanized Space Corps wrote:I loved the look of those shoulder mounted HB's [b] I think heavy weaponry should all be shoulder mounted

IIRC Codex:Wargear, which came with the 2nd edition box set, actually stated that the nickname among imperial forces for the heavy bolter was "backbreaker."

Vaktathi wrote:That would make it very similar to it's 2nd Edition incarnation, where IIRC it was in fact a blast weapon and not so much a machinegun (when HB carrying SM's had what looked like a gigantic bolt pistol slung over their shoulder instead)

Heavy Bolters were never a blast weapon. Hellfire shells were, and they were only fired from heavy bolters.

I think we need to look at what each weapon is used for. (im gonna take an ig hwt cos thats what i know)

mortar- very rarly take, you take it when there is a lot of cover and lots of tightly buntched troops.

Auto-cannon- you take against high T and light low AV tanks the ap is to high to take on MEQ but is effective against heavy infantry

ML - you use to take down transports and low av tanks and still have a viable light infanty weapon

LC - you take as anti-tank simple as

Heavy bolter- you take to fight LIGHT INFANTRY, ie tau both eldars IG orks.

if you look at the stats when fighting who the hb effective against, it almost alway wounds on a 2+ (or 3+) and goes through armour. with 3 shots you expect to kill 2 ish add that with the rest of the squad or the outher hw you expect to do at least 75% kill and force a moral check

you should never take a HB to use against vehicle it just dosen't work

each weapon has their zone and effectiveness some are slightly more versitile but none are ad good as the HB at killing TEQ

i don't know who it was but they hit the nail on the head when they said most people play MEQ armies ( which the heavey bolter is not that effective against) butthat dosen't make it a bad weapon or that it needs updateing, EG a lascannon will kill at most one ork dose that mean it needs updated? (no it means you were an idiot for taking the LC )

if anything i would make the auto cannon AP3 to make it more of an anti-MEQ weapon imo

JamesMclaren123 wrote:
if anything i would make the auto cannon AP3 to make it more of an anti-MEQ weapon imo

That's also pretty unnecessary as a couple armies already spam autocannons and are very competitive.

DarknessEternal wrote:

JamesMclaren123 wrote:
if anything i would make the auto cannon AP3 to make it more of an anti-MEQ weapon imo

That's also pretty unnecessary as a couple armies already spam autocannons and are very competitive.

i guess so ive just played with autocannons and found them lacking against MEQ

DarknessEternal wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:That would make it very similar to it's 2nd Edition incarnation, where IIRC it was in fact a blast weapon and not so much a machinegun (when HB carrying SM's had what looked like a gigantic bolt pistol slung over their shoulder instead)

Heavy Bolters were never a blast weapon. Hellfire shells were, and they were only fired from heavy bolters.

That may be what I'm thinking of...

Some really interesting ideas being put out in this thread, I'm surprised by the response it's generated.

I suppose I should have also brought up why this is a topic of interest to me: I played a lot of 2nd ED and Heavy Bolters were pretty sweet back then.

Largely the same stats but they used "sustained fire" dice, basically a D6 that acted like a D3 (two sides with 1's, two sides with 2's one side with a 3 and one side with a lightning bolt representing a "jam").

Heavy Bolters had the profile Heavy, Sustained Fire 2, so you could roll somewhere between 1 and 6 shots with them per turn.

They were a really beefy feeling weapon that was rewarding to take when you rolled a few double 3's with them.

While I guess they average out to this with Heavy 3, they just seem, I dunno, a bit plain, and a bit under whelming by comparison to the other weapons in the IG and SM codexes (codecies?).

Any thoughts on keeping it Heavy 3 but with rending?

Yeah, it's a silly idea at best. I can easily get vehicles with three of those AND other anti-tank weapons, and do you really want to buff IG that much?

Agreed with Mel on that, rending HB would be too insane. IG and Loyal Marines would have a field day with that. Imagine a BA army with 6 predators with HB sponsons. Not fun!

Yeah come to think of it they would be able to glance AV14 if they had rending.

I don't know I've had them used against me (Orks) more so than I've actually used them and I just find that they're pretty ho-hum overall, not really a threat.

@More Dakka: As a horde army player, what do you feel about Heavy Bolters with Pinning?

I'm actually extending that question to anyone who plays horde armies. What do you people think?

More Dakka wrote:Yeah come to think of it they would be able to glance AV14 if they had rending.

I think they they should be Rending against non-vehicle units.
It'd make them more effective against well-armoured enemies, without lowering their AP or increasing the threat they pose to medium/heavy vehicles.



However, I don't think their rate-of-fire should change, and I don't think they should be made Pinning unless all other Heavy 3+ weapons are. They should also remain Heavy... imagine an IG Heavy Weapon Team firing a Hvy. Bolter on the move.