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.

In theory, a heavy bolter should be a decent anti-personnel choice however it always loses out to a missile launcher or autocannon based on the fact it just doesn't perform that well. Heck even a sternguard with his special bolter ammo is better. Now I love me some heavy bolters but it just always loses out.

So my question is if everything else stayed the same, what would it take to make you even consider heavy bolters?

1. ROF to 4. ROF 3 is just too low to compare to an autocannon or a ML blast template besides it provides you with a more multi-purpose weapon.

2. Leave it the same but make it cheaper. Say a free include in tacticals or -5 cost. This at least makes it useful.

3. The scout hellfire template makes it good so lets make that a default include on every heavy bolter.

4. I want an overpowered heavy bolter with all of these things otherwise it will always lose out to the higher strength ML or autocannon.

Personnally, I think #1 or #2 would be enough to consider them but I am wondering what others think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any comments? Otherwise I will assume that no one would ever take a heavy bolter. Sad days....

You should have created a poll with multi choices
I'd personnaly increase the STR to 6 (and give heavy stubbers Heavy 4), as that's what it should be fluff-wise, still wouldn't be overpowered (would need to revisit Shuriken canoon / multi-laser then though)

I think they have their place (from C:SM point of view) dakka predators (AC/Dual HBs), speeders (TML + HB or dual HBs) or HB attack Bikes are all solid anti-infantry platforms.

I think the problem is who/where the options are. So for example devastators/havocs/long fangs are generally providing long range anti-tank fire power (so AC/MLs) for the army, which normally isn't lacking in anti-infantry fire power (normally mass bolters).

Maybe instead of having it -5 points on the Tacs, make it the only free choice?

I have added the poll.

Is this just a SM-focussed discussion? 'Pologies if so.

Doesn't it work out better for Guard vs MEQs to take HBs? ROF making up for BS and all that.

AC is 0.278 MEQ kills per turn
HB is 0.333 MEG kilss per turn

Am I missing something?

I voted 1. Leave the Assault Cannon as the S6 AP4, and give the HB an extra shot.

upgrade it to ROF 4 and maybe give it the option of a Hellfire-style upgrade at min points costs (say +5 or +10) for any army that can take them?

In another "Make the Heavy Bolter better!" topic, someone had the idea that add +1 RoF to the HB for each full 6" the target is closer than the weapon's maximal range. So the HB would have 3 shots at 30-36", 4 shots at 24-30", 5 shots at 18-24", 6 shots at 12-18", 7 shots at 6-12" and 8 shots at 0-6". I would actually spend points for this version (like +5-10 points over the current costs)!

Heavy Bolters already ruin Xenos' lunch. Just because your heavy bolters don't butcher other marines doesn't mean the weapon has no use.

How would you marine folks like a bunch of free weapon that wounded your marines on a 2+ and allowed no armor save? Let me tell you, back when Starcannons were 50 points each and did that, marines cried like little babies. Imagine if they were free like Heavy Bolters are.

Suck it up.

A friend of mine and I had an in-depth discussion about this right before 6th dropped and we kind of thought they should work like a lite version of Psicannons (now keyworded as Salvo), probably Heavy 3 and Assault 2, it's simply not a great option as a pure heavy weapon, this would give it versatility and maybe make it worth the points.....or at least a look

The problem with the Heavy Bolter isn't really so much with the Heavy Bolter in and of itself, but rather the powerful, and intentional, gap between 4+ and 3+ armor save units. 4+sv units are absolutely murdered by heavy bolters, these often tend to be somewhat expensive specialists like carapace vets, stormtroopers, aspect warriors, etc. lighter troops likewise are often easily dispatched by heavy bolters but all too often simply do not require heavy bolters to quickly dispatch. The problem then becomes that the Heavy Bolter doesn't do much to T4 3+sv infantry (the most common infantry), killing 0.22 for every hit, while against T3 4+sv infantry or worse, they kill 0.833 per hit, a casualty rate nearly 400% of that of MEQ infantry.

Increasing their RoF makes the units they're already really good at killing even more vulnerable unnecessarily

The hellfire template is supposed to be a specialist item and not widely available

Increasing their S to 6 is...silly, it would make them far too effective at engaging armor, not something that the game needs given how hilariously easy armor already is to kill in 6th.


Making it cheaper would probably be fine, but the problem still is that most units that can take it will probably take something else.

How about making it a rapid fire gun?

Move and fire 6 shots at 12 inches, 36 max range.

A viable 'heavy' weapon for the more mobile tactical squad

Give it pinning? I mean, it's supposed to work as a suppression weapon.

As a SoB player, I don't see any problems with my often rending Heavy Bolters ... But I understand that other armies may find them somewhat lacking...

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Give it pinning? I mean, it's supposed to work as a suppression weapon.

However I must admit that I like the suggestion of Mr. TheCustomLime. It would give another interesting choice to take them than simple firepower.


Oh! I know! Why not make them "Heavy D6"?
...
... ...
Okay, I'll go hide under the treads of a (moving) Leman Russ now...

We give them a ROF of 4 at half their maximum range, so 4 shots @ 18" or closer. This is based on an idea of Just Dave's who increased the shots for every 12" increment, so he had 4 shots@ 24" and 5 shots @ 12" or less.

Pinning is the answer.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem with the Heavy Bolter isn't really so much with the Heavy Bolter in and of itself, but rather the powerful, and intentional, gap between 4+ and 3+ armor save units. 4+sv units are absolutely murdered by heavy bolters, these often tend to be somewhat expensive specialists like carapace vets, stormtroopers, aspect warriors, etc. lighter troops likewise are often easily dispatched by heavy bolters but all too often simply do not require heavy bolters to quickly dispatch. The problem then becomes that the Heavy Bolter doesn't do much to T4 3+sv infantry (the most common infantry), killing 0.22 for every hit, while against T3 4+sv infantry or worse, they kill 0.833 per hit, a casualty rate nearly 400% of that of MEQ infantry.

Increasing their RoF makes the units they're already really good at killing even more vulnerable unnecessarily

The hellfire template is supposed to be a specialist item and not widely available

Increasing their S to 6 is...silly, it would make them far too effective at engaging armor, not something that the game needs given how hilariously easy armor already is to kill in 6th.


Making it cheaper would probably be fine, but the problem still is that most units that can take it will probably take something else.

The core problem comes down to 4 comparisons to me...

1. A sternguard with special ammo
2. A missile launcher
3. An autocannon (CSM or IG)
4. A psycannon (Reality -12" range but +1 ROF and +2 S)

If we separate the cost of the trooper, these all cost about the same.
So lets look at 6 rounds of fire with 1 round of moving vs Orks and Marines and factpr in vs Orcs, one vs Marines and one vs a T6 MC/

Sternguard - 11 shots - 8 hits 4 dead orcs 4 dead marines (with two gets hot rolls) 4 wounds on a T6 AC3 MC nothing against Av 11 or 12
HB armed - 15 shots 3 snapfires 10.5 hits 7.6 dead orcs 2.5 dead marines .5 wounds on a T6 MC .5 glance on AV 11 nothing on AV12
AC armed - 10 shots 2 snapfres 6.5 hits 5.1 dead orcs 1.7 dead marines 1.3 wounds on MC 1glance & 2 pen on AV 11 1 glance and 1 pen on AV12
ML armed - 5 shots 1 snapfire 3 hits 4 dead orcs 1.3 dead marines 2.5 wounds on MC .5 glance & 1.5 pen on AV 11 .5 glance and 1 pen on AV 12
Psy - 20 shots 2 shots 14 hits 12 dead orcs 5.4 dead marines 5.3 wounds on MC 2 glance & 4 pen on AV 11 2 glance and 2 pen on AV12

So other than killing orcs and marines, a heavy bolter has less range and less killing power than AC/ML or Psycannon. A psycannon and sternguard provide good killing power across the board (except against armor for sternguard) but have the least range.

To me the +1 S option opens up too many cans. While a ROF increase is going to improve its killing power against GEQ and MEQ enough that if that is your worry it might just be worthwhile... An AC or ML otherwise win out for range and killing power across the board. The problem now is that an AC or ML - the common option is close enough in killing power to a HB that it will still perform well enough that you won't miss having a heavy bolter plus you have something that has more range and more flexibility.

It is that flexibility that - to me - GW has not thought about and not given enough thought to keep a HB viable. So cost and/or capability needs to be improved for a HB. While a sternguard gives less range it provides better coverage - due to the special ammo - than a heavy bolter. While Sternguard cost more to field, they are a SM option that can cover all anti-personnel needs for a SM/BA army.

Hmm, there is no option for "I like them the way they are" Not every tool is well suited for every job. The HB is actually a fairly versatile weapon. As was pointed out above, it murders 4+ save infantry. In addition to it's primary role, S5 can put wounds on just about anything walking, and try to strip HP off of light vehicles.

While the missile launcher is better in an AV role and packed infantry, against a well spaced mob, the frag is not going to do a whole lot. The HB does not care about your precision 2" spacing. And if your scatter die hates you as much as mine hates me, you want to keep it away from the battle as much as possible. Direct fire has some other perks, like snap fire.

Now marines don't have the option to take autocannons instead of heavy bolters*. Trading one shot for 2 strength is well worth it IMHO. You give up a little bit of anti-horde firepower to open up a host of new targets.

If I could make one change to the heavy bolter, I would give the hellfire shells to HBs carried by sternguard. Special ammo is kinda there thing, and it might make something besides a combi weapon worth taking.

This from a C:SM perspective, YMMV for other armies.

*Well, besides on the arm of a dread, but there are no parts for the TLHB arm I'm aware off, and even if there was it's not worth taking.

Perhaps giving it pinning would be a good idea. Pinning on hit similar to Thunderfire cannon would make it great, I'd aways haev a few in my army if that was the case.

TBH I don't really see much point in the heavy bolter at all currently. Put it on your tac squads and you can't advance, put it on vehicles and you're likely missing out on a better choice. Put it with scouts and you loose the awsome scout precison shots and rending (alhough hellfires do make up for that nicely).

Other solutions I could see is giving it rending, making it heavy 4, or making it assault 3 or something.

I think the option I'd like the most would be if they kept it as is and made it AP3. People would cry IMBA but the gun is supposed tob e the ideal option for taking down infantry.

Yeah - it's interesting that no one ever suggests making it AP3 - because that would mean their precious mreens lose their save.

Making it Assault 2 / Heavy 3 would make it a lot more versatile / viable. Possibly making it pinning too.

I would agree the option of S5 Hvy3 Ass2 would help it. It is just scrunched between sternguard bolters and miissile launchers limits its us. The assault ability would make it a liveable option for tac squads.

It can already fire three shots while moving.

3 Snapshots when moving.
Assault 2 / Heavy 3, means it'd get 2 shots hitting on 3's vs 3 shots hitting on 6's.
And last edition, it couldn't fire at all when moving.

I like the idea of A2/H3, making it more useful for a mobile play style.

I think perhaps giving it pinning while stationary, like suppression fire.

though pinning against most MEQ is pointless, and it makes all da xenos sad.

perhaps the other option is to raise the prices of all the other weapons to discourage "must have" choices

 Ovion wrote:
3 Snapshots when moving.
Assault 2 / Heavy 3, means it'd get 2 shots hitting on 3's vs 3 shots hitting on 6's.
And last edition, it couldn't fire at all when moving.

I realize that. The issue is why heavy bolters NEVER get chosen except where there is no option. (Heavy Bolters on dakka preds, Nephilim, etc) What I am curious about is what it would take for someone to actually consider a heavy bolter instead of another option. A heavy bolter already loses on the strength front. By giving it Assault 2 or Rapid Fire (some modification) it would be the one heavy option that allows for on foot mobility.

Personally, I like this or the simple make it cheaper. The ROF option would screw with hoard armies and the Strength option is a non-starter because it will screw with something else. The hellfire option would not be bad but it doesn't address the core problem. Right now it has mobility because of snapfire but IMO it is still not enough to give up the flexibility of a Missile Launcher or Autocannon.

If it can't cut through armor or supress, I dont' see why anybody would take it over plasma or melta or rockets - far more reliable in terms of wounding and also better against vehicles.

Causing a ton of wounds that don't penetrate armor or cover isn't really a big deal in 40k as it stands. One turn of shooting from a thunderfire cannon would probably do more wounds than a heavy bolter would an entire game anyway

Heavy bolters are not meant to be taken against MEQs or TEQs. They are purely for anti light infantry. Anything with a 4+ save or worse and they get S5 to the face. However, I think the answer is not listed.

Make it Salvo 2/4. That way it's at least slightly effective even if the unit moves.

Change weapon type to Assault 3.

This would keep vehicle-mounted Heavy Bolters the same, while giving infantry a reason to take them. Not OP in any way, just makes them unique.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Change weapon type to Assault 3.

This would keep vehicle-mounted Heavy Bolters the same, while giving infantry a reason to take them. Not OP in any way, just makes them unique.

Hmm. Guardsmen are the only place I see a problem with this.

Guardsmen should not get assault heavy bolters.

On the other hand, I like this idea. It'd give them that SAW feel they're meant to have.

Alternatively, Give them a double profile like psycannons:

Range: 36" S5 AP4 Assault 2
and
Range: 36" S5 AP4 Heavy 3 (4?)

That'd work well.