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.

Even heavy bolters are largely useless against Eldar. WS are AV 12.

Not only that it brings up a few design problems. Pulse weapons were designed to be better than bolters, shuriken to be similar. Making them that powerful, especially with no points increase, and that's not even touching on all the other units that have bolters, is slightly ridiculous.

Martel732 wrote:
Even heavy bolters are largely useless against Eldar. WS are AV 12.

Well it's a good thing heavy bolters aren't anti tank weapons, eh?

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Even heavy bolters are largely useless against Eldar. WS are AV 12.

Well it's a good thing heavy bolters aren't anti tank weapons, eh?

Yes, making them largely garbage unfortunately. The heavy bolter isn't even a good anti-horde weapon, either.

Martel732 wrote:
Even heavy bolters are largely useless against Eldar. WS are AV 12.

It's not exactly meant to be an anti-vehicle weapon. It's anti infantry.

Martel732 wrote:


Yes, making them largely garbage unfortunately.

No, not being an anti-tank weapon is not what makes them garbage.

The heavy bolter isn't even a good anti-horde weapon, either.

This is their problem.

If you're going to claim heavy bolters have issues because they can't shoot down wave serpents, you might as well claim lasguns are awful because they can't blow up Trukks.

You are correct, I was thinking of the aspect warriors. Also Orks that pay the upgrade for Eavy armour. Why even buy it if the humble bolter completly bypassed it. Do any of the "basic" weapons have an AP better than 5? The only one that jumps out at me is Scions, and they themselves will fold like wet paper considering they are only T3.

Noc

My primary point was that Eldar are never without their fancy transports, so that gives marines precious few opportunities to use heavy bolters against them. Even against lists like Orks or Nids, heavy bolters don't cause nearly enough casualties compared to a template weapon.

With the current range of possible Strengths and APs for weapons, there is no fix for the bolter, or even the heavy bolter. They both suck, and lists have to be built with this in mind. Ie, minimize the presence of both.

Martel732 wrote:
My primary point was that Eldar are never without their fancy transports, so that gives marines precious few opportunities to use heavy bolters against them. Even against lists like Orks or Nids, heavy bolters don't cause nearly enough casualties compared to a template weapon.

With the current range of possible Strengths and APs for weapons, there is no fix for the bolter, or even the heavy bolter. They both suck, and lists have to be built with this in mind. Ie, minimize the presence of both.

I don't think I understand your logic. Transports are designed that way to protect them. If regular weapons could get through them why take a transport? Most armies can bring lots of strong firepower to vehicles anyway to destroy them. It is only the 3+ skimmer jink save that make vehicles out of control right now. This has nothing to do with the bolter or heavy bolter.

In addition, there is nothing wrong with the bolter. It is the perfect middle of the road weapon and its free. It ignores armor on several armies and hits hard on anyone with T3. It only falls short verse power armor or better. If it were any stronger there would never be a need to take special weapons or go into close combat because everything would be dead or running away. Most people would agree that the plague of strong special weapons is ruining the game as it is making expensive models hard to take. So why would you want it to be more powerful? Bladestorm is a good example of this problem where a basic weapon is suddenly super strong for no reason. Gauss should probably be rethought also to something like on a 6 it removes an AV instead of causing a hull point of damage.

I think if you rethought how special weapons are purchased you could actually solve the problem. Heavy Bolters suck because they cost way to much. They should honestly be a free upgrade for tactical or devastator squads. The penalty being you have to stay still to use them. Or at least maybe free for a full 10 man squad. It is the same way with IG where there a bunch of weapons no one uses because they are priced to similar (HB vs AC, GL and Snipers). It would make taking these lesser weapons more reasonable and better weapons more of a risk.

I'd like to see Heavy bolters be changed to Salvo 2/4 and make them a 5 point upgrade. That would cut their price in half and make them more capable of doing some damage vs hordes.

Noc

nedTCM wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
My primary point was that Eldar are never without their fancy transports, so that gives marines precious few opportunities to use heavy bolters against them. Even against lists like Orks or Nids, heavy bolters don't cause nearly enough casualties compared to a template weapon.

With the current range of possible Strengths and APs for weapons, there is no fix for the bolter, or even the heavy bolter. They both suck, and lists have to be built with this in mind. Ie, minimize the presence of both.

I don't think I understand your logic. Transports are designed that way to protect them. If regular weapons could get through them why take a transport? Most armies can bring lots of strong firepower to vehicles anyway to destroy them. It is only the 3+ skimmer jink save that make vehicles out of control right now. This has nothing to do with the bolter or heavy bolter.

In addition, there is nothing wrong with the bolter. It is the perfect middle of the road weapon and its free. It ignores armor on several armies and hits hard on anyone with T3. It only falls short verse power armor or better. If it were any stronger there would never be a need to take special weapons or go into close combat because everything would be dead or running away. Most people would agree that the plague of strong special weapons is ruining the game as it is making expensive models hard to take. So why would you want it to be more powerful? Bladestorm is a good example of this problem where a basic weapon is suddenly super strong for no reason. Gauss should probably be rethought also to something like on a 6 it removes an AV instead of causing a hull point of damage.

I think if you rethought how special weapons are purchased you could actually solve the problem. Heavy Bolters suck because they cost way to much. They should honestly be a free upgrade for tactical or devastator squads. The penalty being you have to stay still to use them. Or at least maybe free for a full 10 man squad. It is the same way with IG where there a bunch of weapons no one uses because they are priced to similar (HB vs AC, GL and Snipers). It would make taking these lesser weapons more reasonable and better weapons more of a risk.

Bolters aren't free, I just can't sell them back them, which I would. Because they are awful and rarely contribute for me in an average game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nocturus wrote:
I'd like to see Heavy bolters be changed to Salvo 2/4 and make them a 5 point upgrade. That would cut their price in half and make them more capable of doing some damage vs hordes.

Noc

I still think that needing to roll to hit would make it vastly inferior to template weapons. There's just no way to make them viable as the game currently stands.

Nocturus wrote:
I'd like to see Heavy bolters be changed to Salvo 2/4 and make them a 5 point upgrade. That would cut their price in half and make them more capable of doing some damage vs hordes.

I don't think that would help. Especially since HBs should be 5pts at the moment anyway.

But, regardless, the problem is that S5 AP4 just isn't useful on a 3-shot heavy weapon. It's useful on a flamer template - because that can cover a large amount of models, and ignores both to-hit and cover.

However, even with your proposed 4 shots, HBs just won't do enough damage to make them worthwhile. Furthermore, unlike multi-meltas, autocannons, lascannons and similar weapons, HBs don't really increase the squad's versatility. If you want anti-horde weapons, most units already have that covered with their basic weapons - they generally want heavier weapons to threaten different unit types.

So, what we have is a weapon that lacks the shots to worry hordes, but also lacks the strength/AP to concern vehicles, MCs or elite infantry.

I think it even needs Rending (or pseudo-rending, like Bladestorm), or else more shots. i.e. either give it a way to threaten other unit types, or else give it enough shots to concern hordes.

Honestly, I think the assault cannon and heavy bolter both need a steep increase in shots to represent what they are supposed to be in the game. As it stands, I find both very underwhelming weapons.

 vipoid wrote:

Nocturus wrote:
I'd like to see Heavy bolters be changed to Salvo 2/4 and make them a 5 point upgrade. That would cut their price in half and make them more capable of doing some damage vs hordes.

I don't think that would help. Especially since HBs should be 5pts at the moment anyway.

But, regardless, the problem is that S5 AP4 just isn't useful on a 3-shot heavy weapon. It's useful on a flamer template - because that can cover a large amount of models, and ignores both to-hit and cover.

However, even with your proposed 4 shots, HBs just won't do enough damage to make them worthwhile. Furthermore, unlike multi-meltas, autocannons, lascannons and similar weapons, HBs don't really increase the squad's versatility. If you want anti-horde weapons, most units already have that covered with their basic weapons - they generally want heavier weapons to threaten different unit types.

So, what we have is a weapon that lacks the shots to worry hordes, but also lacks the strength/AP to concern vehicles, MCs or elite infantry.

I think it even needs Rending (or pseudo-rending, like Bladestorm), or else more shots. i.e. either give it a way to threaten other unit types, or else give it enough shots to concern hordes.

That is why they should just be a free upgrade. On Devastators that would be 12 S5 shots at BS4 for base points is nothing to sneeze at. Especially since that is enough shots to shred light vehicles like Rhinos and War Walkers in a pinch. That is around 7 T3 below AP unsaved wounds and and 5 T4 unsaved wounds below AP. That ensures at least a leadership test on every squad. In a regular tactical squad, it is about 4 unsaved wounds at armor 4+ with one volley plus bolters. Again enough for a leadership test. On T4 its around 2.5 unsaved wounds. Not to great to great but still respectable.

You can't just start throwing upgrades on them because they are so common. Every IG vehicle can take a HB and now suddenly they are all quasi rending is an OP upgrade. They need to be just allowed to be a small boost that people still have a reason to take it not spam it to hell.

Some other weapons might need a boost like you would suggest as in more shots or something. The only legit upgrade HB could use would be pinning.

Even in a devastator squad, they are very poor. In this case, 12 shots are something to sneeze at because they just consumed one of my heavy slots. The TFC laughs in your general direction.

Martel732 wrote:
Even in a devastator squad, they are very poor. In this case, 12 shots are something to sneeze at because they just consumed one of my heavy slots. The TFC laughs in your general direction.

No, it doesn't because it serves a different purpose. Thunderfire can still miss big or can hit you if you fire it at close range. It also does not ignore 4+ saves and costs 30 more points. It also can't over watch. The thunderfire excels in other areas and there are also some who would say the thunderfire is too cheap for its points. However, the idea to figure out how to make HB something you would consider using not make them better than a thunderfire.

To add to that further, there are some players that make builds that do not use Heavy Slots and don't prize them as much as you do.

It's still spending points on a squad that has four copies of an awful weapon.

Its only awful because you have convinced yourself that unless it destroys everything it is garbage as per your bolter comment.

Again I would point out that the internet believes the relative commonness of high strength low AP weapons is hampering many of the units in the game. This is a common problem people state with tactical squad or terminators dying way to easily. If you scale things like plasma up and less used weapons down suddenly there is a reason to take those less used weapons.

nedTCM wrote:
Its only awful because you have convinced yourself that unless it destroys everything it is garbage as per your bolter comment.

Again I would point out that the internet believes the relative commonness of high strength low AP weapons is hampering many of the units in the game. This is a common problem people state with tactical squad or terminators dying way to easily. If you scale things like plasma up and less used weapons down suddenly there is a reason to take those less used weapons.

No, it's garbage because it destroys nothing. Or at least, not nearly enough to justify the cost.

What do you mean by scale? As it stands, plasma is far superior to any bolter weapon. It's not even close.

As I pointed out before, it can be effective based on the numbers I posted. There are plenty of target it is good against. It just right now there are cheaper way to do that job so why bother.

Scale meaning its price. If you lower the price of low end weapons (like the HB or the grenade launcher) and increase the price of the more powerful weapons (like plasma) it would make the lower weapons more worthwhile. In additions, units like terminators or tactical more accessible because you wouldn't have to worry about plasma spam or the like.

nedTCM wrote:
As I pointed out before, it can be effective based on the numbers I posted. There are plenty of target it is good against. It just right now there are cheaper way to do that job so why bother.

Scale meaning its price. If you lower the price of low end weapons (like the HB or the grenade launcher) and increase the price of the more powerful weapons (like plasma) it would make the lower weapons more worthwhile. In additions, units like terminators or tactical more accessible because you wouldn't have to worry about plasma spam or the like.

Maybe, but then units like Riptides become impossible to engage in a cost-effective manner. Unless you make it cost more as well.

As I said earlier, the rolling to hit and then the prevalence of cover just destroys the heavy bolter's efficacy against hordes. So there's literally no reason to take it, making it a terrible weapon. It's not just because I declared it. There are mathematical reasons for it being terrible.

You can't justify it with cover. You could make the claim that a plasma gun is not effective because of cover in that I am paying 15 points and he still gets a 4+ save in a ruin.

More over the Riptide example is faulty as well because the riptide is widely regarded as underpriced at base and worse underpriced with its upgrades. There are a lot units that fall under the underpriced OP catagory and you can't really use them as a yardstick for however everything else is measured. It is a different problem all together. Most of the time you should be getting a 5+ base cover save when advancing with a unit, maybe a 4+ if you are lucky. There are several units that are cheesing their way to obscene cover saves (2+ demon prince BS). Again different problem with the game all together.

A heavy bolter will get 2 turns of full shooting before a charge. That should off set any bonus that a unit advancing in cover gains and he can't hide behind cover forever.

Rending would fix them, wouldnt turn into reliable AT weapon but make dangerous and simulate direct hit with a mini rocket to carnifex eye or daemon prince anus. I would also give each tactical marine a chainsword and make that rending too to translate the fluff uber soldiers factor onto battlefield, it would probably require point adjustment but hey they need to be fukin scary not a joke they are now. Once I won a game with an SM guy whose only fault apart from abysmal target priority was taking too many tacticals, I had cc carnifex genestealers with broodlords swarmlord tyrant guards warriors and one venomthrope, we played on a table without a single piece of cover and it just shouldnt have happened. He had predators, dreds , I was ready to loose but in the end badly destroyed him and tacticals did nothing except bringing shame on themselves. Recent nid and sm codieces, end of 6th edition.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not only that it brings up a few design problems. Pulse weapons were designed to be better than bolters, shuriken to be similar. Making them that powerful, especially with no points increase, and that's not even touching on all the other units that have bolters, is slightly ridiculous.

Well, it's going to be difficult to buff bolters without making them tread into pulse rifle territory.

If you feel it becomes a fluff problem, you can always remember there's a difference between bolter and bolter. Presumably this 'pulse > bolter' refers to human bolters.

You know, there's a difference between the bolter that humans fire one-handed



And the bolters that they, well... don't.

I still stand that that bolters need no buff, but it has been pretty consistent with both fluff and crunch that pulse rifles are superior to bolters in both range and power. That includes SM ones. I mean, they could change the fluff to make "astartes bolters" or something, but the fluff (when not being stupidly overpowered mini battlecannons) has made them equal to normal bolters, just upsized to fit the hands of a marine. Most of the power of SM bolters seems to come from the increased availability of special ammunition.

Which I am not sure if I like. Tau have various advantages over the IOM - the Pulse Rifle is VASTLY superior to the lasgun, and each FW has better armour than a Guardsman.

However, given the sheer rarity, size, power and expense of each Astartes, you'd think they'd give them some more special weapons than 'just' bolters. You're putting lots of time, resources and effort into creating a weapon platform that is far stronger, tougher and faster than a human. Coupled with PA, they are capable of not only lifting but only efficiently firing weapons not even catachans could dream of using. So why give them bolters any normal guy could wield? Like, make heavy bolters standard issue or something. Or make some semi-heavy bolters that exchange the increased RoF for increased mobility. Or just plasma guns for everyone. If you can give dog-standard IG squads plasma gunners, then you'll damn well have enough plasma guns for a million SM. It'd fit them perfectly. Bolters would maybe be better against hordes, but fighting hordes is not the SMs job. They do it well, but not efficiently.

So yeah, basic IG-style bolters don't make sense for IG. As far as I am concerned, SM bolters are identical to the more finely crafted, typically high-officer-issue IG bolters, and using the same STC - except everything is scaled up, from grip to stock to ammo.

Well, the number of plasma guns in IG squads seems to be high compared to the fluff. They are supposed to be rare and expensive, even for SMs.

Honestly, I think this is a problem of the "Space Marines are the standard" design philosophy. Marines are supposed to be elite super soldiers not the grunts of the Imperium. GW needs to retool the faction.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Honestly, I think this is a problem of the "Space Marines are the standard" design philosophy. Marines are supposed to be elite super soldiers not the grunts of the Imperium. GW needs to retool the faction.

That's certainly one of the issues. When 1/3 of the factions are guys in power armour with bolters riding in rhinos, but the fluff says how exceedingly rare they are and how they're supposed to only be used in small, surgical operations, things start getting wonky between crunch and fluff.

 Blacksails wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Honestly, I think this is a problem of the "Space Marines are the standard" design philosophy. Marines are supposed to be elite super soldiers not the grunts of the Imperium. GW needs to retool the faction.

That's certainly one of the issues. When 1/3 of the factions are guys in power armour with bolters riding in rhinos, but the fluff says how exceedingly rare they are and how they're supposed to only be used in small, surgical operations, things start getting wonky between crunch and fluff.

Yeah. They also always seem to be in every IoM operation that gets mentioned. It seems that GW can't decide whether they are a frontline Imperial army or the SAS of the IoM.