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.
I wonder if making them "Rapid Fire 3" could work? It would certainly satisfy my fluff muscle.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: I wonder if making them "Rapid Fire 3" could work? It would certainly satisfy my fluff muscle.
Except, then you'd have to create the rules for Rapid Fire 3. I think Salvo 2/3 is the better option there.
But is Salvo 2/3 better or worse than Heavy 3, yes you get you full Ballistic Skill when you move, but at only 18"
Salvo 3/5 to sounds a little better.
Azreal13 wrote: I wonder if making them "Rapid Fire 3" could work? It would certainly satisfy my fluff muscle.
Except, then you'd have to create the rules for Rapid Fire 3. I think Salvo 2/3 is the better option there.
3 shots at full range, 6 shots at half range, can move and Fire, can't assault after firing unless relentless.
I'm not sure it needs any more rules than any of the other "weapon type x" weapons does it?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Correct about the rapid fire 3 working, but it will be OTT.
6 shots at 18" while mobile will make heavy bolters too much of a horde wiper.
I mean, you put some HBdevs in rhinos and simply go to town on hordes with such a statline.
You guys need to remember, anything you will change about heavy bolters, will chain effect any tank in the game that has it. and many IoM tanks got it as their secondary gun.
Therefor any change should be one that affects infantry, yet not takes. hence-salvo 3/3.
Nobody said the number of shots HAS to change with salvo
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
My little group decided to try having terminators come with heavy bolters instead of stormbolters, for the same price. Its been nice to see tac terminators again and they can put out decent firepower. Would have been OP back with GK all having psibolts though.
ClassicCarraway wrote: I never understood why a heavy bolter is "heavy" but a heavy flamer (just as big model-wise) is "assault".
Make heavy bolters assault, give them two more shots, keep them at 10 points.
Or make heavy flamers heavy weapons, that makes more sense than what you suggested.
Except that Heavy Flamers fit the description of "indiscriminate", while Heavy Bolters don't.
You don't have to aim a heavy flamer. You do have to aim a Heavy Bolter.
Heavy Bolters are cumbersome and need to be braced to fire because bolt weapons have magical recoil despite their fluff explanation.
Heavy Flamers are cumbersome, but they don't need to be braced to fire, because there is no recoil and there is no aiming with such a short-ranged weapon.
On top of that, the Heavy Bolter has the range to be fired while stationary, and can be snap shotted. A Heavy Flamer that can only be fired while stationary would be useless, because you could never fire it.
"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
It sound intuitive, but Rapid Fire isn't actually an "X" shots weapon. Its always one shot at full range, 2 shots at half. Never more or less. You would have to write a new rule to add "X" shots to rapid fire. I'm not totally against it, but it's a very unlikely solution when Salvo exists as a way to cover the "super rapid fire" weapons.
Heavy Bolters are cumbersome and need to be braced to fire because bolt weapons have magical recoil despite their fluff explanation.
Physics miko, self-propeled mini-rockets DO have recoil.
Even falmers have SOME recoil.
Basic physics really. there is not a single recoil-free gun, just levels of recoil.
The HB shoots a fast rate of mini-rockets, the recoil should be heavy enough that shooting it on the run is difficult. enough to justify "heavy"? probably not, that's why I offer salvo. but not very easy none-the-less, and assault/RF status are not going to fit.
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now.
At the danger of turning this into a fluff discussion, I've read recently (don't remember where, but it's likely Scars, Vengeful Spirit or the second Ahriman book) that the bolts have a two stage rocket, a low power one to fire them and a second stage that kicks in once the bolt is clear of the barrel, so the recoil wouldn't necessarily be proportional with what one would expect.
You also have Astartes scale and human scale weapons, but that's not pertinent to in game use. It would however make "minimal" recoil for an Astartes weapon still be potentially enough to dislocate a mortal's shoulder.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
It sound intuitive, but Rapid Fire isn't actually an "X" shots weapon. Its always one shot at full range, 2 shots at half. Never more or less. You would have to write a new rule to add "X" shots to rapid fire. I'm not totally against it, but it's a very unlikely solution when Salvo exists as a way to cover the "super rapid fire" weapons.
There is not a rule that excludes Rapid Fire from an "x" shots facility, there just happens to not be one (which in and of itself would make this solution unlikely)
The BRB simply states that some weapons have an X after there weapon type, and this number indicates how many shots they may fire, and while you are free to choose not to fire a weapon, if you do, you must do so at full effect.
Nothing preventing a Rapid Fire X weapon, just nobody's written one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/12 15:28:18
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: At the danger of turning this into a fluff discussion, I've read recently (don't remember where, but it's likely Scars, Vengeful Spirit or the second Ahriman book) that the bolts have a two stage rocket, a low power one to fire them and a second stage that kicks in once the bolt is clear of the barrel, so the recoil wouldn't necessarily be proportional with what one would expect.
You also have Astartes scale and human scale weapons, but that's not pertinent to in game use. It would however make "minimal" recoil for an Astartes weapon still be potentially enough to dislocate a mortal's shoulder.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
It sound intuitive, but Rapid Fire isn't actually an "X" shots weapon. Its always one shot at full range, 2 shots at half. Never more or less. You would have to write a new rule to add "X" shots to rapid fire. I'm not totally against it, but it's a very unlikely solution when Salvo exists as a way to cover the "super rapid fire" weapons.
There is not a rule that excludes Rapid Fire from an "x" shots facility, there just happens to not be one (which in and of itself would make this solution unlikely)
The BRB simply states that some weapons have an X after there weapon type, and this number indicates how many shots they may fire, and while you are free to choose not to fire a weapon, if you do, you must do so at full effect.
Nothing preventing a Rapid Fire X weapon, just nobody's written one.
I don't have my rule book with me, but if that's the case, I'm fairly certain it specifically says it fires 2 shots at half range, not double shots. So, a Rapid Fire 3 weapon would fire 3 shots at above half range and only 2 shots below half.
Just make it assault 3...Marines really need a heavy weapon the can shoot out of a rhino on the move or after disembark. It would kinda make marines viable if they had a mobile heavy weapon.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
In what possible way is assault 3 Heavy Bolters without a Suspensor Rig fluffy?
"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad.
Furyou Miko wrote: In what possible way is assault 3 Heavy Bolters without a Suspensor Rig fluffy?
Ah, but if anyone was going to get fancy suspensor tech, wouldn't it be Space Marines?
Back in the day, everyone had that crap, otherwise you were stationary. Heavy weapons used to actually reduce your move value in addition to being slow firing.
Azreal13 wrote: At the danger of turning this into a fluff discussion, I've read recently (don't remember where, but it's likely Scars, Vengeful Spirit or the second Ahriman book) that the bolts have a two stage rocket, a low power one to fire them and a second stage that kicks in once the bolt is clear of the barrel, so the recoil wouldn't necessarily be proportional with what one would expect.
You also have Astartes scale and human scale weapons, but that's not pertinent to in game use. It would however make "minimal" recoil for an Astartes weapon still be potentially enough to dislocate a mortal's shoulder.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
It sound intuitive, but Rapid Fire isn't actually an "X" shots weapon. Its always one shot at full range, 2 shots at half. Never more or less. You would have to write a new rule to add "X" shots to rapid fire. I'm not totally against it, but it's a very unlikely solution when Salvo exists as a way to cover the "super rapid fire" weapons.
There is not a rule that excludes Rapid Fire from an "x" shots facility, there just happens to not be one (which in and of itself would make this solution unlikely)
The BRB simply states that some weapons have an X after there weapon type, and this number indicates how many shots they may fire, and while you are free to choose not to fire a weapon, if you do, you must do so at full effect.
Nothing preventing a Rapid Fire X weapon, just nobody's written one.
I don't have my rule book with me, but if that's the case, I'm fairly certain it specifically says it fires 2 shots at half range, not double shots. So, a Rapid Fire 3 weapon would fire 3 shots at above half range and only 2 shots below half.
No, the "weapon type, X" bit specifies you fire the weapon "the number of times specified in X" or words to that effect. So a Rapid Fire 3 weapon would shoot three discreet times when fired, on each occasion once or twice depending on range (but the same on all three because it happens simultaneously.)
I've re-read the section since you raised your points, and I really can't see anything that prevents "Rapid Fire X" other than they just don't exist.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: At the danger of turning this into a fluff discussion, I've read recently (don't remember where, but it's likely Scars, Vengeful Spirit or the second Ahriman book) that the bolts have a two stage rocket, a low power one to fire them and a second stage that kicks in once the bolt is clear of the barrel, so the recoil wouldn't necessarily be proportional with what one would expect.
You also have Astartes scale and human scale weapons, but that's not pertinent to in game use. It would however make "minimal" recoil for an Astartes weapon still be potentially enough to dislocate a mortal's shoulder.
6 shots, 33-50% will miss, depending on whose shooting them, at least 16% will fail to wound (more against MEQ or better) and a sizeable number of units will still get one save or another.
It seems to be widely considered HBs need to be better and I'm not sure Salvo 3/3 does quite enough.
It sound intuitive, but Rapid Fire isn't actually an "X" shots weapon. Its always one shot at full range, 2 shots at half. Never more or less. You would have to write a new rule to add "X" shots to rapid fire. I'm not totally against it, but it's a very unlikely solution when Salvo exists as a way to cover the "super rapid fire" weapons.
There is not a rule that excludes Rapid Fire from an "x" shots facility, there just happens to not be one (which in and of itself would make this solution unlikely)
The BRB simply states that some weapons have an X after there weapon type, and this number indicates how many shots they may fire, and while you are free to choose not to fire a weapon, if you do, you must do so at full effect.
Nothing preventing a Rapid Fire X weapon, just nobody's written one.
I don't have my rule book with me, but if that's the case, I'm fairly certain it specifically says it fires 2 shots at half range, not double shots. So, a Rapid Fire 3 weapon would fire 3 shots at above half range and only 2 shots below half.
No, the "weapon type, X" bit specifies you fire the weapon "the number of times specified in X" or words to that effect. So a Rapid Fire 3 weapon would shoot three discreet times when fired, on each occasion once or twice depending on range (but the same on all three because it happens simultaneously.)
I've re-read the section since you raised your points, and I really can't see anything that prevents "Rapid Fire X" other than they just don't exist.
Like I said. I don't have the book with me. I was just going off memory. You might be right. Regardless, I don't see GW ever adopting Rapid Fire X. I believe their answer to that type of weapon is Salvo. Now, I hate salvo. There is a reason people only like it on relentless models, but GW love it.
So they could be much better for the points, but there are tricks you can do if you play certain chapters. For my Minotaurs I have a Dev Squad of five heavy bolters plus Vigilator Sergeant Hamath Kraatos. His special abilities make the unit great at destroying infantry with volume of fire with re-roles. Also, in my experience. They get ignored because there is no respect for the heavy bolter.
Furyou Miko wrote: In what possible way is assault 3 Heavy Bolters without a Suspensor Rig fluffy?
Ah, but if anyone was going to get fancy suspensor tech, wouldn't it be Space Marines?
Back in the day, everyone had that crap, otherwise you were stationary. Heavy weapons used to actually reduce your move value in addition to being slow firing.
In 3rd, rules were published for Deathwatch Kill Teams who had suspensor rigs. They fired Heavy Bolters as assault weapons, but only had an 18" range as a result.
"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad.
In combat patrol a devastator marine squad with HB isn't a bad choice. That being said if you are playing any point level over 500 - 600 you would be much better off with the AC or ML.
As stated the HB just cant compete as is.
There are a few places that heavy bolters are still useful, but they aren't "tactical marines". Five sisters with a heavy bolter makes for a cheap backfield objective holder troop choice for sisters if you're not going to do flamer/heavy flamer immo push group. And retributors with Heavy Bolters are what I'd call a nasty surprise, especially if you put something with decent rate of fire on their Sister Superior; getting the rending means they have a a chance of actually doing damage (each six is a minimum glance on AV 12 since you can't roll lower than 1). Combined with a Simu, you can vastly outplay their points on TEQ or vehicles.
Similarly, any group that makes rolling more dice attractive will gain benefits from going Bolter, even if they're not super specialized like Fist/Sents. For that matter, there's a good argument for Hellfire HB Scouts if you're expecting hordes since you're going to be parking them somewhere anyway if you have sense and give them snipers and cloaks.
The other place they're useful is vehicles. For most vehicles that mount them, heavy flamers or multimeltas aren't actually good replacements-- though multimeltas come closer, especially on MEQ-BS-- unless they're twinlinked. Having 8 1 melta is lovely... until you end up missing half or more of the time. And Heavy Flamers don't tend to work great in coherence. Take the Guard-- like a Basilisk-- who wouldn't be able to even shoot the flamer if it launched a danger close barrage, even if it was Divination twin-linked. Meanwhile, if a Wyvern has LOS, and isn't moving, you can add it to the fun trivially whereas the HFs would have to wait for range. Hellhounds are usually projecting far enough away you won't have range, etc. Even with BS 4, ~67% still would make me grind teeth on a Melta and the "help save my ordinance's rear end" for danger close rule is still in effect, not to mention if you're throwing oodles of dice at flyers. Honestly, I prefer to run HB sponsons even on my paskisher; it's expensive enough without paying 10 more points for multimeltas.
In other words-- they're good for two things: cheapness, and throwing numbers out if you can't get mid-range automatics. For a heavy weapons team in the guard, or devastators who aren't Fist? Laughable.
Heavy bolters were not worth it when they were free on tactical squads. At the same points you can get a multimelta, which will stop tanks from driving in that area, or for 5pts more you can get a plasma cannon.
Heck, heavy bolters are only good on maybe a land speeder, and that's because they are free and come with it.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
One advantage HBs have over blast/template weapons is unit spacing. HBs don’t care how well your opponent has spread out, they just take their 3 shots. When dropping frag missiles down range, how many guy you can actually fit under the blast, as opposed to how many you can theoretically get, is important.
Crazyterran wrote: Heavy bolters were not worth it when they were free on tactical squads. At the same points you can get a multimelta, which will stop tanks from driving in that area, or for 5pts more you can get a plasma cannon.
Heck, heavy bolters are only good on maybe a land speeder, and that's because they are free and come with it.
I don't know if a multimelta is worth it in a tac squad with the one shot honestly unless you're playing He'Stan Salamanders or Ultramarines. Especially given the movement penalty. Though I suppose against MEQ and TEQ the AP favors the multimelta anyway-- On MEQ, for example, the MM stays at 5/36th of a wound, whereas the HB drops to 1/12 from 1/4. Though there is the range issue, since your HB will have 50% more threat range, but that's more nebulous and board dependent.
That being said, I don't think any heavy weapon is worth it for a tac squad unless you intend to drop pod them onto an objective and leave them there. In my Salamanders & Skulls, they have drop pods to massage the numbers so 2 of my dreads and my command squad can drop first turn. I suppose if I had more points to fill out... well, I'd honestly add more Legionnaires and maybe some bling onto the drop pods but maybe in a 3K point game I'd fill the tacs to 10 and put a multimelta on them to objective camp. Would probably do an HB if I was playing Fists instead, though.
It's really, really hard for me to not give tac marine heavy flamers (BA) or plasma guns. All other choices seem to make a lot less sense. I don't think a melta meshes particularly well, either.
Martel732 wrote: It's really, really hard for me to not give tac marine heavy flamers (BA) or plasma guns. All other choices seem to make a lot less sense. I don't think a melta meshes particularly well, either.
5 mans with lascannon...keep the tax to a minimum. Maybe blow up a tank. I love how my super human warriors have to be taken in min squads to have a chance at winning. Fortunately for you as a BA player - your marines are some of the best in the game. Furious charge, ability to assualt turn 1, 3 flamer 10 mans. Have you used the tri storm raven formation? seems like it would be insanely good.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
Innocentia Nihil Probat. 
Son of Dorn 
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index