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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

That formation has its issues. The tax for bringing it is pretty high. I'm not a huge fan on tac marines or Stormravens.

I feel that 5 man + lascannon is wasting the other four guys, such that they are. This is even more true after the AP 2 vehicle nerf.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

That formation has its issues. The tax for bringing it is pretty high. I'm not a huge fan on tac marines or Stormravens.

I feel that 5 man + lascannon is wasting the other four guys, such that they are. This is even more true after the AP 2 vehicle nerf.

Yeah it is a waste for the other 4 guys but what else are you gonna do? The only other viable option results in having to put a 200ish point squad at 12 inches from the enemy that can't assault until the next turn? 5 man with las cannon or plasma gun at least does one thing right. It's so nonthreatening that shooting at it seems like a waste for your opponent so you can keep them on objectives getting ignored. Las cannon does this best cause it has the best chance to MAYBE kill something.

Storm ravens are actually quite good. Their biggest draw back is have to be held in reserve and being 200 points(thats a lotta points to gamble on never showing up)...rolling on turn one though - it becomes a pretty formidable threat. Granted it's a lot less threatening with TAC marines inside - at least it's an assault vehicle and you are getting furious charge for 20 str 5 int 5 attacks with frag grenades. I think I could do work with this formation but I don't see any other reason to play BA over standard SM than that.

" but I don't see any other reason to play BA over standard SM than that."

They're what I own. A pretty good reason.

Im all for salvo 3/5 on the heavy bolter. It will distinguish it enough from other weapons, allow heavy bolters in tacts to be viable for a mobile unit and it would even make standard razorbacks almost usable. The only problem I could foresee would be with Leman Russ and Chimeras, because they can take a lot and cheaply. Even those will still suffer from BS 3 and a slight point raise on sponsons for the Russes and Chimera turret upgrades would be more than enough to overcome the shift.

The only other thing that would make them something remotely usable would be to give them pinning (that would almost make sense, right?). This would make it a standard gun with a specific use of covering fire, plus it seems pretty fluffy and for any Dawn of War players it was always pretty awesome to see an enemy unit pinned by heavy bolters and then eaten up by your bigger firepower.

Are they better with IF chapter tactics? JC.

 Stormwall wrote:
Are they better with IF chapter tactics? JC.

Having 4 of them in Dev squads does make a difference. They can threaten light vehicles and even stand a decent shot at killing some light fliers.

How heavy bolters are working in other armies such as IG?

I know they are useless for CSM, as autocannos are just better.
If csm could take inferno bolts or malefic ammunition that would I would be rad.

IG use autocannons and lascannons usually.

I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.

 buddha wrote:
I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.

2/4 salvo shred would still be marginal, because of its lack of efficacy against vehicles. Which is why the heavy bolter isn't used now. The autocannon is a TAC choice, the heavy bolter is not. It's that simple.

Quick fix: assault 4 HB

Or

A rule that lets a marine unit in power armor move and fire one heavy weapon a turn as if they hadn't moved.

 Lobukia wrote:
Quick fix: assault 4 HB

Or

A rule that lets a marine unit in power armor move and fire one heavy weapon a turn as if they hadn't moved.

I still wouldn't use it. It's a weapon that has no targets that I care about.

Martel732 wrote:

 buddha wrote:
I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.

2/4 salvo shred would still be marginal, because of its lack of efficacy against vehicles. Which is why the heavy bolter isn't used now. The autocannon is a TAC choice, the heavy bolter is not. It's that simple.

What about 3/5 Salvo Rending?

Martel732 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Quick fix: assault 4 HB

Or

A rule that lets a marine unit in power armor move and fire one heavy weapon a turn as if they hadn't moved.

I still wouldn't use it. It's a weapon that has no targets that I care about.

YMMV, I see enough guard, Ork, nids, guardian, DE, Tau for me to wish it were a more usable weapon.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 buddha wrote:
I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.

2/4 salvo shred would still be marginal, because of its lack of efficacy against vehicles. Which is why the heavy bolter isn't used now. The autocannon is a TAC choice, the heavy bolter is not. It's that simple.

What about 3/5 Salvo Rending?

Sure, I guess, but that's giving it more shots than an assault cannon.

This is basically saying that there should be no dedicated ranged anti-infantry heavy weapon. That's what the HB is. Making it into a mixed anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapon is taking away the autocannon's niche.

Personally I think the weapon it itself is fine and the reason that it doesn't do too well in actual play is that a large number of players play Marines, against the main infantry of which the weapon is only marginally better than the autocannon. If half those Marine players changed overnight into Guard or Ork or Tau players, the heavy bolter would instantly become more popular.

Alcibiades wrote:
This is basically saying that there should be no dedicated ranged anti-infantry heavy weapon. That's what the HB is. Making it into a mixed anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapon is taking away the autocannon's niche.

Personally I think the weapon it itself is fine and the reason that it doesn't do too well in actual play is that a large number of players play Marines, against the main infantry of which the weapon is only marginally better than the autocannon. If half those Marine players changed overnight into Guard or Ork or Tau players, the heavy bolter would instantly become more popular.

I regularly play Tau, and never take the HB. Its not enough to threaten Broadsides or Suits and Riptides, and a Heavy Flamer is better at killing Pathfinders because it ignores cover and armor. Even against Orkz, its only 3 shots. I'd rather take a ML for anti&horde.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 buddha wrote:
I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.

2/4 salvo shred would still be marginal, because of its lack of efficacy against vehicles. Which is why the heavy bolter isn't used now. The autocannon is a TAC choice, the heavy bolter is not. It's that simple.

What about 3/5 Salvo Rending?

Sure, I guess, but that's giving it more shots than an assault cannon.

Well gak lol you can't have it both ways.

2/4 Salvo Shred is my preference. I don't think the HB should be anti vehicle, it should be anti horde.

Martel732 wrote:

 buddha wrote:
I think all bolter weapons should have shred. Heavy bolters can be fixed by making them 2/4 salvo.

2/4 salvo shred would still be marginal, because of its lack of efficacy against vehicles. Which is why the heavy bolter isn't used now. The autocannon is a TAC choice, the heavy bolter is not. It's that simple.

I think my thought is that heavy bolters are supposed to be great against infantry not vehicles; and currently they are awful versus infantry. My suggestion would fix that while still making distinction with anti-tank weapons like autocannons, missile launchers, and lascannons.

I also think the assault cannons should have more shots as well. It's a *chain gun*.

I don't hate the heavy bolter so much as I don't have a need for it. If I'm going to park a tactical squad on an objective (in or out of a rhino), then they might get a plasma gun (24" range doesn't completely suck) which can threaten othter transports that come near and a missile launcher, which can reach out and touch someone and/or help keep transports away. Sometimes, I just give them the missile launcher. Their point is to be cheap and sometimes useful. That's it.

A heavy bolter *can* glance a rhino, but the odds are poor. It can't touch a drop pod, a dreadnought, or any other AV12 vehicle. For hordes, a single 3-shot S5 gun isn't that much better than a bolter, and I'd rather have the missile launcher anyway for deff dreads or doubling out T4 nids (can't think of their names).

Martel732 wrote:
I also think the assault cannons should have more shots as well. It's a *chain gun*.

That's why it has Rending.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I also think the assault cannons should have more shots as well. It's a *chain gun*.

That's why it has Rending.

Insufficient. Assault cannons usually come in small enough numbers that the rending doesn't matter at all.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
This is basically saying that there should be no dedicated ranged anti-infantry heavy weapon. That's what the HB is. Making it into a mixed anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapon is taking away the autocannon's niche.

Personally I think the weapon it itself is fine and the reason that it doesn't do too well in actual play is that a large number of players play Marines, against the main infantry of which the weapon is only marginally better than the autocannon. If half those Marine players changed overnight into Guard or Ork or Tau players, the heavy bolter would instantly become more popular.

I regularly play Tau, and never take the HB. Its not enough to threaten Broadsides or Suits and Riptides, and a Heavy Flamer is better at killing Pathfinders because it ignores cover and armor. Even against Orkz, its only 3 shots. I'd rather take a ML for anti&horde.
.

I said "ranged" anti-infantry weapon, which the heavy flamer is not.

More specifically, it is a ranged anti-light/medium-infantry weapon. And against Orks (or Pathfinders, or Fire Warriors, or Necron Warriors, or Guardsmen -- or for that matter anything Stealth Suits or Battle Sisters, against which it is significantly superior to the autocannon) it is definitely the best option in that role, .

Giving it Shred would make it superior at killing most MCs than the autocannon BTW. Do people want that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Giving bolters Shred makes them do more damage to almost everything than pulse rifles do. Which means you're going to have to upgrade the pulse rifle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK, just for the hell of it, how do HBs compare against autocannons against infantry?

Without factoring BS into things. Multilpy by 1/2 or 2/3 to get BS3 or 4.

vs. Guardsmen (or Pathfinders, or Kroot, or Fire Warriors, or Hormagaunts):

HB 5/6 x 3 = 15/6 = 2 1/2
AC 5/6 x 2 = 1 2/3

vs. Orks (or Necron Warriors, or Genestealers)

HB 2/3 x 3 = 2
AC 5/6 x 2 = 1 2/3

vs. MEQ

HB 2/3 x 1/3 = 2/9 x 3 = 2/3
AC 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 = 2 = 5/9

vs. Stealth Suits, Battle Sisters, Warp Spiders, stuff that is T3 3+.

HB 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 x 3 = 5/6
AC 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 x 2 = 5/9


Sooo... the HB is far superior against all these targets than is the AC, with the sole exception of vs. MEQ (T4 3+) against which it is only marginally superior.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
and its superiority gap also narrows against T4 4+.

Martel732 wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I also think the assault cannons should have more shots as well. It's a *chain gun*.

That's why it has Rending.

Insufficient. Assault cannons usually come in small enough numbers that the rending doesn't matter at all.

Doesn't matter. The rate of fire is fluff justified by the rending rule instead of a higher number of shots. The Assault Cannon is a relic of a bygone age in that respect.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I also think the assault cannons should have more shots as well. It's a *chain gun*.

That's why it has Rending.

Insufficient. Assault cannons usually come in small enough numbers that the rending doesn't matter at all.

Doesn't matter. The rate of fire is fluff justified by the rending rule instead of a higher number of shots. The Assault Cannon is a relic of a bygone age in that respect.

It absolutely matters because rending is a poor rule for a weapon that comes in sparse numbers and doesn't add that much to the weapon's capabilities.

It's irrelevant because it being a chaingun is only relevant to the fluff. As far as crunch is concerned, its just another anti-infantry gun. If you ignore the fluff reason for Rending instead of more shots, then you have to ignore the fluff that says it should have more shots.

Alcibiades wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
This is basically saying that there should be no dedicated ranged anti-infantry heavy weapon. That's what the HB is. Making it into a mixed anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapon is taking away the autocannon's niche.

Personally I think the weapon it itself is fine and the reason that it doesn't do too well in actual play is that a large number of players play Marines, against the main infantry of which the weapon is only marginally better than the autocannon. If half those Marine players changed overnight into Guard or Ork or Tau players, the heavy bolter would instantly become more popular.

I regularly play Tau, and never take the HB. Its not enough to threaten Broadsides or Suits and Riptides, and a Heavy Flamer is better at killing Pathfinders because it ignores cover and armor. Even against Orkz, its only 3 shots. I'd rather take a ML for anti&horde.
.

I said "ranged" anti-infantry weapon, which the heavy flamer is not.

More specifically, it is a ranged anti-light/medium-infantry weapon. And against Orks (or Pathfinders, or Fire Warriors, or Necron Warriors, or Guardsmen -- or for that matter anything Stealth Suits or Battle Sisters, against which it is significantly superior to the autocannon) it is definitely the best option in that role, .

Giving it Shred would make it superior at killing most MCs than the autocannon BTW. Do people want that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Giving bolters Shred makes them do more damage to almost everything than pulse rifles do. Which means you're going to have to upgrade the pulse rifle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK, just for the hell of it, how do HBs compare against autocannons against infantry?

Without factoring BS into things. Multilpy by 1/2 or 2/3 to get BS3 or 4.

vs. Guardsmen (or Pathfinders, or Kroot, or Fire Warriors, or Hormagaunts):

HB 5/6 x 3 = 15/6 = 2 1/2
AC 5/6 x 2 = 1 2/3

vs. Orks (or Necron Warriors, or Genestealers)

HB 2/3 x 3 = 2
AC 5/6 x 2 = 1 2/3

vs. MEQ

HB 2/3 x 1/3 = 2/9 x 3 = 2/3
AC 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 = 2 = 5/9

vs. Stealth Suits, Battle Sisters, Warp Spiders, stuff that is T3 3+.

HB 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 x 3 = 5/6
AC 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/18 x 2 = 5/9


Sooo... the HB is far superior against all these targets than is the AC, with the sole exception of vs. MEQ (T4 3+) against which it is only marginally superior.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
and its superiority gap also narrows against T4 4+.

Pulse rifles are superior vs vehicals and have higher range 18" rapid compared to 12" rapid is huge...need I say huge? There is no reason to suggest that a bolter being made useful would in any way justify a buff to the hands down best standard infantry weapon in the game (pulse rifles). Pulse rifles also don't need to be better at everything compared to the bolter - they will be relevent with str 5 30" for 10 points for as long as other standard weapons have less range.