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.

Okay, the Heavy Bolter is being left behind as a weapon, so here is a thought:

Change to 36" Str 4, AP:4, Salvo.

The question is, how much Salvo should it get without changing codex prices on Infantry and Vehicles?

Would 3/5 be too much? Or would 2/4 be better? 2/5?

What are your thoughts?

Since a Sonic Blaster is 2/3, I think I'd go with 3/4 if giving Salvo to a HB, I'd keep the Strength at 5, and I'd charge more points for it, at least +5. But if you don't want to change the points cost, I don't know...maybe 2/4.

That said, I kind of like the alternative HH Iron Warriors Heavy Bolter w/ Snapnel Casing, or whatever its called... Heavy 3, 36", S5 AP5, Pinning at no extra points.

I think Salvo 3/4 is probably reasonable, with the Strength left at 5. The relatively good volume of fire on the move shouldn't be too bad, since it's short-range, while it'll offer a bit of a buff while sitting still.

jade_angel wrote:
I think Salvo 3/4 is probably reasonable, with the Strength left at 5. The relatively good volume of fire on the move shouldn't be too bad, since it's short-range, while it'll offer a bit of a buff while sitting still.

This. I'd maybe-but-not-necessarily up the cost by 5 points, but salvo 3/4 gives them a mild boost in raw firepower and gives you the option to keep the same firepower you currently have but with more flexible deployment/mobility options. A Raptor tactics squad of heavy bolter devs outflanking would actually be kind of fun. Not as devastating to rear armor as things like war walkers, but still pretty solid. You could also use them to add weight of fire to a drop pod assault or simply have them hop out of a rhino after moving up to get side armor. Or you keep them back in your deployment zone with a mild firepower boost (4 shouts instead of 3) to make them more tempting.

Except nobody will take it over a Grav Cannon. You have to have a reason besides that the Heavy Bolter is cheaper, as otherwise you'll just go to the Grav.

How about: Guard and Sisters don't have access to Grav Cannons. :p

And Chaos, and Space Wolves. Very much that.

Also, it would be a nice boost for Retributors - move up in your Rhino/Repressor, get out, rend the hezmana out of side/rear armor without needing a psyker with Prescience just to make your shooting terrible instead of completely useless.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except nobody will take it over a Grav Cannon. You have to have a reason besides that the Heavy Bolter is cheaper, as otherwise you'll just go to the Grav.

As a question, though - what would you propose?

I think adding Pinning would be decent - I could maybe even justify making them Salvo 3/4 and Pinning at their current price point. I mean, that would probably be very slightly OP, but when the point of comparison is the grav-cannon, well...

Against MEQs, grav-cannons are still better because they get one more shot, wound on a 3, and defeat armor. Unfortunately, as the thread on nerfing grav weapon AP mentions, gravs pretty much need to be AP2 to solve the problem they're meant to solve.

To bring the weapons more in line, I think making HBs Salvo 3/4 Pinning, Grav-guns Salvo 2/2, grav-cannons Salvo 2/4 and removing the grav-amp from the devastator/tactical version might be in order. Multi-meltas and plasma cannons would still be the rarely seen options, though. I have an idea for the MM, but that's slightly OT here.

At this point, heavy bolter needs six shots or even eight shots to be worth while. Salvo 3/6 seems about right given the way the game is now. S5 AP4 is a poor damage profile for a heavy weapon now.

I think give it ignores cover and you got a decent weapon.

In my opinion, Heavy Bolters should just be pinning.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think give it ignores cover and you got a decent weapon.

This, especially with the new emphasis on cover saves in this edition.
What we really need though, is a weapon that ignores jink to counter all the ing jetbikes and light skimmer spam.

While its easy to say it should be salvo whatever cause space marines are badass and can carry and shoot it you have to remember a guardsman can't.

So if you make it salvo 3/4 or whatever picturing a space marine moving and shooting at half range, a guardsman (or 2) will be able to do the same.

I'd say Salvo 3/1 pinning, as a space marine still has to stop to fire it effectively but he might be able to ping of a single shot while moving, likewise a pair of guardsman might be able to do the same. and pinning cause suppressing fire.

 fallinq wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think give it ignores cover and you got a decent weapon.

This, especially with the new emphasis on cover saves in this edition.
What we really need though, is a weapon that ignores jink to counter all the ing jetbikes and light skimmer spam.

Well, while we're taking potshots at balance problems - how about missiles? Give krak missiles a special rule that ignores Jink, except when fired as a Snap Shot, to represent some kind of SACLOS or LOSBR guidance system, say. Maybe.

I'd be a little leery of depriving armies that rely on AV10 skimmer transports all of their defense, though - most of those kind of glass cannons only work at all because they can survive just long enough to get in range, or because they can dance around just out of range. Force them to footslog, even against lasguns, and they just curl up and die - I'm thinking of Harlequins and most things Dark Eldar, here.

fallinq wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think give it ignores cover and you got a decent weapon.

This, especially with the new emphasis on cover saves in this edition.
What we really need though, is a weapon that ignores jink to counter all the ing jetbikes and light skimmer spam.

Ignoring Cover ignores Jink...

Taffy17 wrote:While its easy to say it should be salvo whatever cause space marines are badass and can carry and shoot it you have to remember a guardsman can't.

So if you make it salvo 3/4 or whatever picturing a space marine moving and shooting at half range, a guardsman (or 2) will be able to do the same.

I'd say Salvo 3/1 pinning, as a space marine still has to stop to fire it effectively but he might be able to ping of a single shot while moving, likewise a pair of guardsman might be able to do the same. and pinning cause suppressing fire.

I think you mean 1/3 (for actually writing it down), as the first number is the Moving number, and the second is the stationary. 3/1 would actually be more firepower while moving!

Charistoph wrote:

fallinq wrote:

This, especially with the new emphasis on cover saves in this edition.
What we really need though, is a weapon that ignores jink to counter all the ing jetbikes and light skimmer spam.

Ignoring Cover ignores Jink...

That's the main reason I thought it would be a good change. It fills a niche that other heavy weapons don't. Sorry for the ambiguous wording.

Only problem with Ignores cover is, when you think about what a Heavy Bolter is supposed to be, there's nothing about it that suggests that it should ignore cover.

I'd be more inclined to turn it li e a "Super Rapid Fire" weapon where 3 shots are fired at range, and 6 up close, at S5 AP4.

 jasper76 wrote:
Only problem with Ignores cover is, when you think about what a Heavy Bolter is supposed to be, there's nothing about it that suggests that it should ignore cover.

I'd be more inclined to turn it li e a "Super Rapid Fire" weapon where 3 shots are fired at range, and 6 up close, at S5 AP4.

Yeah. Heavy bolters don't seem particularly bad at killing guys hiding behind a brick wall, but they don't seem to have any reason to be especially good at it either. If someone wanted to go that route, making heavy bolters *only* ignore jink seems reasonable to represent just how many shots you can put out to compensate for your target's crazy driving. Seems a bit mean to harlies and dark eldar though as theirs are the only vehicles (other than land speeders) that can jink and be hurt by heavy bolters.

Also, isn't your "Super Rapid Fire" idea basically salvo? I'm not seeing the difference. ^_^;

It's the reverse of Salvo - Salvo is shorter range, lower fire rate while moving, while Rapid-fire is higher fire rate at short range, whether you moved or not.

We actually have an example of "Rapid-fire 3" even though they don't call it that: Hurricane bolters.

Make it salvo 3/3 and you got yourself a 0 effect on how tank that got one are behaving, yet a reasonable point to why marines and guard might want to pack it in their squad, being a "light heavy weapon"

 BoomWolf wrote:
Make it salvo 3/3 and you got yourself a 0 effect on how tank that got one are behaving, yet a reasonable point to why marines and guard might want to pack it in their squad, being a "light heavy weapon"

That's actually a good point. That solves one of the big annoyances with the "one heavy, one special" setup - you either move, but your heavy weapon does mostly zip, or you sit still, most likely with your bolters and special weapons out of range. The fact that Battle Sister squads can take two specials, and that one of their heavies is actually "Assault" (heavy flamer) is one of the things that makes them more useful to me than Tactical Squads, eliminating the "sit still and be gimpy Devastators, or move and one weapon gets to suck uselessly" problem.

Granted, grav-cannons solve this for DA and Vanilla and BA have heavy flamers now, and the GK heavy weapon is Salvo already, but grav-cannons are mean, and I'd really rather see HBs on the tabletop a bit more, given how prevalent they are in the fluff, and how well they map onto modern RL combined-arms tactics (medium machine guns in squads). I like the idea of Pinning, except that in terms of external balance, Pinning mostly serves to make assault-heavy armies worse than they already are. Yes, it can in theory pin a squad in preparation for an assault by a different unit, but how often does that stick when you really need it to?

That said, they're not especially useful on tanks right now, even on things like Leman Russ Exterminators that can take three and another quick-firing weapon, so making them essentially "Rapid-fire 3", so they fire 6 shots at 18", would probably not be unreasonable. It wouldn't ignore Jink, but twice the volume of fire increases your chances of getting some damage through. (Don't forget that HBs can hurt Devilfish from the sides and can hurt Necron vehicles once the shields are down)

Sterngard have special ammo that ignores cover - lets just say HB just shoots those rounds with a little more ummph.

Most will agree on this...HB is in a bad place. It is outclassed by every other heavy weapon in the game. Give it ignore cover and you will start seeing them. It's not gonna be OP though.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sterngard have special ammo that ignores cover - lets just say HB just shoots those rounds with a little more ummph.

Most will agree on this...HB is in a bad place. It is outclassed by every other heavy weapon in the game. Give it ignore cover and you will start seeing them. It's not gonna be OP though.

I disagree on Ignoring Cover. The primary target are those that rely more on Cover for Saves, anyway.

Right now, though, I do feel it is quite outgunned. The main reason I suggested lowering the Str was to balance an increase in available volume of fire and to not address pricing. However, if allowed to fire at full BS, it is more likely to damage horde models than the Grav Cannon, if barely.

If it Ignores Cover, the AP should be reduced to compensate. But that's my opinion.

Just changing the heavy bolter to salvo 2/3 would be enough for me to seriously consider actually taking them, either in a mounted havoc squad or in CSM squad.

Im not so sure abut this. Whilst I agree that the good old Heavy Bolter is in need of a buff to be brought back from the grave it does just seem a bit off to have it as a salvo weapon, I mean have you seen the size of it?
Upping its rate of fire may help quite a bit though, maybe to Heavy4/Heavy5?

The heavy bolster should work differently for marines or things in "powered"armor than it does for normal or non armored units. 3/3 salvo for armored and heavy 3 for not. Since the HB costs the same now regardless who's using it and their differing BS's, raise the cost 5 points for armored troops. It just doesn't make sense that a 7 foot tall marine in powered armor can only control a weapon as well as a 5'10" 185 lb unaugmented man.

Charistoph wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sterngard have special ammo that ignores cover - lets just say HB just shoots those rounds with a little more ummph.

Most will agree on this...HB is in a bad place. It is outclassed by every other heavy weapon in the game. Give it ignore cover and you will start seeing them. It's not gonna be OP though.

I disagree on Ignoring Cover. The primary target are those that rely more on Cover for Saves, anyway.

Right now, though, I do feel it is quite outgunned. The main reason I suggested lowering the Str was to balance an increase in available volume of fire and to not address pricing. However, if allowed to fire at full BS, it is more likely to damage horde models than the Grav Cannon, if barely.

If it Ignores Cover, the AP should be reduced to compensate. But that's my opinion.

All the models it shoots at are always in cover - so it's AP is rather useless without ignore cover. I'd be fine with it dropping to ap 5 if it gained ignore cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

scitech wrote:
The heavy bolster should work differently for marines or things in "powered"armor than it does for normal or non armored units. 3/3 salvo for armored and heavy 3 for not. Since the HB costs the same now regardless who's using it and their differing BS's, raise the cost 5 points for armored troops. It just doesn't make sense that a 7 foot tall marine in powered armor can only control a weapon as well as a 5'10" 185 lb unaugmented man.

Well this ofc - marines should realistically all be relentless anyways.

scitech wrote:
The heavy bolster should work differently for marines or things in "powered"armor than it does for normal or non armored units. 3/3 salvo for armored and heavy 3 for not. Since the HB costs the same now regardless who's using it and their differing BS's, raise the cost 5 points for armored troops. It just doesn't make sense that a 7 foot tall marine in powered armor can only control a weapon as well as a 5'10" 185 lb unaugmented man.

So, having two different Heavy Bolters would be better? A Squad Heavy Bolter and a Crew Heavy Bolter?

The Crew Heavy Bolter would be used by Imperial Guard and Vehicles, and would retain the Heavy mechanic. Heavy 4 may work in this case.

The Squad Heavy Bolter would then be Salvo version and used by the Marine models and maybe the Sisters. Salvo 2/4 could work in this case, maybe.

Might as well just give a unique name to the "squad" version then. The SAB (Squad Assault Bolter), maybe? The fluff is that it is the "portable" heavy bolter used by the power-armoured forces of the Imperium, and can be fired on the fly, but at reduced effectiveness.

Charistoph wrote:

scitech wrote:
The heavy bolster should work differently for marines or things in "powered"armor than it does for normal or non armored units. 3/3 salvo for armored and heavy 3 for not. Since the HB costs the same now regardless who's using it and their differing BS's, raise the cost 5 points for armored troops. It just doesn't make sense that a 7 foot tall marine in powered armor can only control a weapon as well as a 5'10" 185 lb unaugmented man.

So, having two different Heavy Bolters would be better? A Squad Heavy Bolter and a Crew Heavy Bolter?

The Crew Heavy Bolter would be used by Imperial Guard and Vehicles, and would retain the Heavy mechanic. Heavy 4 may work in this case.

The Squad Heavy Bolter would then be Salvo version and used by the Marine models and maybe the Sisters. Salvo 2/4 could work in this case, maybe.

Might as well just give a unique name to the "squad" version then. The SAB (Squad Assault Bolter), maybe? The fluff is that it is the "portable" heavy bolter used by the power-armoured forces of the Imperium, and can be fired on the fly, but at reduced effectiveness.

Yup, I like this. I'd be tempted to differentiate them a little more, but I'm not sure how that would balance. As a stab:

Crew-served heavy bolter: 36" S5 AP4 Heavy 5 Pinning
Squad support heavy bolter: 36" S5 AP4 Salvo 2/4

Anyone remember the old rules for Deathwatch squads?

They had the ability to take a heavy bolter with suspensor field. This made turned the HB into a 18" assault 3 weapon. Str and AP stayed the same.

How about just a simple 5 point upgrade, similar to flakk missiles, to take this. Or give them the blastmaster treatment for the points? Give them 2 stat lines to choose from. So you can fire 36" at heavy 3 or 18" at assault 3.

Now you can up the amount of shots/give it pinning also. I think ignoring cover doesn't fit the fluff of the HB.