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.

The following is meant to be some minor, but significant, changes to the standard Space Marine "Heavy" weapons to open up more options, but keep the points the same:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Bolters - 36" Str5 AP-1, Rapid Fire 2
Just to note, this is for Marines and CSM only. Guard/Sister HBs can remain Heavy 3. Precedence exists for Marines to be able to wield Bolter weapons better than other factions

Becoming RF2 would allow units to either be more mobile with HBs (no -1 for moving) or also stand still to get 4 shots (Bolter Discipline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assault Cannons - 24" Str6 AP-1, Assualt 5
This change is more about consistent naming rather than balance. Assault should be Assault. I lowered the number of shots from 6 to 5 to "even it out" But the weapon should now be very appealing for 5-man Termie units, Land Speeders, etc than want to be mobile.

Possible change to Heavy Flamers in this same vein would be to make them Heavy. It's an auto-hit weapon already, so it would still be mobile.
You only lose the ability to Advance and fire with it, which could be justified because its a much bigger version of a Flamer.
Not 100% on this one, just putting it out there for consistency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Melta - 24" Str8 AP-4, Heavy 2
Seriously, this should be 2 shots. The gun has 2 barrels and there is no point in taking this over a Lascannon UNLESS it gets more shots
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missile Launcher - Krak stays as-is, but Frag should be - Heavy 6, not d6.
There needs to be a valid reason to use the Frag mode and a "maybe only 1-2 shot Bolter" isn't gonna cut the mustard
Alternatively, I'd be fine with making Frag Str5 Heavy d6, or even just AP-1 (although that makes it the same as the Eldar ML. make that what you will)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's it. Thoughts?

-

 Galef wrote:

Spoiler:

The following is meant to be some minor, but significant, changes to the standard Space Marine "Heavy" weapons to open up more options, but keep the points the same:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Bolters - 36" Str5 AP-1, Rapid Fire 2
Just to note, this is for Marines and CSM only. Guard/Sister HBs can remain Heavy 3. Precedence exists for Marines to be able to wield Bolter weapons better than other factions

Becoming RF2 would allow units to either be more mobile with HBs (no -1 for moving) or also stand still to get 4 shots (Bolter Discipline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assault Cannons - 24" Str6 AP-1, Assualt 5
This change is more about consistent naming rather than balance. Assault should be Assault. I lowered the number of shots from 6 to 5 to "even it out" But the weapon should now be very appealing for 5-man Termie units, Land Speeders, etc than want to be mobile.

Possible change to Heavy Flamers in this same vein would be to make them Heavy. It's an auto-hit weapon already, so it would still be mobile.
You only lose the ability to Advance and fire with it, which could be justified because its a much bigger version of a Flamer.
Not 100% on this one, just putting it out there for consistency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Melta - 24" Str8 AP-4, Heavy 2
Seriously, this should be 2 shots. The gun has 2 barrels and there is no point in taking this over a Lascannon UNLESS it gets more shots
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missile Launcher - Krak stays as-is, but Frag should be - Heavy 6, not d6.
There needs to be a valid reason to use the Frag mode and a "maybe only 1-2 shot Bolter" isn't gonna cut the mustard
Alternatively, I'd be fine with making Frag Str5 Heavy d6, or even just AP-1 (although that makes it the same as the Eldar ML. make that what you will)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's it. Thoughts?

-

Re: Heavy Bolters - RF 2 would be less effective on the move than HBs are currently. Having 4 shots standing still would be great, but even still, probably not enough to make them a compelling take. I dunno, HBs are in a tough spot. Because they're shared with other Imperial factions they're hard to mess with. Giving the Marine HB a plus one to hit or something, or givving them access to hellfire rounds by default (maybe not MW, but something else). Dunno.

Re: Assault Cannons - Assault Cannons have been named Assault Cannons forever, even while they're classified as Heavy. I don't have a problem with that. I'd much rather see Terminators ignore movement penalties, etc.

Re: Heavy Flamers - like Assault Cannons, the change in classification because of the name isn't necessary. Flamers of all types need help, so I'd start there.

Re: Multi-Meltas - I actually hoped this would be the case when the first information about 8th edition was coming out. Multimeltas used to be a blast weapon. Adding that effect with multiple shots would be fantastic. *thumbs up*

Re: Missile Launcher w/ Frag = 6. Another *thumbs up*. I dig it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Because they're shared with other Imperial factions they're hard to mess with.

Assuming they wouldn't change the whole batch per my proposal, it would actually be SUUUUUUPPPPPER easy to make the change for JUST Astartes Heavy Bolters.
You could keep them as-is (Heavy 3) but add an addendum to the Bolter Discipline rule that gives Astartes units an optional RF2 firing mode. Done.
I even suggested this to GW when they were collecting feedback for the BD rule, but alas it was not heeded.

RF HBs on the move are intriguing to me because while they would only get 4 shots at 36" if standing still, they would also get 4 shots at 18" whether they moved or not.

Fair enough on the Assault Cannon and Heavy Flamer. Was just wanting some consistency.
Although, if Heavy Bolters be come RF2, we would have consistency in that not a single one of them have the same weapon type as their name.

-

It appears GW doesn't have a plan for marines currently, they seem to be throwing units out with rules and seeing what people buy and play and then just recosting everything else.
It's reminiscent of them having zero clue what the army should and shouldn't do and having no idea how to make units that support that play style.

 Galef wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Because they're shared with other Imperial factions they're hard to mess with.

Assuming they wouldn't change the whole batch per my proposal, it would actually be SUUUUUUPPPPPER easy to make the change for JUST Astartes Heavy Bolters.
You could keep them as-is (Heavy 3) but add an addendum to the Bolter Discipline rule that gives Astartes units an optional RF2 firing mode. Done.
I even suggested this to GW when they were collecting feedback for the BD rule, but alas it was not heeded.

RF HBs on the move are intriguing to me because while they would only get 4 shots at 36" if standing still, they would also get 4 shots at 18" whether they moved or not.

Fair enough on the Assault Cannon and Heavy Flamer. Was just wanting some consistency.
Although, if Heavy Bolters be come RF2, we would have consistency in that not a single one of them have the same weapon type as their name.

-

Ahh, I see. Yeah they would have 4 shots at 18 on the move. NM I'll give a *thumbs up* too. It would allow Black Legion to Advance and fire Heavy Bolters, which is kinda sick imagery.

I like these! I've agreed with the heavy bolter in the past but it's even more relevant now. Multi-melta absolutely needs this (boo, inadvertant death guard buff), as does frag missile. Heavy flamer is whatever, range boost or my suggestion earlier this week of Heavy6 autohitting up to the number of models in target unit and rolling for the rest.

Assault cannon change is interesting to me in that it's rare (as far as i can tell) for assault weapons to be >18" range and whenever possible I'd prefer to have shots=barrels.

Heavy Flamers are already heavy d6, and they need to be assault.

When you have bale-flamers that are assault weapons (or at least the flamer weapon the lord discordant has), heavy flamers have no real reason to not be assault.

^Agreed.

Vilehydra wrote:
Heavy Flamers are already heavy d6, and they need to be assault.

When you have bale-flamers that are assault weapons (or at least the flamer weapon the lord discordant has), heavy flamers have no real reason to not be assault.

Baleflamers are also only found on Heldrakes and Lord Discordants. Big stonking vehicle monsters.

Look at Dark Lances-Heavy for Infantry and Bikers, Assault on Vehicles.

I'm mostly on board with all that. My only nitpick is that I"m not sure the frag missile necessarily needs this particular change. I don't think making them Heavy 6 would break anything. It just feels a bit odd to me that there's a feeling such a change is needed.

Most of my use of missile launchers this editions is of the aeldari variety. When I take an AML over a bright lance (anti tank) or shuriken cannon (anti-infantry), it's because I want the flexibility of being able to hurt tanks almost as reliably as with a bright lance OR to pepper mobs of gribblies with the strength 4 profile OR to spend a CP and do some automatic mortal wounds to a unit with the FLY keyword.

Maybe eldar rerolls and the AP-1 make all the difference, but shooting 6 war walker AMLs with the strength 4 profile at an infantry unit usually results in a satisfying amount of carnage.

Also, not sure having the words "assault" or "heavy" in a profile name really ought to warrant rules to reflect that naming convention; I'd rather we have "pew pew cannons" and "jumbo flamers" at that point. But these aren't hills I'd die on. These changes seem largely agreeable.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:
Heavy Flamers are already heavy d6, and they need to be assault.

When you have bale-flamers that are assault weapons (or at least the flamer weapon the lord discordant has), heavy flamers have no real reason to not be assault.

Baleflamers are also only found on Heldrakes and Lord Discordants. Big stonking vehicle monsters.

Look at Dark Lances-Heavy for Infantry and Bikers, Assault on Vehicles.

This is true, dark lance is heavy for infantry but it also has a base range of 36" (I honestly can't remember what the range is), not 8.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm mostly on board with all that. My only nitpick is that I"m not sure the frag missile necessarily needs this particular change. I don't think making them Heavy 6 would break anything. It just feels a bit odd to me that there's a feeling such a change is needed.

Most of my use of missile launchers this editions is of the aeldari variety. When I take an AML over a bright lance (anti tank) or shuriken cannon (anti-infantry), it's because I want the flexibility of being able to hurt tanks almost as reliably as with a bright lance OR to pepper mobs of gribblies with the strength 4 profile OR to spend a CP and do some automatic mortal wounds to a unit with the FLY keyword.

Maybe eldar rerolls and the AP-1 make all the difference, but shooting 6 war walker AMLs with the strength 4 profile at an infantry unit usually results in a satisfying amount of carnage.

Also, not sure having the words "assault" or "heavy" in a profile name really ought to warrant rules to reflect that naming convention; I'd rather we have "pew pew cannons" and "jumbo flamers" at that point. But these aren't hills I'd die on. These changes seem largely agreeable.

I think there is a reason most ML on the table are of the Eldar variety: The non-Krak option is AP-1. The reason I really think Marine MLs need something extra is because you are paying 20ppm for something that could end up being 1-2 Bolter shots, albeit at 48". Frag needs something to set it apart from regular Bolter shot. AP-1 could work, Str5 could work. But I'm going with Heavy 6

And yeah, I'm dropping the "match the Heavy/Assault in the profile name with the weapon type" suggestion. Heavy Flamers indeed should be Assault, Assault cannons are fine as Heavy (they do get 6 shots after all) and if we change HBs to be RF, now none of the names match type, which is oddly satisfying.

But the main 2 changes that I REEEEEALLLLLLY want and am baffled wasn't the default when 8E dropped is:
*RF2 for ASTARTES Heavy Bolters
*Heavy 2 for Multi-meltas

Those 2 changes alone would make units like Attack Bikes, Land Speeders and even Tacticals more appealing

-

I seem to remember in Space Crusade you could take "suspensors" which allowed Space Marines with Heavy Weapons to move at a normal rate. It was pretty invaluable to take.

How about make it X points of suspensors on Heavy Weapons that allow them to shoot without penalties?

Means you can pay for it or not.

TarkinLarson wrote:
I seem to remember in Space Crusade you could take "suspensors" which allowed Space Marines with Heavy Weapons to move at a normal rate. It was pretty invaluable to take.

How about make it X points of suspensors on Heavy Weapons that allow them to shoot without penalties?

Means you can pay for it or not.

No. Marines are already too expensive and adding this would still mean the only viable Heavy weapons would be Lascannons and MLs, maybe Plasma Cannons.

-

 Galef wrote:

TarkinLarson wrote:
I seem to remember in Space Crusade you could take "suspensors" which allowed Space Marines with Heavy Weapons to move at a normal rate. It was pretty invaluable to take.

How about make it X points of suspensors on Heavy Weapons that allow them to shoot without penalties?

Means you can pay for it or not.

No. Marines are already too expensive and adding this would still mean the only viable Heavy weapons would be Lascannons and MLs, maybe Plasma Cannons.

-

I'd be more inclined to allow marines in Power Armour ignore the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons. As far as I can see, that is sort of the point in Power armour in the first place, and in having super soldiers. The fact that space marines have the same difficulty firing heavy weapons as SOB in power armour doesn't seem right. And this would be a nice way to differentiate between tactical and scouts too.

Aash wrote:

 Galef wrote:

TarkinLarson wrote:
I seem to remember in Space Crusade you could take "suspensors" which allowed Space Marines with Heavy Weapons to move at a normal rate. It was pretty invaluable to take.

How about make it X points of suspensors on Heavy Weapons that allow them to shoot without penalties?

Means you can pay for it or not.

No. Marines are already too expensive and adding this would still mean the only viable Heavy weapons would be Lascannons and MLs, maybe Plasma Cannons.

-

I'd be more inclined to allow marines in Power Armour ignore the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons. As far as I can see, that is sort of the point in Power armour in the first place, and in having super soldiers. The fact that space marines have the same difficulty firing heavy weapons as SOB in power armour doesn't seem right. And this would be a nice way to differentiate between tactical and scouts too.

Yeah, I'd be more ok with that, but NOT for extra cost as was suggested

But I think that's a slippery slope because prior edition had very specific things with "Relentless", including Bikes, Terminators and all Vehicles. But in the most recent prior editions, moving mean only ever hitting on 6s.
8E has a nice compromise that has almost no units with Relentless, but the penalty is only -1 to hit. So moving with Heavy Weapons is no where near as bad as prior editions, except for those units that previously has Relentless
So if you start giving X units "Relentless" en mass, Y units will start to demand it. It could get messy fast

-

While space marines should certainly be able to lug around heavy weapons and shoot, I actually rather like that they still suffer a -1 to-hit penalty when doing so. It's a punitive enough trade off to encourage you to hold still with your heavy weapons (which adds to the "feel" and "personality" of said weapons) but not so punitive as to basically be a non-option (like it was in the era of snapshots).

Sure, a space marine can lug a multi melta around, but he's probably going to have more trouble aiming it on the fly than he would, for instance, a boltgun. The current heavy weapon rules reflect that pretty well, I think.

The heavy bolter being subject to that -1 to-hit penalty actually feels pretty reasonable for such a weapon, but making it more mobile by giving it rapid fire lets it occupy an interesting design space and makes it compete with assault cannons less. Plus, bolter discipline still encourages you to hold still with it if shooting at distant enemies.

On a slightly-related note, I kind of like the idea of a devastator strat that lets them ignore the penalties for moving and shooting with heavy weapons. Make it 1CP. It lets your devs hop out of transports with multi-meltas or climb out from BLOS terrain with their lascannons. Sort of like a toned down version of the Long Fang strat.

Why should marines get toned down strats compared to the mary sue furry chapter? They dont have to be better every edition.

Martel732 wrote:
Why should marines get toned down strats compared to the mary sue furry chapter? They dont have to be better every edition.

Isn't the long fang one 2CP? I was picturing something cheaper/simpler rather than strictly worse.

I dont know. I assume sw dont pay for anything because wolf, lol

 Galef wrote:
The following is meant to be some minor, but significant, changes to the standard Space Marine "Heavy" weapons to open up more options, but keep the points the same:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Bolters - 36" Str5 AP-1, Rapid Fire 2
Just to note, this is for Marines and CSM only. Guard/Sister HBs can remain Heavy 3. Precedence exists for Marines to be able to wield Bolter weapons better than other factions

Becoming RF2 would allow units to either be more mobile with HBs (no -1 for moving) or also stand still to get 4 shots (Bolter Discipline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assault Cannons - 24" Str6 AP-1, Assualt 5
This change is more about consistent naming rather than balance. Assault should be Assault. I lowered the number of shots from 6 to 5 to "even it out" But the weapon should now be very appealing for 5-man Termie units, Land Speeders, etc than want to be mobile.

Possible change to Heavy Flamers in this same vein would be to make them Heavy. It's an auto-hit weapon already, so it would still be mobile.
You only lose the ability to Advance and fire with it, which could be justified because its a much bigger version of a Flamer.
Not 100% on this one, just putting it out there for consistency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Melta - 24" Str8 AP-4, Heavy 2
Seriously, this should be 2 shots. The gun has 2 barrels and there is no point in taking this over a Lascannon UNLESS it gets more shots
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missile Launcher - Krak stays as-is, but Frag should be - Heavy 6, not d6.
There needs to be a valid reason to use the Frag mode and a "maybe only 1-2 shot Bolter" isn't gonna cut the mustard
Alternatively, I'd be fine with making Frag Str5 Heavy d6, or even just AP-1 (although that makes it the same as the Eldar ML. make that what you will)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's it. Thoughts?

-

I still maintain that Melta should be S10 and replace "roll 2d6 pick the highest" with "Always wounds units with the vehicle keyword on a 2+ regardless of the toughness"

S10 Reasoning: Is that it's an anti tank weapon. Firing it at say a terminator isn't really its intended purpose, but it will get the job done. Any elite infantry at T5 should take a wound on a 2+ from this weapon, I think.

Missile Launchers and grenades in general are strange to me. Grenades and Frag rounds are anti-infantry weapons, there is very little in the way of armor that can protect you from such weapons. I'd purpose the change to Frag Rounds and Frag Grenades to add AP-1. S5 on the missile version also makes sense. And while we're on the subject, Havok launchers should be AP-1 too.

Flamers should be: 6" for a hand, 10" for a regular, 12" for extra large. I still cannot fathom the range gimp that GW insists on ignoring year after year.

Also, I'd suggest adding a special rule to the heavy weapon body, which states that if it doesn't move in the movement phase, it gets to shoot twice. Devestators are masters of heavy weapons, just like Havoks. Havoks well represent this by moving and suffering no penalty to fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:
While space marines should certainly be able to lug around heavy weapons and shoot, I actually rather like that they still suffer a -1 to-hit penalty when doing so. It's a punitive enough trade off to encourage you to hold still with your heavy weapons (which adds to the "feel" and "personality" of said weapons) but not so punitive as to basically be a non-option (like it was in the era of snapshots).

Sure, a space marine can lug a multi melta around, but he's probably going to have more trouble aiming it on the fly than he would, for instance, a boltgun. The current heavy weapon rules reflect that pretty well, I think.

The heavy bolter being subject to that -1 to-hit penalty actually feels pretty reasonable for such a weapon, but making it more mobile by giving it rapid fire lets it occupy an interesting design space and makes it compete with assault cannons less. Plus, bolter discipline still encourages you to hold still with it if shooting at distant enemies.

On a slightly-related note, I kind of like the idea of a devastator strat that lets them ignore the penalties for moving and shooting with heavy weapons. Make it 1CP. It lets your devs hop out of transports with multi-meltas or climb out from BLOS terrain with their lascannons. Sort of like a toned down version of the Long Fang strat.

Which is fine until you go up against Tau or eldar stacking -2 and -3 to hit, making your heavy bolter hit on a 7+ after moving...

 Togusa wrote:
I still maintain that Melta should be S10 and replace "roll 2d6 pick the highest" with "Always wounds units with the vehicle keyword on a 2+ regardless of the toughness"

S10 Reasoning: Is that it's an anti tank weapon. Firing it at say a terminator isn't really its intended purpose, but it will get the job done. Any elite infantry at T5 should take a wound on a 2+ from this weapon, I think.

That still does not address the fact that its a 1-shot weapon. Regular Melta would be just fine if they were a good deal cheaper (like 10ppm), but Multi-Meltas need actual work. Heavy 2 (or d3 for those wanting more rolling for some reason) makes the most sense because it has "Multi" in the dang name and the model has 2 barrels.

-

Melta in general needs to be more damaging. They barely outperform Plasma in their ideal cases. MultiMeltas are an extension of that problem.

Agree on the problems with the ML. The AML has a similar problem, but as stated above it also has AP-1 on it's Krak-equivelent (and has for multiple editions).

Bharring wrote:
Melta in general needs to be more damaging. They barely outperform Plasma in their ideal cases. MultiMeltas are an extension of that problem.

Agree on the problems with the ML. The AML has a similar problem, but as stated above it also has AP-1 on it's Krak-equivelent (and has for multiple editions).

Imo, half the problem is the pricetag, why should i pay f.e. 14 pts for a melta on a bs3+ model when i get for 11 pts a rapidfire weapon that has more range and a broader spectrum of targets.
Same with the flamer, why should i pay 6 pts for a flamer when i can get a hwt with a heavy stubber for 2 pts which is 80% of the time a better investment.

The issue is these weapons have ONE scenario where they probably excell, but 80% of the time the guns are useless and GW prices them at their ecell point whilest the reality is that only 1 /4 times maybee you get to actually be in that excel situation.

Mind you that isn't even the marine perspective. For marines you have the added problem of allready suffering from output problems (until recently, however the melee stats for marines still are rubbish) and where the output of marines shines (13*-24") neither the flamers nor the Melta are good enough.
Add to that that CSM do not have droppods and loyalist droppods seemingly just vanished thanks to GW faq's you can't really even get easily in the scenario you want to be with these weapons.

SM infantries should get discounted heavy weapons.

Like all these ideas Galef. Also I think another decent fix for the MM would be to make it an Assault weapon also. I would probably consider running devastator sterngaurd or tactical units if I could get some mobility out of a heavy weapon option. Also attack bikes.

Aash wrote:

 Galef wrote:

TarkinLarson wrote:
I seem to remember in Space Crusade you could take "suspensors" which allowed Space Marines with Heavy Weapons to move at a normal rate. It was pretty invaluable to take.

How about make it X points of suspensors on Heavy Weapons that allow them to shoot without penalties?

Means you can pay for it or not.

No. Marines are already too expensive and adding this would still mean the only viable Heavy weapons would be Lascannons and MLs, maybe Plasma Cannons.

-

I'd be more inclined to allow marines in Power Armour ignore the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons. As far as I can see, that is sort of the point in Power armour in the first place, and in having super soldiers. The fact that space marines have the same difficulty firing heavy weapons as SOB in power armour doesn't seem right. And this would be a nice way to differentiate between tactical and scouts too.

Suspensors in the old DW squads used to reduce range as well. Original RT suspensors I dont reall having any negative effect.

By that argument why do Sisters in Power Armour have the -1 to hit that Guardsmen have?

Lets not pretend there is any fluff argument here - its just a buff Marines thread - not thats bad but tis purely game mechanics balance you are talking about.

probably the same reason that marines are str 4 and sisters are str 3.

My suggestion to make MM an assault weapon really buffs sisters a lot

Because lack of Black Carapace and neural interfaces with their Power Armour. It's easily justifiable fluff-wise.

I always go back to Targeters for Marines for +1 to hit using heavy weapons. You don't change the weapon, you just give marines a bit more sophisticated equipment. This is how it was back in the day.

It makes them very accurate standing still, and offsets the move penalty allowing full re-rolls with the appropriate aura.

It would never happen, but that's my vote.