Heavy bolters?

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.

**LordOfWar**

What's Dakka's opinion on quad heavy bolters damage?
I havent seen anything specific on the rules saying heavy bolters get damage 2 if you strap 4 together, just single and double. But I feel like it should be played at damage 2.

Can anyone give me some sort of definite advice on how to run rapier batteries in games? (I know they have other rules issues, but I make it pretty clear with my friends their problems and how I view rules as intended, and they've never disagreed yet) I'm just trying to be fair to everyone in my games. (Including me)

**cody.d.**

I guess it all depends on the written weapon profile + FAQs, though if you and your friends are playing casually nothing wrong with house ruling it to keep things in line. But then that's another rabbit hole. Why not give the Xenos weapons that are clearly equivilents the same buffs marines go. Ork flamers should get the extra range even though they're called Skorchas.

As long as it's not a big tourney where things are exactly as written then you have a bit of leeway for common sense stuff.

**Stux**

Theyre a different weapon, strictly they do not get the increase. You could always house rule it if your group thinks its unfair.

GW have been teasing new FW books all year, so hopefully they aren't too far off. When they do arrive, presumably Rapiers will get an update. They may well a point increase for increased of course, so that's why its difficult to just assume they should be 2 damage.

**LordOfWar**

Yeah, I dont think anyone has problems making skorchas 12". Or any obvious equivalent, really. And my thoughts on the increase in damage is probably already reflected in forgeworld already higher than usual point cost in everything. Though I could see some interesting reasoning with the rapier quad bolter being 48" where other heavy bolters get 36". Little strange, but ok

**cody.d.**

It's just one of those cases of GW being about as consistent as, well something really inconsistent.

As codexes and FW indexes come out hopefully those discrepancies will be fixed up.

Or made hilariously worse, it's always a coinflip.

**helgrenze**

A HB Rapier is still listed as "Heavy 12 range 36". They fire as a single weapons system.

The HB Tarantula is still listed as "Heavy 6 Range 36".

Not sure where you are getting these other numbers from, until there is a new profile for either system, I would just use them as currently written.

**Slayer-Fan123**

The Heavy Bolter on the Tarantula is strictly a TL Heavy Bolter though. You would use those current points and stats.

**BaconCatBug**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Heavy Bolter on the Tarantula is strictly a TL Heavy Bolter though. You would use those current points and stats.

The Imperial Armour books have had no errata to change the profile of the Twin Heavy Bolter, so it uses the profile in the IA book.

**helgrenze**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Heavy Bolter on the Tarantula is strictly a TL Heavy Bolter though. You would use those current points and stats.
The Imperial Armour books have had no errata to change the profile of the Twin Heavy Bolter, so it uses the profile in the IA book.

Which is my point with the HB Rapier in the OP. No Errata on that, so use the statline in the books until a change is issued. No need to get folks confused because the rule changes are slow in coming.

**rbacus**

So what should be done when the stat line in the book is an obvious typo? The Death Guard twin heavy Bolter in the new update is S6, not S5 like EVERYONE else’s.

**BaconCatBug**

rbacus wrote:
So what should be done when the stat line in the book is an obvious typo? The Death Guard twin heavy Bolter in the new update is S6, not S5 like EVERYONE else’s.

They get extra chonky Heavy Bolters until otherwise stated. We have no idea if it's a typo or not. Until they change it, you follow the rules. Period.

**helgrenze**

Oh look new rules...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/26/inside-imperial-armour-compendium/

**LordOfWar**

Apologies for thread necromancy, but I have my book and I have the answer, and it does follow along with a x4 version of modern heavy bolters. But sad news is that the unit is now one carrier and one marine now, without being able to take 2 more in one unit. And it seems to have entirely lost all it's fun rampage rules. And the ability to charge, pile in, or consolidate.

So.. good news bad news? Thanks everyone for their input. I have list revisions to do now..

**Type40**

The new laser destroyer rules sadden me in particular as well.

**LordOfWar**

Agreed. While I'm not upset about the loss of the ectoplasma cannon, (even though I like the look of my own rappers, fashioned together with forgefiend parts and those lower tracks of the mechanicus troops) the big sad for me was the loss of the conversion beam cannon. Something about being able to bracket knights and kill 2d6+1 troop squads was really nice and I'll miss it. I wish they didnt drop all the cool chaos specific gear. I liked being different from loyalist armies.