Heavy bolter Vs Assault Cannon

[Deathwalker]

As the rules stand now, the Assault cannon is pretty much superior to the Heavy bolter, but should that be the case?

When I think of a Assault cannon, I think of mass amounts of smaller projectiles tearing the Xeno to shreds, but the Heavy bolter throwing up less , but more powerful fire.

Profile wise the HB is currently utterly inferior. Less S, less Shots for less points.

I am not sure that should be the way it works.

 

I think I would much prefer a S6 AP-2 3 shot Heavy class bolter to cost the same as a S5 AP-1 6 shot Assault class weapon, plus it makes more damn sense..

 

Thoughts?

[Stoic Raptor]

I think if I'm 25-36" away from you, your assault cannon is useless, and my heavy bolter would be indisputably superior.

Range is a pretty significant consideration in a tabletop game.

[bozo69pd]

Well assault cannons are all around more powerful in every way. That is why they are only wielded by terminator infantry right? A power armor cannot even pick up and wield an assault cannon. Compare these guns to their real life counterparts. I think a heavy bolter would be more like a m249 SAW, a belt fed machine gun. It fires 5.56mm rounds at 1000 r/m. Assault cannon would be m134 minigun, so heavy it needs to be mounted. It fires 7.62 mm rounds at 2000 r/m. Physics.

 

Obviously this should transfer to game terms by the assault cannon being more expensive points, and restricted to less units (terminators or vehicles). Heavy bolter should be cheaper, and a unit should be able to take one ( multiples for heavy weapon team, havoks, devastators). Oh wait that is how it is, perfect.

 

 

Edit: Range, SAW has faster muzzle velocity and therefore much longer range than Minigun. I forget what asscann range is on tabletop, but I think it is less than 36" which would once again make this model accurate to real life weaponry and physics.

[Deathwalker]

I think if I'm 25-36" away from you, your assault cannon is useless, and my heavy bolter would be indisputably superior.

Range is a pretty significant consideration in a tabletop game.

If range is the issue, you are using your Assault cannons wrong. :P

I just don't think an ASSAULT cannon should have a better chance of wounding over a HEAVY bolter. Hell, A special issue bolter packs more AP than a heavy bolter, and with a CP, can damage a broader ranger of targets

[bozo69pd]

Well now you are talking about fancy pants ammo. My inferno bolts from Thousand Sons trump all your stuff cuz magic. 

[Panzer]

 

If range is the issue, you are using your Assault cannons wrong.

I just don't think an ASSAULT cannon should have a better chance of wounding over a HEAVY bolter. Hell, A special issue bolter packs more AP than a heavy bolter, and with a CP, can damage a broader ranger of targets

 

 

Well since you like to put an emphasis on parts of the names, try to turn it around. I think an assault CANNON should have a better chance of wounding over a heavy BOLTER. :P

[Volt]

As the rules stand now, the Assault cannon is pretty much superior to the Heavy bolter, but should that be the case?

When I think of a Assault cannon, I think of mass amounts of smaller projectiles tearing the Xeno to shreds, but the Heavy bolter throwing up less , but more powerful fire.

Profile wise the HB is currently utterly inferior. Less S, less Shots for less points.

I am not sure that should be the way it works.

 

I think I would much prefer a S6 AP-2 3 shot Heavy class bolter to cost the same as a S5 AP-1 6 shot Assault class weapon, plus it makes more damn sense..

 

Thoughts?

Call me crazy, but the gun that fires hundreds of rounds in a single second is probably going to pack a way bigger punch than a 1.00 caliber autocannon only firing several hundred rounds per minute. Taking the Assault Cannon under the most meager assumption of fire rate per its description- 200 rounds in 1 second, the result is 12,000 rounds per minute, or twice that of conventional gatling guns IRL. If that number is any greater you swiftly get to insane fire rates such as 24,000 rounds per minute or higher. A single shot from a heavy bolter will certainly be more devastating (and have far more armor penetration), but a sustained burst from an assault cannon will absolutely shred light armor and likely erode heavier armor from sheer weight of it.

[bozo69pd]

Remember guys... 2 guardsmen can fire a heavy bolter with team work ezpz. The recoil of an assault cannon on the other hand is too much for them.

[Ishagu]

Erm why shouldnt it be better?

 

It's a more advanced weapon developed later in the timeline.

You have it in your head that it should be worse. That's not the case.

[Stoic Raptor]

I think a heavy bolter would be more like a m249 SAW, a belt fed machine gun. It fires 5.56mm rounds at 1000 r/m. Assault cannon would be m134 minigun, so heavy it needs to be mounted. It fires 7.62 mm rounds at 2000 r/m. 

 

Edit: Range, SAW has faster muzzle velocity and therefore much longer range than Minigun. I forget what asscann range is on tabletop, but I think it is less than 36" which would once again make this model accurate to real life weaponry and physics.

 

I think a heavy bolter is a lot more like a .50 machine gun like the M2, for instance - that's why it's crew-served for normal mortals but portable for super-soldiers.  It's certainly not of a smaller caliber than the assault cannon (which also is more than a single mere mortal can carry and operate).

 

And effective range is a factor of more than just muzzle velocity.  While mass is not a factor in drop, it can be a consideration in drag and drift. We can safely assume that every weapon in 40k can fire a projectile to a distance further than the relative dimensions of the playing field - but the chances for that shot to be at all accurate outside the specified range is statistically negligible.

 

If range is the issue, you are using your Assault cannons wrong.

 

We can't discount range as a component of weapon effectiveness, or else we'll have to consider why a boltgun is a more effective weapon overall than a plasma pistol.  Range matters - and if I can engage you at a distance where you can't return fire, it doesn't matter how much more powerful your weapon is.  A close-range weapon only matters if you can get close - and if your opponent can kill you before you can do that, its power is meaningless.

 

Call me crazy, but the gun that fires hundreds of rounds in a single second is probably going to pack a way bigger punch than a 1.00 caliber autocannon only firing several hundred rounds per minute. 

 

Well, rate of fire doesn't necessarily equate to more damage - that depends entirely on the target.  You could fire the aforementioned M249 SAW at an armored car all day and probably never score a penetrating hit, where a .50 BMG round might punch through.  That said, it's folly to use real-life weapons as comparisons  for a few reasons - most obviously because the technology of the game doesn't always equate to our own, but just as importantly, because most gamers are civilians that have never handled a military weapon (or perhaps any firearm) at all, and know little more about them than what they've seen in Hollywood.

[Volt]

Erm why shouldnt it be better?

 

It's a more advanced weapon developed later in the timeline.

You have it in your head that it should be worse. That's not the case.

..That's not how logic works. Advancement has nothing to do with weapons performance, as modern rifles for example have objectively worse stopping power compared to Great War era bolt action rifles due to differences in caliber. Just because something is more technologically advanced has little to do with its actual performance in comparison with older weapons. 

 

 

 

 

Call me crazy, but the gun that fires hundreds of rounds in a single second is probably going to pack a way bigger punch than a 1.00 caliber autocannon only firing several hundred rounds per minute. 

 

Well, rate of fire doesn't necessarily equate to more damage - that depends entirely on the target.  You could fire the aforementioned M249 SAW at an armored car all day and probably never score a penetrating hit, where a .50 BMG round might punch through.  That said, it's folly to use real-life weapons as comparisons  for a few reasons - most obviously because the technology of the game doesn't always equate to our own, but just as importantly, because most gamers are civilians that have never handled a military weapon (or perhaps any firearm) at all, and know little more about them than what they've seen in Hollywood.

 

Even with an M249 Saw, if you were to fire literally 24,000 rounds at roughly the same spot in a minute, that Armored Car would be in incredibly poor shape. An Assault Cannon really isn't so much about ballistic penetration as it basically is a sand blaster, eroding targets. 

 

Granted I have no clue how the things can fire for even a minute given their stated fire rate. a half minute burst of fire would require over ten thousand rounds to be stored, probably.

[bozo69pd]

Knight of Lupus good point .50 cal is probably a much better comparison. I suppose the Saw would be more like a heavy stubber?

[Deathwalker]

40K lore puts Hvy bolter rounds at .998

[Volt]

Knight of Lupus good point .50 cal is probably a much better comparison. I suppose the Saw would be more like a heavy stubber?

Heavy stubbers are 50 cal. Assault Cannons fire tiny diamond-something tipped rounds with hundreds of rounds fired per second, rending the target apart. It's a minigun on crack. However not all stubbers are created equally, and like autocannons it's just a type of weapon. The Vraks heavy stubber looks more like a 20mm chaingun for example.

 

[Stoic Raptor]

Advancement has nothing to do with weapons performance, as modern rifles for example have objectively worse stopping power compared to Great War era bolt action rifles due to differences in caliber. Just because something is more technologically advanced has little to do with its actual performance in comparison with older weapons. 

 

Even with an M249 Saw, if you were to fire literally 24,000 rounds at roughly the same spot in a minute, that Armored Car would be in incredibly poor shape. An Assault Cannon really isn't so much about ballistic penetration as it basically is a sand blaster, eroding targets. 

 

Granted I have no clue how the things can fire for even a minute given their stated fire rate. a half minute burst of fire would require over ten thousand rounds to be stored, probably.

 

 

I honestly don't mean this to sound insulting, but I get the impression that all of your knowledge of military firearms is purely theoretical.

Your first claim about modern rounds having "objectively" worse stopping power is incorrect - because first of all, stopping power isn't all about caliber.  It's about energy, wound channel and penetration.  Modern rounds have better muzzle energy, and bullet technology has yielded rounds designed not to overpenetrate and to create a larger wound channel.  And that's just the anti-personnel ammunition.  

 

Interesting that you should mention "differences in caliber", however.  Do you know why modern infantry rifles use a smaller caliber than early 20th Century ones?  It's precisely because a higher caliber isn't necessary to take down personnel - largely in part due to advancement in weapons and ammunition technology.  But make no mistake, battle rifles still exist, using basically the same caliber as those earlier weapons.  A 30-06 BAR may be "more deadly" than a 5.56mm M-16, but the latter can kill you easily and "more dead" is academic.  Still, an FN-FAL or a G3 is going to be a more deadly weapon than their predecessors like the M1 or M-14 that use the exact same ammunition.

 

And your "sandblasting" remark is simply ridiculous.  That's just not how it works.  You might as well be literally sandblasting if you're firing rounds that don't have the capability to penetrate at least partially.  Just because you're firing a high volume of under-powered rounds at the same spot doesn't mean it will "erode" the armor.  You might not even make a dent... literally!

 

And finally, (again no disrespect intended) you are correct in stating that you have no clue how prolonged fire is possible at the stated rate.  The simple answer is - they don't.  Cyclic rate of fire is an academic measurement.  Just because a weapon "can" fire at a given rate doesn't mean it does.  As you noted, it would require an impractical amount of ammunition.  It also is very hard on the weapon itself - the faster a weapon fires, the more likely it is to jam, and even if it doesn't, overheating and other mechanical failure becomes increasingly likely.  A weapon that jams or breaks can't fire any rounds per minute, and one where the barrel overheats and deforms becomes useless until replaced.  These things aren't academic - they actually happen.   So the more relevant measure for rate of fire is a weapon's sustained rate - which is how fast the weapon can fire for prolonged periods without failure.

 

And honestly, that kind of rate of fire isn't necessary to do the job.  If you have to fire that many rounds over that kind of time at a single target to do the job, you are certainly using the wrong weapon for the task!  Maybe instead of using that lower-caliber, higher rate of fire minigun, perhaps you want a higher-caliber heavy machine gun? And thus we arrive at the practical answer to the initial question.

 

You just need to make sure you have the right tool for the job.  Use the heavy bolter for its intended purpose, and leave the assault cannon to its own.

[Panzer]

Good post, except for your last sentence.

The point of this thread is that both weapons have the same purpose on the board but the Assault Cannon is doing it way better <25“. ^^

[Stoic Raptor]

Right - and as I said at the beginning, at ranges of 25"-36", the heavy bolter is the right tool for the job.  I'd go so far as to day that if you're letting your enemy get withing 24" before killing him, you're going to have bigger issues than heavy weapons.  And a reminder that if you're in range to fire that assault cannon, every boltgun-equivalent in your opponent's army can fire at you too.

 

I don't dispute that the profile of the assault cannon is better all-around at 24" or less.  I love assault cannons, and always have since they first showed up in Space Hulk.  Still, there may be some times where the HB is preferable anyhow - it's less expensive (half the cost) and can be carried by a less expensive trooper.  You can get two Tactical Marines with Heavy Bolters for the price of one Terminator with an Assault Cannon.

 

When we start comparing an assault cannon to a pair of heavy bolters, it 's not so clear-cut.

[Panzer]

Dunno 24“ for an anti-infantry weapon is plenty unless your opponent is playing a strict gunline and ignores all objectives except for wiping you.

I play an army with mostly 18“ shooting and even there I usually get into range of the targets I want to kill, 24“ would be a no-brainer. With decent LoS blocking terrain there's not that much diffetence between 24“ and 36“ tho I admit that at 36“ you can just threaten basically anything that dares to step into your LoS wherever it might be.

It's more a weapon against stationary heavy weapon teams like Devastators who like to hang back, but 24“ is plenty for everything else.

[Deathwalker]

Right - and as I said at the beginning, at ranges of 25"-36", the heavy bolter is the right tool for the job.  I'd go so far as to day that if you're letting your enemy get withing 24" before killing him, you're going to have bigger issues than heavy weapons.  And a reminder that if you're in range to fire that assault cannon, every boltgun-equivalent in your opponent's army can fire at you too.

 

I don't dispute that the profile of the assault cannon is better all-around at 24" or less.  I love assault cannons, and always have since they first showed up in Space Hulk.  Still, there may be some times where the HB is preferable anyhow - it's less expensive (half the cost) and can be carried by a less expensive trooper.  You can get two Tactical Marines with Heavy Bolters for the price of one Terminator with an Assault Cannon.

 

When we start comparing an assault cannon to a pair of heavy bolters, it 's not so clear-cut.

Actually you would need 10  tacs to get 2 HB, better off with devs :P

What You said about range is entirely accurate, but look what tends to have assault cannons. Tanks and Deep striking terminators that -will- be in range, 2 options that really don't worry that much about massed normal bolter fire.

 

I too like both weapons, but I just don't think the A-C should be the weapon that can wound anything on a 5+, and a heavy bolter cannot.

[Panzer]

But the Heavy Bolter does wound everything on at least 5+. I know of no unit with T10.

[Volt]

 

 

I honestly don't mean this to sound insulting, but I get the impression that all of your knowledge of military firearms is purely theoretical.

Your first claim about modern rounds having "objectively" worse stopping power is incorrect - because first of all, stopping power isn't all about caliber.  It's about energy, wound channel and penetration.  Modern rounds have better muzzle energy, and bullet technology has yielded rounds designed not to overpenetrate and to create a larger wound channel.  And that's just the anti-personnel ammunition.

I'm familiar with the stuff I've handled, which is primarily from the 6.5mm level down, and historical information. Historical weapons are more powerful because (while what they might lack in armor penetration), they often make up for with freakish caliber sizes, gouging huge holes in people, and depending on the shape of the round taking particulates of clothing into the wound channel and causing an infection. Muskets for example were fiendishly lethal not just because of historical substandard medical qualities, but also because a ball fired out of an arquebus/musket will completely shred bone courtesy of its half and inch or greater diameter, while deforming into a flattened lump of lead/fragmenting. And secondly no, modern rounds do not have comparable energy to historical ones used in weapons from the early 20th century such as the Mosin Nagant or Springfield 1903 due to them firing much larger bullets with a lot more powder, even if that powder was of substandard quality. 5.56x45mm NATO only has ~1.7 Kilojoules of energy, while 30-06 and 7.62x54r have around 3 kilojoules of energy. They're honking big bullets and will just blow clean through you and destroy whatever organ they hit.

 

 

 

Interesting that you should mention "differences in caliber", however.  Do you know why modern infantry rifles use a smaller caliber than early 20th Century ones?  It's precisely because a higher caliber isn't necessary to take down personnel - largely in part due to advancement in weapons and ammunition technology.  But make no mistake, battle rifles still exist, using basically the same caliber as those earlier weapons.  A 30-06 BAR may be "more deadly" than a 5.56mm M-16, but the latter can kill you easily and "more dead" is academic.  Still, an FN-FAL or a G3 is going to be a more deadly weapon than their predecessors like the M1 or M-14 that use the exact same ammunition.

Of course, and the discussion however had nothing to do with the fact that obscene rifle calibers of the early and interwar were dialed back due to simply being impractical logistically and also being hard on the soldiers. And I'm not counting battle rifles because while some do use updated versions of the old calibers, they aren't used for the same purpose, as IIRC outside of something like the Marines, most of the squad will be carrying M4's or older M16's.

 

 

 

And your "sandblasting" remark is simply ridiculous.  That's just not how it works.  You might as well be literally sandblasting if you're firing rounds that don't have the capability to penetrate at least partially.  Just because you're firing a high volume of under-powered rounds at the same spot doesn't mean it will "erode" the armor.  You might not even make a dent... literally!

And finally, (again no disrespect intended) you are correct in stating that you have no clue how prolonged fire is possible at the stated rate.  The simple answer is - they don't.  Cyclic rate of fire is an academic measurement.  Just because a weapon "can" fire at a given rate doesn't mean it does.  As you noted, it would require an impractical amount of ammunition.  It also is very hard on the weapon itself - the faster a weapon fires, the more likely it is to jam, and even if it doesn't, overheating and other mechanical failure becomes increasingly likely.  A weapon that jams or breaks can't fire any rounds per minute, and one where the barrel overheats and deforms becomes useless until replaced.  These things aren't academic - they actually happen.   So the more relevant measure for rate of fire is a weapon's sustained rate - which is how fast the weapon can fire for prolonged periods without failure.

 

They do however. Assault Cannons are depicted as firing in extensive bursts of fire, dumping ammunition ever. They obviously do do this frequently on account of that, which leaves us with the same problems as Space Marines carrying hammerspace magazines that only run out of ammunition when it's convenient. Otherwise your typical squad of brothers would run out of ammo in the first couple minutes of deepstriking. 

[Deathwalker]

But the Heavy Bolter does wound everything on at least 5+. I know of no unit with T10.

Yet.................

[Panzer]

 

But the Heavy Bolter does wound everything on at least 5+. I know of no unit with T10.

 

Yet.................

Also no unit with T12 yet where both weapons would be wounding equally again. Impossible to predict such things. ;)

[Deathwalker]

 

 

But the Heavy Bolter does wound everything on at least 5+. I know of no unit with T10.

Yet.................

Also no unit with T12 yet where both weapons would be wounding equally again. Impossible to predict such things.

 

Well, there are fortifications with T10, but point taken as we have seen S above 10 already.

[Deathwalker]

The thread was not really designed to be about real world efficacy of the different styles of weapon, but how they are used due to stats in the game. 24" range is really a infantry sweeper, Str 6 however is sorta overpowered to perform that role, and to me does not make a great deal of sense in comparison to a weapon with a longer range.

 

I just feel that given the classifications of weapons in 8th, the Assault cannon more fits the description of a top tier assault class weapon, rather than a heavy weapon, and shouldn't have S6 in comparison to a HB with S5.

 

I mean, this thread isn't gonna change jack, and I will play the rules as they are, but it is curious to me.