Heavy bolter Vs Assault Cannon

[Tyriks]

 

The length of an inch has changed repeatedly over the years, most recently in the 50's and 60s as everyone adopted a uniform international standard.

 

That's not entirely correct - the standards for defining the length of an inch have changed (from 1 meter = 39.37 inches, to one inch = 25.4 mm).- but the "length of an inch" itself has changed only by two millonths as a result.  In other words, you'd have to be measuring something 20km long for it to make a difference.

 

While the units of measure may have changed over the course of human history, the inherent values of the things we base them on do not.  We can hardly compare it to the inaccuracy of a timeline of historical events.

 

I'm afraid you've missed the point.  The point is that measurements do change​.  That change was not particularly significant, but it did change.  That also marked the first time that an "inch" meant the same thing around the world; before that different countries used different lengths but called them the same thing.  The definition of an inch has changed numerous times over the past millennia.  Even the meter has changed slightly several times over the 225 years since its conception.  Minor changes add up when you have 38,000 years to work with.  And when you get into older units of measurement, they have changed extremely.  Cubits got half again as big as they started in a short period of time compared to how far off the 41st millennium is.  But most of all, our measurements are now based on extremely precise machines giving reliable measurements.  Not something the Imperium is known for, is it?  

 

On top of that, the Imperium is a place that is so massive, uneducated and so thoroughly bound by bureaucracy that the smartest mind extant there doesn't know what year it is.  Each system or sector is so unreliably connected to the rest of the Imperium that there isn't any very good reason to think that any given measurement would be the same between two random Imperial worlds, much less from us to them.  

 

Now, with regards to assault cannons and heavy bolters, I do wish the HB was a little better by comparison, since it's an iconic part of the setting.  But ultimately I'd rather have a balanced game that's fun to play than something where every bit of design makes perfect real world sense.  If the profiles of Assault Cannons and Heavy Bolters got swapped at some point, as long as the game is still fun to play, I won't mind.

[Deathwalker]

I don't WANT the profiles switched, I don't want a S 6 -1 AP 6 shot heavy weapon.

I want a S5 6 shot AP-1 24" range ASSAULT weapon on ASSAULT vehicle's and troops.

I want a S6, 3 shot AP-1 36" range HEAVY weapon on static shooters, or as a extra kick to a slow moving tank.

The whole notion of DS troops or even fast tanks fails when you punish them for doing so is just frigging whack, Negative to hit because it's a heavy weapon, or 76% fail rate on charges.

It's design failure 101

[JeffJedi]

In 2nd edition the Assault Cannon had strength 8 the same as a krak missile. The weapon is less like a modern mini gun and more like a scaled down A-10 Warthog's cannon. :-)

 

Is it needed? Is a grenade that rips a hole in reality needed?

 

Yes to both.

[Mileposter]

This is why consumers don't make AAA games.

 

I think it was Gygax who said "A story game can't be balanced and a balanced game has no story". Those trying to have both will largely be disappointed.

 

And designers do make mistakes. It's almost required. It's typically how they fix them that's the measure of their worth.

[Panzer]

I don't WANT the profiles switched, I don't want a S 6 -1 AP 6 shot heavy weapon.

I want a S5 6 shot AP-1 24" range ASSAULT weapon on ASSAULT vehicle's and troops.

I want a S6, 3 shot AP-1 36" range HEAVY weapon on static shooters, or as a extra kick to a slow moving tank.

The whole notion of DS troops or even fast tanks fails when you punish them for doing so is just frigging whack, Negative to hit because it's a heavy weapon, or 76% fail rate on charges.

It's design failure 101

Let me introduce you to the Onslaught Gatling Cannon: 6 shots S5 AP-1 at 24".

 

It seems to be what you confuse the Assault cannon with based on the name of one of them. 

Just because it's called Assault cannon it doesn't mean it has the role of an assault weapon. Name != mechanic. It's a perfectly fine high-rate shooting heavy weapon (the onslaught gatling cannons are heavy as well btw).

I really don't get why it's so hard to accept that one weapon is simply better than another. It's not like that's a special case. Many weapons are better than others. That's why each weapon has seperate point values. And arguing with real world logic was never going to work out in this kind of setting.

[Quixus]

What is disappointing is that most, probably all, users of assault cannons (TDA, Baal Predator, Razorback, Stormraven etc.) no longer can shoot on the move without penalty. It is epsecially unfortunate for those platforms that are expected to shoot on the move.

[Panzer]

Yeah that's extremely annoying. I wish vehicles would ignore the Heavy penalty for moving. Or at least the dedicated weapon platform vehicles like Predators and the bigger ones like Landraider.

[Rik Lightstar]

Both StormRavens and LandRaiders ignore the Heavy Weapons when moving penalties.

 

Rik

[Panzer]

Right, forgot about the Landraider. That one is rarely on the table lol

[Quixus]

Yeah, I forgot that's how PotMS works now.

[Deathwalker]

 

I don't WANT the profiles switched, I don't want a S 6 -1 AP 6 shot heavy weapon.

I want a S5 6 shot AP-1 24" range ASSAULT weapon on ASSAULT vehicle's and troops.

I want a S6, 3 shot AP-1 36" range HEAVY weapon on static shooters, or as a extra kick to a slow moving tank.

The whole notion of DS troops or even fast tanks fails when you punish them for doing so is just frigging whack, Negative to hit because it's a heavy weapon, or 76% fail rate on charges.

It's design failure 101

Let me introduce you to the Onslaught Gatling Cannon: 6 shots S5 AP-1 at 24".

 

It seems to be what you confuse the Assault cannon with based on the name of one of them. 

Just because it's called Assault cannon it doesn't mean it has the role of an assault weapon. Name != mechanic. It's a perfectly fine high-rate shooting heavy weapon (the onslaught gatling cannons are heavy as well btw).

I really don't get why it's so hard to accept that one weapon is simply better than another. It's not like that's a special case. Many weapons are better than others. That's why each weapon has seperate point values. And arguing with real world logic was never going to work out in this kind of setting.

 

 

No, I am not confusing anything based on the name, I just used the name for emphasis, Nor is it hard to accept the rules "as is". If however we just didn't discuss rules as they were sacrosanct, well, kiss a lot of fun and useful discussions goodbye due to Marvin. (Life, don't talk to me about life)

My point was more this:

 

What is disappointing is that most, probably all, users of assault cannons (TDA, Baal Predator, Razorback, Stormraven etc.) no longer can shoot on the move without penalty. It is epsecially unfortunate for those platforms that are expected to shoot on the move.

 

 

Yeah that's extremely annoying. I wish vehicles would ignore the Heavy penalty for moving. Or at least the dedicated weapon platform vehicles like Predators and the bigger ones like Landraider.

 

That, SF is my gripe and turning a weapon primarily borne by moving (or DS) Teminators or vehicles into an assault weapon makes far more sense. People think the stats are fine, ok, fine, but if you did class it as an assault weapon you would not need rules like power of the machine spirit to counteract the negative to hit and possibly give an advantage to mixed Assault cannon with actual anti-tank weapons as well. 

[Deathwalker]

In 2nd edition the Assault Cannon had strength 8 the same as a krak missile. The weapon is less like a modern mini gun and more like a scaled down A-10 Warthog's cannon. :-)

 

Is it needed? Is a grenade that rips a hole in reality needed?

 

Yes to both.

It hasn't been that weapon for a LONG time. RT to 3rd-4th was pretty damn whack (targeting templates anyone? 16 Harlequins being a 2000 point army?)

Besides, what it was then has little bearing on what it is now.

[Panzer]

If your problem is that tanks etc. can't move&shoot with Assault Cannons without a negative to-hit modifier, then why have you been arguing so much about whether Heavy Bolter and Assault Cannons should trade their S stat? 

 

Maybe the intend behind it is actually that the high S and rate of fire gets balanced by it being a Heavy weapon with "low" range (for a Heavy weapon). I mean, against GEQ it's actually about the same. 6 shots hitting on 4s wounding on 2s is 2.5 wounds before saves (without moving it's 3.33 wounds) and 6 shots hitting on 3s wounding on 3s is 2.67 wounds before saves. 

[SickSix]

Terminators definitely need relentless again. It's dumb that they removed that in the first place.

[Deathwalker]

If your problem is that tanks etc. can't move&shoot with Assault Cannons without a negative to-hit modifier, then why have you been arguing so much about whether Heavy Bolter and Assault Cannons should trade their S stat? 

 

Maybe the intend behind it is actually that the high S and rate of fire gets balanced by it being a Heavy weapon with "low" range (for a Heavy weapon). I mean, against GEQ it's actually about the same. 6 shots hitting on 4s wounding on 2s is 2.5 wounds before saves (without moving it's 3.33 wounds) and 6 shots hitting on 3s wounding on 3s is 2.67 wounds before saves. 

 

When math hammer is representative of any game, I might agree.

As to the S swap, you are right, that was real world logic, which is why I am prepared to let it go.