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.

Since 5ed seemed to have killed the prevalent plasma weapons. My proposed rule alteration here is to keep the plasma weapons pretty much the same (yes this includes the get's hot rule as well) but make them ignore cover saves. I mean it is a superheated ball of energy so it makes since in a way

DakkaDakka wrote:

Exactly, currently the "Special Weapons" all ahve specific roles for eg

Flamer = anti light infantry/ anti cover
Plasma = anti termie or marines
Melta = anti tank

there is no need to change this, they are fine currently.

I think plasma weapons are fine the way they are.

S7 AP 2 is as good as it gets.

IMO, what you need to do is make cover saves worse, for everything, not just plasma.

I'd like to see about half the terrain give a 5+ save, 1/4 of it give a 4+ save, and 1/4 of it give a 6+ save. I think it's pretty silly how little terrain rules 40K has, especially compared to Fantasy.

Plasma is awesome, it's cover that sucks; which is most likely why you suggested ignoring cover.

-Matt

His point was that the specific niche of ignoring heavy armour saves is being invalidated by how easy it is to get an almost a useful cover save.

That being said, I don't agree with changing it, especially not to what you suggest. My suggestion would simply be to make it an assault weapon like the other special weapons are, as I feel that is another inherent weakness compared to melta guns and flamers. Assault 2 with a 24" range would make them far more attractive (though possibly too good), perhaps a dual profile "Assault 2 12" OR Assault 1 24". Seems clunky though.

Plasma rules wise is good as it stands.

The issue in 5th ed is that the points cost is generally too high for the role it fills.
Meltas have increased importance in 5th because of the +1 mod on the Vehicle Damage Chart.
Flamers properly are cheap and fulfill their pest control job well for the cost.

My only issue is that a CSM or SM with a Plasma gun costs more than a sternguard who can almost equally perform the role of the plasma gun albeit never at the same strength level. Add to it the Gets Hot rule and the premium for a plasma gun is unjustifiable IMO.

If I want AT, the melta fits the role by far better even at 12". So that role is really nothing more than desparation for PG. So the only thing it fills is MEQ killing and at an extended range and that only if I accept the death-by-my-own-weapon possiblity. So only if I am putting on a FNP unit (nurgle marine, Blood Angel w Sanguinary, Cmd squad SM) would I consider it today.

All of this to say - its cost should not be where it is nor should it be as cheap as a flamer. Make it the same as a melta though would be a good compromise for me.

HawaiiMatt wrote:IMO, what you need to do is make cover saves worse, for everything, not just plasma.

I'd like to see about half the terrain give a 5+ save, 1/4 of it give a 4+ save, and 1/4 of it give a 6+ save. I think it's pretty silly how little terrain rules 40K has, especially compared to Fantasy.

Plasma is awesome, it's cover that sucks; which is most likely why you suggested ignoring cover.

-Matt

yes this is exactly why i suggested it

I agree that plasma guns are fine the way they are.

That said, I do like the idea of plasma guns ignoring cover. Of course, they can't get twice as good without something to balance it out on the other side.

I'd imagine a plasma gun that costs 10 points apiece, S7, AP2, ignores cover, except on a roll of a 1 or a 2, the gun overheats and kills its user. No saves of any kind may be made against the point-blank plasma blast - the model is simply removed from play.

They already ignore FNP and wound on a 2+ to anything non-MC and you want them to ignore cover? No, just no. Cover is what gives enemies even a remote chance of not getting insta-gibbed by plasma weapons. Be happy you even have the option of taking something as powerful as that. I think a 50/50 chance of surviving devastating weapons is fair enough since you too can take advantage of it (this is factoring the most common types of terrain used as cover equating to a 4+ save). Also remember that giving it a rule to "ignore cover" would screw fast vehicles and bikes. It doesn't make sense in that respect though as I am guessing (as stated earlier) that you're probably upset about someone being parked behind a wall and getting a cover save, not because a vehicle or unit moved flat out and got a cover save from that.

We could go the route that since gauss weapons are matter deconstruction weapons that they too should ignore cover since they would just go through it anyway.

But no.

I'd just reduce the cost of plasma weapons in general, the way they work is fine.

Fine FINE the danm things explode in your face if they go wrong.

yeah, in this itteration they are always more expensive than a melta gun but meltaguns are about equal in utility so everyone takes metal.

shame too because plasmas look soo much cooler.

Plasma weapons are just as useful as before, it's mostly that you can't spam five man lasplas squads anymore.

It would indeed make plasma weapons better.

But it is not needed at the present time.

black templar wrote:Fine FINE the danm things explode in your face if they go wrong.

Not for Tau
That said I think this nonsense about ignoreing cover is rediculous. The way plasma has been defined in the fluff it would scorch earth but not melt it, and the principle behind a 4+ cover save is you have a 50/50 chance of basically the shooter missing because there is less of you exposed. As those of you who shoot guns have experienced fireing at a target the size of a cantaloup while running and getting shot at is very difficult, and considering that short of MC's and vehicles that and maybe a gun would be all that's really showing over 4+ cover you can get why it's there. Plasma guns already ignore cover, if they're cannons. So don't go OPing something that's not broken. They're already able to kill light vehicles, MC's, Termies, and MEQs, so of course the imperial brand would be a little unstable. The ONLY issue with them is the cost, considering they cost as much as a power weapon for marines (I lack the guard codex so I don't recall exactly the price. Considering guardsmen are 5 points though I think they would be overcosted...) and they cost almost as much as a crisis suit for us tau. So I think a 25% drop in price would make it soooooo much better...like 10 points, maybe 15 for suits...and if stealth suits could take them they'd finally be useful!

Power weapons for guardsmen are ten points, which is WAY overcosted. Ten points would be fine for Sisters who actually have infantry with WS4/I4 (celestians and seraphim), but it's too much for Guard, whom are all WS3/I3.

Must be nice having that option to take them.

dbsamurai wrote:Plasma guns already ignore cover, if they're cannons.

Plasma Cannons ignore cover as much as battle cannons do, i.e. not at all.

Um, no. That would make them massively overpowered.