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.

So looking through modern armies it seems that everyone is taking as many meltaguns as they can an rarely bothers with plasma guns or pistols. Similarly you dont see many plasma cannons but there are a lot of multimeltas running around.

It makes sense, it boils down to:
Melta kills tanks
Melta is Str8 ID T4
Melta is cheaper
Where as plasma can potentially have more kills with more shots or potentially have more range. Doesnt really seem worth the +5 points.

So here is my suggestion:
Make all plasma weapons str 8
make all melta weapons str 7
leave everything else the same.

So melta would still kill tanks, still be cheaper, but would no longer cause ID to marines, nobz, nid warriros. Melta would still kill tanks within half range but would have a little more trouble outside its sweet spot. Melta would lose some of its punch against MC, needing 3s or 4s instead of 2s or 3s to wound.

Plasma would become better against low AV, better against infantry as it would now ID T4 and better against MC as it would wound them easier.


My point is not that melta weapons are OP, just kind of boring. They are taken in ALL circumstances. You see an enemy squad and ask yourself, what kind of special weapon are they carrying, should I ask, no DUH its a meltagun. I think there should be some choice in the game between killing infantry and killing tanks instead of duh just ALWAYS take this one.

other varients of plasma would also get the +1 str. like eldar star cannons would become str 7. DE disintigrators would be str6.
Maybe make the change in the 6th edition rulebook and then cost every new codex accordingly.

This is interesting, really. Although I don't know about raising plasma to Str 8, knocking melta down to Str 7 would definitely do the trick. Look at the DE heat lance for an example of an interesting melta implementation. Still deadly to enemy armor up close, but not a must-take. Plasma in my opinion is fine as it is, it just needs a points reduction.

The other option is to simply lower the cost on plasma weapons and also raise it on meltaguns, but even then I don't see people taking plasma much more often than they do now.

Plasma

Assault 2.

Sup.

No, I think keeping plasma guns as rapid fire weapons is pretty critical to giving them a distinct role as a fire support weapon rather than a suicide in-your-face weapon or a high-power stormbolter. They do, and should, have more in common with the lasguns/bolters and heavy weapons in the unit. They have synergy with those that meltaguns lack, and I like that. They just need to cost a little less, or else have a low power setting that won't kill you when you try to shoot it, and they'd be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to my previous post, I'd go for something like this:

Plasmagun:
High power - Range 24" S7 AP2 Rapid Fire, Gets Hot!
Low Power - Range 24" S6 AP3 Rapid Fire

The ability to trade off your effectiveness against TEQs and vehicles in order to not kill yourself in the process makes that a weapon worth 15 points.

The plasma loses charge due to the inverse square law. Since there's less electromagnetic interference from nearby plasma discharge, firing it at farther targets is much safer.

1-6" S8 AP1, Rapidfire, Gets Hot!

7-12" S7 AP2, Rapidfire, Gets Hot!

13-18" S6 AP3, Assault 2

19-24" S5 AP5, Assault 2

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:No, I think keeping plasma guns as rapid fire weapons is pretty critical to giving them a distinct role as a fire support weapon rather than a suicide in-your-face weapon or a high-power stormbolter. They do, and should, have more in common with the lasguns/bolters and heavy weapons in the unit. They have synergy with those that meltaguns lack, and I like that. They just need to cost a little less, or else have a low power setting that won't kill you when you try to shoot it, and they'd be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to my previous post, I'd go for something like this:

Plasmagun:
High power - Range 24" S7 AP2 Rapid Fire, Gets Hot!
Low Power - Range 24" S6 AP3 Rapid Fire

The ability to trade off your effectiveness against TEQs and vehicles in order to not kill yourself in the process makes that a weapon worth 15 points.

I love this idea, the strength of low power seems a little high, but it would feel wrong to lower it.

Edit: Maybe lower low power to strength 5, since currently the only time not to use it is to kill TEQs and light vehicles.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:No, I think keeping plasma guns as rapid fire weapons is pretty critical to giving them a distinct role as a fire support weapon rather than a suicide in-your-face weapon or a high-power stormbolter. They do, and should, have more in common with the lasguns/bolters and heavy weapons in the unit. They have synergy with those that meltaguns lack, and I like that. They just need to cost a little less, or else have a low power setting that won't kill you when you try to shoot it, and they'd be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to my previous post, I'd go for something like this:

Plasmagun:
High power - Range 24" S7 AP2 Rapid Fire, Gets Hot!
Low Power - Range 24" S6 AP3 Rapid Fire

The ability to trade off your effectiveness against TEQs and vehicles in order to not kill yourself in the process makes that a weapon worth 15 points.

My god I love it. I hate the current Gets Hot! rule

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:This is interesting, really. Although I don't know about raising plasma to Str 8, knocking melta down to Str 7 would definitely do the trick. Look at the DE heat lance for an example of an interesting melta implementation. Still deadly to enemy armor up close, but not a must-take. Plasma in my opinion is fine as it is, it just needs a points reduction.

That was kind of what I was looking for. Melta would still be good, perhaps still better than plasma against low AV( Str7AP1 compared to Str8AP2, ill take the AP1) but it wouldnt be better against everything.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
The other option is to simply lower the cost on plasma weapons and also raise it on meltaguns, but even then I don't see people taking plasma much more often than they do now.

they changed the cost of DE weapons in this dex. Blasters use to be 5 points, now 15 points. Shredders use to be 10 points now 5 points. They increased the range of both from 12" to 18" Guess what, after raising the price of blasters relative to shredders by 15 points, no one takes shredders. Like melta/plasma its stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chrisrawr wrote:Plasma

Assault 2.

Sup.

but then plasma cannons and pistols still suck.

Hey look, im a plasma cannon, im only worth it if you have a Lash prince and come on an oblitorator who can use other weapons.

I actually use 2 plasma cannons in my 1750 marine list. One in a tactical squad, the other on a dreadnought with a DCCW & Heavy Flamer. The problem with spamming melta (for marines anyways) means you have an inability to deal with the contents of transports once you've killed them.

You nuke the vehicle but have no way of dealing with the contents. Throwing out the occasional Str 7 Ap2 blast is amazing against anything with a 2+/3+ armour save, or even stuff like wyches in cover with FNP. With melta you'll maybe kill 1 model, but you can guarantee that shot will allocated to remove as many wounds as possible.

Plus my dreadnought loves deepstrikers, nice condensed shape for me to kill, yes please :-D

Tau Plasma Rifles are 24 inch St 6 AP 2 Raid Fire but no Get's Hot incidentally. About akin to that 'low powered' plasma setting proposed by CPH.


As a Tau player I may kick myself for saying this, but if you add a +1 to all Plasma type weapons, Tau Pulse Rifles and Pulse Carbines are considered Plasma weapons (to the point at which they are affected by the Plasma Siphon). So this would mean that the Tau basic troop weapon would suddenly elevate to St 6. That s too strong.


St 8 was chosen for most (not all, there are some variations) Melta type weapons for a specific reason. They are supposed to be anti-tank weapons. St 8 is the minimum amount that has the chance to damage any and every tank it encounters.

So yes, an Anti-Tank weapon should ID virtually every non-monsterous creature model it encounters. If you don't expect the toughest guy in the world to survive a bazooka shell detonating against his chest, you shouldn't expect a mairine or similar to survive a meltagun to the chest either.

St 7 for Plasma also makes sense to me. Not quite an anti-tank weapon in power, but more than strong enough to wreck light vehicles and ruin the day of anyone in the line of fire. Something equivalent to a light cannon or a heavy machinegun round.

If I wanted to change things around, my thought would be the Meltagun, which generates an intense enough blast to go through the heaviest armour in the game should be the one that has the Gets Hot! limitation, not Plasma.

I think the issue is not the weapons but with meta. More tanks on the field means more anti-tank needed. If we had more feet on the ground, then you'd want more plasma. Maybe making plasma cheaper would help. But, I think the real issue is balancing out the role of tanks in 40K. I mean, 35 points for a rhino? How is that even a tactical decision? My dudes now move 12" and cannot be shot? Why in the name of the Dark Gods would you not spend the chump change for it?

One thing about melta I thought was funny that the rules don't reflect from the fluff is that Melta is described as being so hot it can literally kill everyone in the room. They'll either be cooked or sufficate from the loss of air. It would be funny to see a rule for using melta in buildins does like, d6 wounds. Broken for sure, but hey its the fluff

If you want to fix the imbalance of vehicles in the metagame, you don't even have to change the points cost on anything. Just make it more dangerous to put your infantry in a transport:

- Passengers disembarking from a Stunned or Immobilized vehicle are Pinned on a 4+
- Passengers are automatically Pinned when they exit a Destroyed vehicle, and each passenger takes a wound on a 4+, normal armor saves allowed.
- All passengers are automatically removed from play when a vehicle suffers Destroyed - Explodes!

More realistic, in my opinion, and this would definitely put a damper on mech spam. Transports should provide increased mobility and protection from anti-infantry weapons, but good luck if you're caught in one when it takes anti-tank fire.

Jefffar wrote:Tau Plasma Rifles are 24 inch St 6 AP 2 Raid Fire but no Get's Hot incidentally. About akin to that 'low powered' plasma setting proposed by CPH.
As a Tau player I may kick myself for saying this, but if you add a +1 to all Plasma type weapons, Tau Pulse Rifles and Pulse Carbines are considered Plasma weapons (to the point at which they are affected by the Plasma Siphon). So this would mean that the Tau basic troop weapon would suddenly elevate to St 6. That s too strong.

I was only considering extending the +1Str to Plasma Rifles, not pulse weapons. Things with AP2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
St 8 was chosen for most (not all, there are some variations) Melta type weapons for a specific reason. They are supposed to be anti-tank weapons. St 8 is the minimum amount that has the chance to damage any and every tank it encounters.

So yes, an Anti-Tank weapon should ID virtually every non-monsterous creature model it encounters. If you don't expect the toughest guy in the world to survive a bazooka shell detonating against his chest, you shouldn't expect a mairine or similar to survive a meltagun to the chest either.

AutoCannons are anti tank weapons that cannot scratch landraiders. Krak Grenades are anti tank as well and only str6. With melta's 2d6 for armor penetration they can pen anything in the game, even if they were Str 5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
If I wanted to change things around, my thought would be the Meltagun, which generates an intense enough blast to go through the heaviest armour in the game should be the one that has the Gets Hot! limitation, not Plasma.

Maybe, but it would make melta even more suicidal than it currently is. I seem to think it would not change much.

Auto-cannons are not anti-tank weapons, they are anti-vehicle weapons. GWs weird usage of the term tank doesn't change this.

Jefffar wrote:Auto-cannons are not anti-tank weapons, they are anti-vehicle weapons. GWs weird usage of the term tank doesn't change this.

they certainly aren't anti infantry weapons. I guess you can split hairs about what a tank is if you want.

My fix idea in necroquisitor is to make melta half strength at over half range while retaining the 2d6 penetration, which I find still allows good antitank but limits anti infantry and being generally fluffy. I also returned plasma to high/low power firing and included a I test in the gets hot! rule to represent a chance to drop the weapon and avoid damage.
I would agree that 5th Ed. transport rules need to be tweeked, although, CPH, I think your changes might swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. I think making firing from the hatch cause open topped again would be a big step in the right direction. Perhaps also wrecked results should cause S4 hits on passengers and destroyed results cause an automatic wound on each model.

Put simply, I quite like this idea.

I've not looked too much into how it could change things within a much larger perspective, but it would certainly make Plasma worth taking whilst keeping Melta viable.

HOWEVER, I don't think it makes Plasma any more viable against the ordinary bloke, which is a problem IMHO. Assault 2 doesn't really change this either, nor does the variable fire-modes.

I think the Strength-swap would improve the usability of Plasma whilst keeping Melta viable, however it makes Plasma better against tanks which isn't really its intended purpose.

I think with variable fire modes, Melta is still the go-to choice.
I think with a strength-swap, both are good choices, but Plasma fills a role that fluff may suggest it shouldn't.

Therefore, I suspect a simple points drop may be the best way to improve plasma weapons.

Considering melta is basically shooting the sun at somebody i find its str.8 reasonable.

Plasma just needs a point drop- both have fine rules ATM.

Making vehicles death boxes is a bad idea. Right now vehicles are necessary for mobility and offer alot of protection. They also usually make decent weapons platforms. Making them deadlier on blowup doesn't really address these problems as armies would still have to stack AT to get the effect.

Part of the problem is table setup. If you don't use lots of big, LOS blocking terrain that can cover vehicles, but do use more low obstacles (that can cover and conceal infantry) and difficult terrain, infantry starts to get much more viable. Basically, vehicles love tables with wide open fire and movement lanes with some big cover.

Also, alot of things should be difficult to vehicles and not to infantry such as non-street urban terrain where the weight of a tank can collapse sections over a pipe, basement, etc. Heck, even mud fields can be a real problem..

I don't like too many special rules. In fact, I hate Gets Hot! too. ~60% of my casualties are from Gets Hot! and it's really irritating.
I like S7 AP3. If you want to kill terminators, take anti-tank (melta, lascannon).

Just Dave wrote:Put simply, I quite like this idea.

I've not looked too much into how it could change things within a much larger perspective, but it would certainly make Plasma worth taking whilst keeping Melta viable.

HOWEVER, I don't think it makes Plasma any more viable against the ordinary bloke, which is a problem IMHO. Assault 2 doesn't really change this either, nor does the variable fire-modes.

I think the Strength-swap would improve the usability of Plasma whilst keeping Melta viable, however it makes Plasma better against tanks which isn't really its intended purpose.

I think with variable fire modes, Melta is still the go-to choice.
I think with a strength-swap, both are good choices, but Plasma fills a role that fluff may suggest it shouldn't.

Therefore, I suspect a simple points drop may be the best way to improve plasma weapons.

Thanks for the quasi support. I understand it would make plasma a tad better against light tanks. It wouldn't make it any better against ordinary blokes but I think you rarely take it for ordinary blokes. so many of the things plasma is supposed to counter, paladins, MANz, Oblitorators, 'Nid Warriors have 2 wounds making melta better against them, which it shouldnt.

I do see a point adjustment coming, most likely melta and plasma switching point costs instead of strengths. I dont think this will change much, except how much people pay for their melta vets.

Exergy wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Put simply, I quite like this idea.

I've not looked too much into how it could change things within a much larger perspective, but it would certainly make Plasma worth taking whilst keeping Melta viable.

HOWEVER, I don't think it makes Plasma any more viable against the ordinary bloke, which is a problem IMHO. Assault 2 doesn't really change this either, nor does the variable fire-modes.

I think the Strength-swap would improve the usability of Plasma whilst keeping Melta viable, however it makes Plasma better against tanks which isn't really its intended purpose.

I think with variable fire modes, Melta is still the go-to choice.
I think with a strength-swap, both are good choices, but Plasma fills a role that fluff may suggest it shouldn't.

Therefore, I suspect a simple points drop may be the best way to improve plasma weapons.

Thanks for the quasi support. I understand it would make plasma a tad better against light tanks. It wouldn't make it any better against ordinary blokes but I think you rarely take it for ordinary blokes. so many of the things plasma is supposed to counter, paladins, MANz, Oblitorators, 'Nid Warriors have 2 wounds making melta better against them, which it shouldnt.

I do see a point adjustment coming, most likely melta and plasma switching point costs instead of strengths. I dont think this will change much, except how much people pay for their melta vets.

You could always give plasma weapons a special rule that causes instant death to anything with less than 3 or 4 wounds, or it could cause ID to any non-monstrous creatures.

Why would plasma (pistols) instant death Dreadknights, Hive Tyrants or Wraithlords? Melta weapons seem the logical choice against such monstrosities. Plasma should be the logical choice against tactical dreadnoughts, power armour of all races, and other 3+ or better save models.

Mahtamori wrote:Why would plasma (pistols) instant death Dreadknights, Hive Tyrants or Wraithlords? Melta weapons seem the logical choice against such monstrosities. Plasma should be the logical choice against tactical dreadnoughts, power armour of all races, and other 3+ or better save models.

I thought Hive Tyrants and Wraithlords were MCs.

Mahtamori wrote:Why would plasma (pistols) instant death Dreadknights, Hive Tyrants or Wraithlords? Melta weapons seem the logical choice against such monstrosities. Plasma should be the logical choice against tactical dreadnoughts, power armour of all races, and other 3+ or better save models.

melting something with intense heat might work well against metalic or even ceramic objects it might have a very different effect against biological targets. Water is incredibly difficult to heat up(takes far more energy than iron and other metals) similarly changing the size of a piece of metal, through thermal expansion, usually does massive damage to the structure the result is much different in biological systems(nearly no change).

Of course when does the game make sense? The writers clearly didn't pass highschool science and never got into higher education.