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.

As the title says. I was wondering why so many people are swearing by plasma over melta. 5th, all you saw was melta. Now all you see is plasma. Why? Is there something I missed?

I think plasma is good, but also overrated. I believe the increased use of plasma guns is due to a) rapid fire weapons taking a massive boost in 6th, and b) vehicles got toned down a bit so people are less worried about taking down highly armoured vehicles and more so about highly armoured troops.

Unlike last edition, where vehicles could take insane amounts of firepower without dying, this edition vehicles are fairly easy to kill. You took tons of meltaguns because they were fairly reliable at killing vehicles, unlike things like plasma/lascannons/etc.

Now though, with the ability to glance things to death, weapons like plasma and autocannons are far more flexible, allowing them to fill more roles. Add in that you're seeing a lot more infantry, especially of the MEQ/TEQ variety, and you'll see why plasma is getting popular.

However, I still tend to take melta over plasma. With IG, having weapons that kill your guys within the first few turns is pretty annoying.

And because who doesnt love a blast template that wounds on twos, and doesnt allow saves?
Its because, Like melta, it will most likely wound on two againts infantry, BUT!!!!! it has a longer range, and can be fired more then once a turn.

Meltas were seen a lot in 5th because 5th was very much a Tank-game. You needed a plethora of Meltas to get rid of enemy armor. Now it's not needed that much any more because you can Glance a tank to death, making them more easy to kill without Melta-spam.

Plasma got a boost from the changes to Rapid Fire, though both weapons are still quite viable. It really depends on what you want the squad to do.

I usually take around a 1:1 ratio of melta to plasma. Or sometimes if points are tight, or its a low point game, a 2:1 ratio.

There are a number of reasons that more people are taking plasma over melta. One of those reasons is that, with the introduction of hull points, it is often easier to try to glance a low AV vehicle to death than to go for 1 fatal penetration, so as a result people are taking the weapon with more shots and a better range. There is also the fact that, due to the changes to power weapons, models with a 2+ save are now much harder to deal with, as most armies can only get through their armour in close combat and at initiative 1. The idea is that by taking more AP2 shots, it will counteract the durability of terminator equivalents. Another factor is, that as already mentioned, many peoples gut reaction to 6th was that non-flying vehicles were dead, so switched to plasma as a means of addressing durable infantry.

I'd just note that my own personal belief is that, generally speaking, melta offers more to any given army than plasma, mainly due to the fact that being able to kill vehicles reliably is still important. However, plasma does have it's merits, and the decision is ultimately yours to make.

The only thing that changed is that people who mindlessly parrot the same "netlists" and don't actually understand WHY "melta is better than plasma" have gone from 100% melta to 100% plasma. For the rest of us plasma was still awesome in 5th, and melta is still awesome in 6th. The ideal balance between the two may have shifted a bit in favor of plasma with the decline of vehicles, but both weapons have always been something you want to have.

MrMoustaffa wrote:the ability to glance things to death.

/thread

The only thing people are missing with a glut of plasma is that melta lost literally none of its potency from 5th, while actually becoming slightly stronger due to the glancing rule as well.

I'm sorry what has changed with rapid fire? Or are people simply referring to snap fire? Because I have the rule book sitting right here in front of me and I see no difference between 6th ed and 5th ed rapid fire



This thread has also missed the fact that with the recent nerfs to power weapons, plasma is now much more useful in the terminator hunting department.

In 5th edition, if you moved, you lost the 24" shot.

I though you could move and shoot but not assualt with rapid fire.

If you rapid fire, you can't assault. By doing that, you can dish out quite a bit of punishment and spare yourself Overwatch fire.

Snap fire also means that plasma has gained... So lets get out of a rhino with 10 grey hunters. 8 bolters and 2 melta shots... then you get charged and counterattack hopefully works. That is 5th edition... Now 10 grey hunters... 16 bolter shots and 4 plasma shots. Now they charge and take 16 bolter and 4 plasma snapfires... then the counterattack. AP2 means even terminators don't like taking the hit so it is good. S7 means they can still take down AV11 or 12 vehicles so not too bad. Of course the downside is gets hot and not auto kill on vehicles.

I think plasma is king in 6th edition but -unless following a theme - a mix is the smarter way to go.

Just to clarify, there are two notable changes with rapid fire from 5th to 6th. The first is that in 5th, you could only fire at maximum range with a Rapid Fire weapon if you did not move. Now, you can fire the full distance even if you moved, meaning that most rapid fire units are significantly more mobile and more able to output high volumes of fire. The second change is that now instead of the Rapid Fire distance (the distance you get to fire two shots instead of one) is now equal to half of the weapon's maximum range, not a constant 12". This doesn't effect most RF weapons, the only army I can think of that it impacts is Tau, as they can now end their move 15" away from the enemy and still fire two shots at them (standard infantry have less than a 28% chance of making a charge of 9" or more, or that fire warriors are now able to rapid fire at a unit with about a 1 in 4 chance of being successfully assaulted, instead of under the old rules where they could always be charged if they shot twice)

 vyndetta85 wrote:
As the title says. I was wondering why so many people are swearing by plasma over melta. 5th, all you saw was melta. Now all you see is plasma. Why? Is there something I missed?

In 5th, vehicles actually took some effort to kill, and lots of things had 4+ cover saves. This means plasma wasn't particularly effective against vehicles, and lost a lot of its effectiveness due to prevalent 4+ cover. Now in 6th, vehicles are hilariously easy to kill, plasma guns are highly effective against light and medium vehicles, and cover is less useful and thus when engaging infantry plasma is significantly more useful. Additionally, changes to assault rules and Rapid Fire means the Assault quality of the melta is relatively less useful while the Plasma gun is useful in a greater variety of circumstances, particularly when mobile.

My land raiders will be quite happy if the meta goes 100 percent plasma.

Kevlar wrote:
My land raiders will be quite happy if the meta goes 100 percent plasma.

I assume the non-deepstriking/podding options are looking to plasma. Those options that can get in reliably close will still enjoy having plasma on hand.
That... and Vendettas still exist...and Necrons :p