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.

 Psienesis wrote:
The FFG ranges for most of their weapons follow RPG statistics (that is "how can we make this work on a map scaled for a gaming table?") rather than anything approaching realistic ballistic patterns.

They also get weird in that non-weapon tools, like plasma cutters, are more-easily acquired than the superior melta versions. If plasma is so very rare, why is it more common in a cutting torch than a melta-cutter?

Probably because I can go out and buy a plasma cutter right now (although the method of operation is totally different), whereas meltaguns are basically magic. On the other hand, the magic involved with plasma guns is whatever technobabble keeps the "bolt" confined as a coherent thing. Otherwise what you get is essentially a hot fart.

Melta is a universal special rule that applies to various different types of weapons in 40K.

The Imperial meltagun seems to be a kind of super-flame thrower that shoots a very focussed jet of heat. Perhaps more like a long-range welding torch than a plasma beam.

The Tau fusion gun also has Melta, and it fires fusion beams, which basically is very hot plasma that is still fusing.

Don't expect all this to make any sense because in terms of science it doesn't. Obviously a beam of fusing or non-fusing plasma would expand very rapidly in real life, thus cooling down, unless it was compressed inside a magnetic containment field. Generating and projecting this field from the gun to the target would be a huge engineering problem.

 Gashrog wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Otherwise plasma rifles in 40k wouldn't be superior to those in the Great Crusade.

Er.. they aren't?

The Plasma *Rifle* is a Tau weapon.

Plasma *Guns* used by the Imperium are the same now as they were then. The Plasma Weaponry section of the Crusade army list actually says: "such technology was far better understood during the dawning age of the Imperium"

Imperial Plasma weaponry was stated to be more advanced* in 2nd edition, but that ceased to apply when 3rd edition came about and GW retconned the more advanced weaponry out of existence and made the 2nd edition 'Mk1 Plasma' the standard still used by the Imperium.

* in the sense that it didn't explode, at the cost of cutting the rate of fire by half.

Yessir. It's the reason why 30k has all kinds of weird and wonderful plasma weapons.

I am also fairly sure plasma guns are more rare than meltaguns. Plasma guns have been described as very rare whereas meltaguns have not been.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, the maximum range for most weapons is 4x the stated range (IIRC) so a 250m range is 1k.

Twice the listed range (pg 127, Dark Heresy). So the lasgun, with a listed range of 100m, has a maximum range of 200m. The M-16 I carried in the Army has better range than that!

Edit: The 4x range is the "extreme" range, which means that you're throwing ammo downrange and hoping to get lucky and hit, rather than having any sort of accuracy to the attack.

Wow, I forgot it was that bad.

 McNinja wrote:
I always pictured meltaguns as having literal fusion reactors inside them, and when the trigger is pulled it simply opens the vent, allowing the sun-like temperatures to escape.

in short, melta>plasma

plasma is several thousand degrees C (~10k degrees F)
melta is about 15 million degrees C.

I thought they both use miniaturized fusion reactor??

in stupidly simple terms (if i'm not mistaken) Melta shoots "lava" and plasma shoots "stars/lightning"

keithktam wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
I always pictured meltaguns as having literal fusion reactors inside them, and when the trigger is pulled it simply opens the vent, allowing the sun-like temperatures to escape.

in short, melta>plasma

plasma is several thousand degrees C (~10k degrees F)
melta is about 15 million degrees C.

I thought they both use miniaturized fusion reactor??

Yea, they both use miniaturized fusion reactors.

The main difference here is that melta weapons are more 'sustained' whereas the plasma gun releases its energy in one big uncontrollable burst (described as a "mini solar flare"). So I'd imagine the temperatures are in a similar range.

And of course, as others have described, the way of projecting the heat differs, with the melta weapon agitating the air in the immediate vicinity of the weapon, and with the plasma weapon using magnetic fields to project it a distance.

As for power, I'd say the plasma weapon does more immediate damage, while the melta weapon can sustain and concentrate its power for longer (and is therefore good at cutting through armour).

 Brennonjw wrote:
in stupidly simple terms (if i'm not mistaken) Melta shoots "lava" and plasma shoots "stars/lightning"

You are mistaken. Melta shoots pure heat - the beam itself is invisible apart from a slight shimmer.

That's another difference between the two.

The melta is a beam weapon, theoretically (though not reflected on the tabletop) capable of affecting all available targets between the muzzle and the terminating point of the beam. Stack enough bodies/vehicles/whatevers between Points A and B and you could melt them all into steaming goo.

Plasma weapons lob a ballistic projectile that explodes when it hits something.

 EngulfedObject wrote:

keithktam wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
I always pictured meltaguns as having literal fusion reactors inside them, and when the trigger is pulled it simply opens the vent, allowing the sun-like temperatures to escape.

in short, melta>plasma

plasma is several thousand degrees C (~10k degrees F)
melta is about 15 million degrees C.

I thought they both use miniaturized fusion reactor??

Yea, they both use miniaturized fusion reactors.

The main difference here is that melta weapons are more 'sustained' whereas the plasma gun releases its energy in one big uncontrollable burst (described as a "mini solar flare"). So I'd imagine the temperatures are in a similar range.

And of course, as others have described, the way of projecting the heat differs, with the melta weapon agitating the air in the immediate vicinity of the weapon, and with the plasma weapon using magnetic fields to project it a distance.

As for power, I'd say the plasma weapon does more immediate damage, while the melta weapon can sustain and concentrate its power for longer (and is therefore good at cutting through armour).

 Psienesis wrote:
That's another difference between the two.

The melta is a beam weapon, theoretically (though not reflected on the tabletop) capable of affecting all available targets between the muzzle and the terminating point of the beam. Stack enough bodies/vehicles/whatevers between Points A and B and you could melt them all into steaming goo.

Plasma weapons lob a ballistic projectile that explodes when it hits something.

thanks for clearing that up for me

keithktam wrote:
thanks for clearing that up for me

My pleasure. Was hoping to make sense of it as I was getting confused as well.