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.

It's definitely not necessarily as damaging as it once was, but I still find it to be useful as a way for lower BS units to successfully pull off hits. I see it more like a shotgun than something that should be taking out large groups of guys.

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. Forgetting Gets Hot on my end. The damage output is bad. Spamming Plasma Guns would get you more results.

Plasma cannons have an additional 12" range.

2. Not really. A small blast for 15 points? I'll pass for something else. Hell, you'd be better off paying 5 extra points for Lascannons.

It's a strength 7, AP 2 small blast at 36 inch range.

If you're saying that this is bad, then my previous point bears repeating:

Other stuff needs serious nerfs.

1. And trading that extra range for always hitting on a 3+ rather than relying on scatter dice is better. It gets even better at 12" or less.
2. Or the Plasma Cannon needs some sorta buff, as I'd rather take the Plasma Gun every time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. And trading that extra range for always hitting on a 3+ rather than relying on scatter dice is better. It gets even better at 12" or less.

If you put the plasma cannons on tactical squads and take a gladius, you can reroll the blast template on two turns.

2. Or the Plasma Cannon needs some sorta buff, as I'd rather take the Plasma Gun every time.

No. No. No. No.

Enough with buffs. Enough with power creep.

Plasma Cannon would be fixed if they gave it an option to fire 2 plasma shots at 24" or the small blast at 36". Focused fire or blast. Something that would also let you fire snapshots on the move.

 jasper76 wrote:
Plasma Cannon would be fixed if they gave it an option to fire 2 plasma shots at 24" or the small blast at 36". Focused fire or blast. Something that would also let you fire snapshots on the move.

Absolutely not.

1. That would step on the toes of the plasma gun.

2. That's not what a plasma cannon is supposed to do. It is basically a small mobile artillery piece (think "really big grenade launcher" or something like that). It's not an assault weapon or a machine gun.

As I said: the plasma cannon doesn't need to be buffed. High ROF weapons need nerfs. The bases for models should remain basically what they were before. Enough is enough with these kinds of changes.

In my view the plasma gun and plasma cannon are roughly equal now for their points costs.

The plasma gun gives you mobility; the cannon gives you range.

Those weapons are mostly fine as is.

SemperMortis wrote:

SpookyRuben wrote:
Why would you stop fielding them all together Semper? I'm not seeing a downside to Nevlon's recall of an older version of the rule. In fact it's more likely to be on target.

I'm just confused by your remarks.

Because when I am trying to hit vehicles and large blobs with my KMKs I will ALWAYS hit unless i roll a 9+ with the dice and even then if its a big enough blob i'll still hit something. The dice guarantee a 1/3rd hit rate just with the "direct hit" arrows.

With the older system I would have to rely on my BS skill which for orks is TERRIBLE. Even with the grots manning the guns its only BS3 so I have a 50/50 hit rate compared to an almost guaranteed hit before. Ork artillery is probably the only highlight in an otherwise terrible codex.

Ah... you might want to re-read that post above. The situation we were talking about is first you roll to hit as normal, and if you miss then you rolled scatter dice as you do now. So you actually have two chances to hit. On as a direct BS roll, the second as the rule stands now.

The more I think about it, I rather like that method for Small Blasts. Makes them just a bit more effective.
I hope that is clearer.

Traditio wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Plasma Cannon would be fixed if they gave it an option to fire 2 plasma shots at 24" or the small blast at 36". Focused fire or blast. Something that would also let you fire snapshots on the move.

Absolutely not.

1. That would step on the toes of the plasma gun.

So what? Devastator Squads can't take Plasma Guns--they can take Plasma Cannons. They're two different weapons with two distinctive roles and, to an extent, two different platforms you would want to put them on.

2. That's not what a plasma cannon is supposed to do. It is basically a small mobile artillery piece (think "really big grenade launcher" or something like that). It's not an assault weapon or a machine gun.

Actually no. A plasma cannon is just a higher powered plasma gun. The reason it's blast has to do with the size of the projectile and the fact that it's causing splash damage. Having a secondary fire mode is not beyond the pale nor beyond belief.

As I said: the plasma cannon doesn't need to be buffed. High ROF weapons need nerfs. The bases for models should remain basically what they were before. Enough is enough with these kinds of changes.

If you asked me to pick between a missile launcher and a plasma cannon, I'd take the missile launcher every damn time. Why? Because I can control the shots if I switch to Krak(or Flakk). I can also snap fire using either of those modes--but can't with Frag or Plasma Cannons.

High ROFs weapons have no need of nerfs. What needs to happen is old weapons need to be brought up. It's a joke that a Grav-Gun puts out more shots than Boltguns or Lasguns.

In my view the plasma gun and plasma cannon are roughly equal now for their points costs.

There has never been a time where I've said "Man, I really wish I had brought a Plasma Cannon!". It's ridiculously overpriced for what it is, and Gets Hot is too much of a downside for a weapon that you cannot Overwatch or Snap Shoot with.

The plasma gun gives you mobility; the cannon gives you range.

The Plasma Gun gives you reliability, the Plasma Cannon gives you something that makes new players pause and rethink their tactics...until they see it scatter or a vehicle equipped with a Plasma Cannon blow itself up spectacularly.

Those weapons are mostly fine as is.

The Plasma Gun is fine as is. Cannons are trash.

Traditio wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Plasma Cannon would be fixed if they gave it an option to fire 2 plasma shots at 24" or the small blast at 36". Focused fire or blast. Something that would also let you fire snapshots on the move.

Absolutely not.

1. That would step on the toes of the plasma gun.

2. That's not what a plasma cannon is supposed to do. It is basically a small mobile artillery piece (think "really big grenade launcher" or something like that). It's not an assault weapon or a machine gun.

As I said: the plasma cannon doesn't need to be buffed. High ROF weapons need nerfs. The bases for models should remain basically what they were before. Enough is enough with these kinds of changes.

In my view the plasma gun and plasma cannon are roughly equal now for their points costs.

The plasma gun gives you mobility; the cannon gives you range.

Those weapons are mostly fine as is.

OK, I just won't use plasma cannons (on infantry anyways). I play Legion marines where I could take a squad of 10 and camp them out and never move, and we play with the 25mm bases, and I still don't take them not out of any special hatred, but because other options are better in general, and there are better, cheaper, less suicidal ways to get AP2 on the board.

I do like me some Plasma Guns though

 Yarium wrote:
If anything, being forced to place the centre over a model is what kills you with blasts. It'd hit more stuff if you could place it such that any part of the blast touches a model.

Totally agree & it would be a touch of realism - real life soldier would lob a grenade into their midst of an enemy squad, he deosnt try to hurl it at an individual enemies chest. Likewise RPGs are often aimed at the general location of an enemy squad.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
If anything, being forced to place the centre over a model is what kills you with blasts. It'd hit more stuff if you could place it such that any part of the blast touches a model.

Totally agree & it would be a touch of realism - real life soldier would lob a grenade into their midst of an enemy squad, he deosnt try to hurl it at an individual enemies chest. Likewise RPGs are often aimed at the general location of an enemy squad.

It would be a little awkward. You'd need a marker. At least that's how I would do it, with a marker. And sometimes units are tightly blobbed together. A model as the target.identifier is probably more convenient.

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. And trading that extra range for always hitting on a 3+ rather than relying on scatter dice is better. It gets even better at 12" or less.

If you put the plasma cannons on tactical squads and take a gladius, you can reroll the blast template on two turns.

2. Or the Plasma Cannon needs some sorta buff, as I'd rather take the Plasma Gun every time.

No. No. No. No.

Enough with buffs. Enough with power creep.

1. And if you're not running Gladius or Ultramarines? Even with rerolls it is garbage. Woo-hoo, I killed 1-2 dudes depending on spacing and sacrifice everything that makes a regular Plasma Gun better!
2. Fixing a weapon does not equate to it being power creep. It isn't like Plasma Cannons were taken before, so what's wrong with the buff? Absolutely nothing.

 jasper76 wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
If anything, being forced to place the centre over a model is what kills you with blasts. It'd hit more stuff if you could place it such that any part of the blast touches a model.

Totally agree & it would be a touch of realism - real life soldier would lob a grenade into their midst of an enemy squad, he deosnt try to hurl it at an individual enemies chest. Likewise RPGs are often aimed at the general location of an enemy squad.

It would be a little awkward. You'd need a marker. At least that's how I would do it, with a marker. And sometimes units are tightly blobbed together. A model as the target.identifier is probably more convenient.

A spare dice, an artillery dice if you bought the GW cube that has one for the defunct fantasy, or just like now, you pick a point and go from there. Your hands always shake, Blasts and templates are a system based on physics where a slight twist of the wrist makes a difference, unlike stats which are straight maths. Plus with larger bases you can more room to maneuver. A centurion gives you 50mm to play about with to try and maximise chance of hitting.

This would be too complicated to catch on, but I think a grid system would be cool. You wouldn't have to touch the models, just identify grid coordinates, use a d8 to scatter for direction and 2d6 for distance.

The small blast has always been a dumpster fire.

Traditio, the game has always creeped up, never back. Asking for nerfs is useless. Either you get buffed to eldar or get run over. That's the reality.

I feel they are useful as templates for anti superheavy Fire. Not easy to miss a Titan at point blank range.

Against infantry, they should have always been useless. 2" coherency should be adhered to as an good idea most of the time. Except not many people do it.

Indeed, not terribly much has changed, imo. 2" coherency has been a thing since I was playing, which means small blasts have gotten one hit since 3rd edition, at least, except in very specific situations (such as enemy models falling out of a wrecked transport).

I don't really see the problem with small blasts - more precisely, the problem is with the increasing lethality of other weapons. I remember when a Demolisher Cannon was terrifying to face - now you can have an army that is 100% Demolisher tanks (the Tank Company formation) and people don't really seem impressed by that firepower anymore.

It's a changed world.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
If anything, being forced to place the centre over a model is what kills you with blasts. It'd hit more stuff if you could place it such that any part of the blast touches a model.

Totally agree & it would be a touch of realism - real life soldier would lob a grenade into their midst of an enemy squad, he deosnt try to hurl it at an individual enemies chest. Likewise RPGs are often aimed at the general location of an enemy squad.

I generally agree with this, but with the restriction that the blast marker should be placed in the center of a given unit.

Otherwise, we end up with nonsense like what happens with flamers. "I'M AIMING AT THAT TANK!" Meanwhile, the template is barely touching the tank, but it's hitting 2 or 3 different squads of infantry dead on.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Its an issue with the scale of the game in general, and the increasingly "Apocalypse"/"Epic" scale that 40k keeps pushing. Same way that small arms fire now is largely pointless for many armies.

whut?
strongly disagree here, weight of fire seems to be the winningest way to shoot right now...

zerosignal wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Its an issue with the scale of the game in general, and the increasingly "Apocalypse"/"Epic" scale that 40k keeps pushing. Same way that small arms fire now is largely pointless for many armies.

whut?
strongly disagree here, weight of fire seems to be the winningest way to shoot right now...

I think by small arms fire he means things S4 AP5 Rapid Fire or worse.


Which is correct, they are practically useless half the time.

Yes the shift to bigger bases and moar bigger monsters nerfed all blasts a lot.

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. And trading that extra range for always hitting on a 3+ rather than relying on scatter dice is better. It gets even better at 12" or less.

If you put the plasma cannons on tactical squads and take a gladius, you can reroll the blast template on two turns.

2. Or the Plasma Cannon needs some sorta buff, as I'd rather take the Plasma Gun every time.

No. No. No. No.

Enough with buffs. Enough with power creep.

I just want to implore you to stop propagating this idea. Because if we started toning down codexes now, the result would be the further nerfing of codexes next in line for an update or likely just a continuation of their toned down power levels with some updates. While the more recently released top tier codexes get to enjoy a even longer reign of dominance until they are updated again. We can't flip the direction of the powerlevel change in the middle of updating all the armies.

We need less obsolete things and non-viable options filling up this game, small blasts and blasts in general I see as a problem because I avoid them like the plague. Stuff like special pistol upgrades, pretty much never being worth their points. I'm sure I could think of more stuff people just never use and could be fixed so that people would consider using them.

zerosignal wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Its an issue with the scale of the game in general, and the increasingly "Apocalypse"/"Epic" scale that 40k keeps pushing. Same way that small arms fire now is largely pointless for many armies.

whut?
strongly disagree here, weight of fire seems to be the winningest way to shoot right now...

Did you really just say "winningest"?

Small army fire can take out the HWT that could kill your tanks.
Having to put the blast's hole over a model makes getting more than 1 at a time difficult. Missing often gets me more hits than 'hits'.

 Galef wrote:
With so many models getting put on larger bases, thus increasing the potential distance between models, I feel like the 3" blast marker just doesn't do anything. It should do 2-3 hits on a unit, but in my experience, it rarely does more than 1 hit after a scatter. I would rather have a weapon with 2 or more shots, than one with a small blast.

So, is the 3" blast showing it's age, or is it just me?

--

Hmm? Larger base size does not make the 2" gap wider. Wouldn't you be more likely not scatter off target with larger bases?

Games in my groups can take painfully long time as everyone is extra careful with the spacing, even if in some position it hurt their chances to accomplish anything, thus I practically never score more than 2 hits with a small blast.

That has lead to a situation where no one bothers to take those weapons.

Maybe make small blasts scatter 1d6 instead of 2?

Blast markers of all sizes would benefit tremendously if we didn't have to place the center over a model.

 EnTyme wrote:
Blast markers of all sizes would benefit tremendously if we didn't have to place the center over a model.

You don't.

You have to place the center of the blast marker over the base of the model. Not the center of the base. Just the base. So long as you look down through the hole and see nothing but base, you're good.

Traditio wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Blast markers of all sizes would benefit tremendously if we didn't have to place the center over a model.

You don't.

You have to place the center of the blast marker over the base of the model. Not the center of the base. Just the base. So long as you look down through the hole and see nothing but base, you're good.

And he was saying blasts would be better if you didn't have to do that.

The rule makes small blasts really terrible, not that they weren't before.

Traditio wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Blast markers of all sizes would benefit tremendously if we didn't have to place the center over a model.

You don't.

You have to place the center of the blast marker over the base of the model. Not the center of the base. Just the base. So long as you look down through the hole and see nothing but base, you're good.

I consider the base to be part of the model.

EnTyme wrote:I consider the base to be part of the model.

Fair enough.

For what it's worth, I'm fine with the rule as is (it limits min-maxing/power-gaming).

Personally, I wish templates had a similar rule.

As it stands, we get nonsense. "Oh. You're targeting THIS unit but only aiming at 1 guy...and conveniently hitting 9 guys in that other unit? Oh. Ok."