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 far as damage output goes, is there really any benefit to taking Meltaguns over Plasma? On average it will only deal 1 damage more than overcharged plasma, and 1 more AP for 4 more points and 12 less inches of range.

No not really, plasma is almost universally the best option almost everywhere. Its a shame, but its what we have.

Salamanders synergize fairly well with melta carriers. They're still good with plasma, but they're good with melta, too.

Plasma is 90% of the cases, the go-to special weapon. But in some cases, like a lonely squad of bikes, for example, Melta can do work, in a not extremely competitive meta.

 EagleArk wrote:
No not really, plasma is almost universally the best option almost everywhere. Its a shame, but its what we have.

Which is why I think plasma should be S6/7 and S8 only on cannons.

Plasma is my go to and I’m sure the go to of many out there. More shots and a decent AP.

don't agree. If sqd has limited access to special weapons, melta might be better option. I like having melta complement my plasma in my RW force.

 bullyboy wrote:
don't agree. If sqd has limited access to special weapons, melta might be better option. I like having melta complement my plasma in my RW force.

A fair point, but Ravenwing are far more mobile than your run of the mill tactical squad who are better suited by the longer range of plasma.

Well let me put it this way, theres a reason melta was always the cheaper special weapon in previous editions. It's not that it's a bad weapon, far from it, it's just inferior to plasma in most situations for what most armies pay for it. Melta is incredibly specialized whereas plasma is incredibly flexible.

The problem is GW overestimated the power of melta and underestimated plasma. I wonder if they saw the same things that we did, that -1 hit auras were incredibly powerful, and just assumed that would balance out plasma accordingly. Unfortunately a lot of lists don't have that ability so in reality plasma just dominates the meta. It just never lets you down, at least in IG's case. Even against -1 armies, I often find plasma does the job just fine, especially if you take lascannons to cover its weaknesses. Between lascannons and plasma, you have all your heavy targets covered, and lasguns easily handle the rest.

Melta absolutely needs to be a bit cheaper and plasma a bit more expensive. At least at that point it's a point of some debate for most armies. Plasma is still good around 15pts for most armies, but if melta was around 10 it's a lot closer of a choice for the "superior" weapon and would give melta a reason for existence. Lascannons especially compete with melta, and when I can pay a paltry amount of points for 4x the range and 1 less AP, you bet I'm going to do so. Especially when it also let's me take plasma, essentially meaning I get the best of both worlds in a single squad.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Well let me put it this way, theres a reason melta was always the cheaper special weapon in previous editions. It's not that it's a bad weapon, far from it, it's just inferior to plasma in most situations for what most armies pay for it. Melta is incredibly specialized whereas plasma is incredibly flexible.

The problem is GW overestimated the power of melta and underestimated plasma. I wonder if they saw the same things that we did, that -1 hit auras were incredibly powerful, and just assumed that would balance out plasma accordingly. Unfortunately a lot of lists don't have that ability so in reality plasma just dominates the meta. It just never lets you down, at least in IG's case. Even against -1 armies, I often find plasma does the job just fine, especially if you take lascannons to cover its weaknesses. Between lascannons and plasma, you have all your heavy targets covered, and lasguns easily handle the rest.

Melta absolutely needs to be a bit cheaper and plasma a bit more expensive. At least at that point it's a point of some debate for most armies. Plasma is still good around 15pts for most armies, but if melta was around 10 it's a lot closer of a choice for the "superior" weapon and would give melta a reason for existence. Lascannons especially compete with melta, and when I can pay a paltry amount of points for 4x the range and 1 less AP, you bet I'm going to do so. Especially when it also let's me take plasma, essentially meaning I get the best of both worlds in a single squad.

Well said. Important distinction to be made on specialization of roles.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Well let me put it this way, theres a reason melta was always the cheaper special weapon in previous editions. It's not that it's a bad weapon, far from it, it's just inferior to plasma in most situations for what most armies pay for it. Melta is incredibly specialized whereas plasma is incredibly flexible.

The problem is GW overestimated the power of melta and underestimated plasma. I wonder if they saw the same things that we did, that -1 hit auras were incredibly powerful, and just assumed that would balance out plasma accordingly. Unfortunately a lot of lists don't have that ability so in reality plasma just dominates the meta. It just never lets you down, at least in IG's case. Even against -1 armies, I often find plasma does the job just fine, especially if you take lascannons to cover its weaknesses. Between lascannons and plasma, you have all your heavy targets covered, and lasguns easily handle the rest.

Melta absolutely needs to be a bit cheaper and plasma a bit more expensive. At least at that point it's a point of some debate for most armies. Plasma is still good around 15pts for most armies, but if melta was around 10 it's a lot closer of a choice for the "superior" weapon and would give melta a reason for existence. Lascannons especially compete with melta, and when I can pay a paltry amount of points for 4x the range and 1 less AP, you bet I'm going to do so. Especially when it also let's me take plasma, essentially meaning I get the best of both worlds in a single squad.

Well said. Plasma was traditionally for anti-infantry whilst melta was the go-to for vehicles. Now for the same range you can have 2 shots at the same strength that can deal 4 damage if both go through as opposed to the average of 3 for a Melta under the same scenario. (yes, overcharging and bubbles etc so not a direct 1:1 translation)

Drop the cost of Melta and you'll see it used more often. Perhaps even a change where if in half range you can roll 2D6 and add them rather than taking the highest. Would definitely give them their place when compared against plasma.

I started a thread a bit ago about this and the consensus then was that plasma is better too. However, think melta has a role if you're willing to play your army in a manner that makes meltas more useful.

In terrain-dense boards plasma won't be as amazing. Or when going against any of the many armies that have -1 or -2 to hit - which will explode your plasmas more frequently even with reroll bubbles. Also, if you're paying extra for reroll bubbles mainly for the plasma, that's essentially an extra cost to run them.

Meltas also a better defensive weapon. People here seem to always speak in terms of them assaulting enemies, but 50% of the time, the enemy is assaulting you. If a vehicle gets in your face, 3-4 meltas may be able to take it down, while 3-4 plasmas will barely scratch it.

That said - i agree that it is over costed. If plasma and melta were a bit closer in cost, I think you'd see them more often.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 EagleArk wrote:
No not really, plasma is almost universally the best option almost everywhere. Its a shame, but its what we have.

Which is why I think plasma should be S6/7 and S8 only on cannons.

Preach it! Like that, plasma is anti-infantry with passable anti-tank while melta is distinctly anti-tank. I would also make the overcharge heavy 1. Stop that 2 shot nonsense.

In space marines plasma is usually better simply because space marines nowadays are 5th ed Tau style static gunlines that can always get the reroll bubble. Without a consistent reroll bubble it's barely better than bolters after you account for losing 1 plasma gun firer for every 3 that shoot in rapid fire.

Melta requires 2 things to really shine that SM don't have that SoB do that is a big part of the reason why even if SoB had access to plasma, it wouldn't see as much use as melta. The two things are 1. A good, cheap, fast delivery system. SoB have dominions that basically give melta guns a 36 range for relatively little points. and 2. Critical mass. Melta guns get better the more you take up to a critical mass where you get to a point where you can kill every target Melta are good against in 1-2 volley's. Plasma gets worse the more you take after the first 2-3 units as it becomes harder and harder to manage the reroll bubbles and more and more likely you lose models even through the rerolls.

SirWeeble wrote:
Or when going against any of the many armies that have -1 or -2 to hit - which will explode your plasmas more frequently

I absolutely hate how this an actual thing that can be said and have it make sense in the context of the game.

I will say that meltas are a casualty of 8th's simplified mechanics and unit profiles so it becomes far too easy for plasma weapons to handle your anti vehicle work where as with the AV system relying on plasma to handle a tank was foolish (unless your shooting it up its rear arc). I think we can also all agree that D3 and D6 mechanics on top of the To Hit, To Wound, and Save rolls makes for some very RNG heavy results which as any Ork player will tell you just isn't worth the unreliability. The melta rule before helped ensure that scoring a hit meant your almost certainly punching a hole in some armor (AV14 might have a small chance to endure a melta shot) but now it just helps with damage but doesn't help that 1 shot actually get a successful wound. Also now that vehicles have to be wound shredded, you can't rely on a heavy hit, low volume of fire weapon like a melta gun to do the job where as before a melta would almost certainly pen (unless they are jinking) and that vehicle is probably not going to be doing much the next turn as it would be shaken, stunned, immobilized, etc if it didn't outright explode.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Well let me put it this way, theres a reason melta was always the cheaper special weapon in previous editions. It's not that it's a bad weapon, far from it, it's just inferior to plasma in most situations for what most armies pay for it. Melta is incredibly specialized whereas plasma is incredibly flexible.

The problem is GW overestimated the power of melta and underestimated plasma. I wonder if they saw the same things that we did, that -1 hit auras were incredibly powerful, and just assumed that would balance out plasma accordingly. Unfortunately a lot of lists don't have that ability so in reality plasma just dominates the meta. It just never lets you down, at least in IG's case. Even against -1 armies, I often find plasma does the job just fine, especially if you take lascannons to cover its weaknesses. Between lascannons and plasma, you have all your heavy targets covered, and lasguns easily handle the rest.

Melta absolutely needs to be a bit cheaper and plasma a bit more expensive. At least at that point it's a point of some debate for most armies. Plasma is still good around 15pts for most armies, but if melta was around 10 it's a lot closer of a choice for the "superior" weapon and would give melta a reason for existence. Lascannons especially compete with melta, and when I can pay a paltry amount of points for 4x the range and 1 less AP, you bet I'm going to do so. Especially when it also let's me take plasma, essentially meaning I get the best of both worlds in a single squad.

And problem here is that even against ideal target in ideal range melta only barely eeks out ahead plasma.

GW also forgot they gave rerolls away like a candy(impressive how they manage to forget what they have just moments ago done) so the plasma overcharge danger isn't actually danger worth worrying over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 EagleArk wrote:
No not really, plasma is almost universally the best option almost everywhere. Its a shame, but its what we have.

Which is why I think plasma should be S6/7 and S8 only on cannons.

Preach it! Like that, plasma is anti-infantry with passable anti-tank while melta is distinctly anti-tank. I would also make the overcharge heavy 1. Stop that 2 shot nonsense.

Heavy 1? That would be going TOO far actually. Apart from losing mobility you then basically take extra S in trade off for extra S. 2 shots vs D2? 2 shots is often better and even against vehicle it's a wash. Okay so if you are standing more than 18" from target with more than 1W it helps but still...

And S6 to S7 is not that helpful due to way to wound table works. It helps against chimera's etc sure but T8 vehicles don't care nor does any infantry etc.

S6/S7, maybe help melta and adjust points.

With the access of the re-rolls of failed hit of 1s plasmas are way better than meltas and they're also cheaper.

I don't think plasmas need any nerf, it's just the easy access to the re-roll of 1s and the fact that everyone can deepstrike that should go away. A unit of plasma dudes in a transport or footslogging or single plasmas in infantry squads, without any re-roll, would be perfectly balanced.

Let's put melta back into meltagun. Make half-range damage be something actually scary like 1D6+3, instead of the 2D6 pick highest. Actually even Meltaguns base damage should be more than 1D6 because of the higher point cost and shorter range when compared to plasmagun. Also meltaguns strengths should be pumped up to 9 or 10. Currently Meltaguns feel like very high risk - no reward type of weapon.

Plasma is cheaper, has longer range and higher rate of fire, making it much more flexible choice. It can be utilised to clear hordes in lack of better targets. I'm not saying it's good against cheap chaff, but it certainly is better than meltagun for that purpose.

TL;DR Plasma is cheaper and more flexible. Melta is not exceptionally good even in the stuff it is supposed to be good at.

I like having a melta on my chaos lord DG, when I got the spare points for it. It keeps "heavy stuff" away from my gunline. Seems like the threat of its high damage, is better than its actual damage.

 Wibe wrote:
I like having a melta on my chaos lord DG, when I got the spare points for it. It keeps "heavy stuff" away from my gunline. Seems like the threat of its high damage, is better than its actual damage.

I would hate to take something overpriced on the hope of opponent making mistake big enough to justify gimping my own army...

tneva82 wrote:

 Wibe wrote:
I like having a melta on my chaos lord DG, when I got the spare points for it. It keeps "heavy stuff" away from my gunline. Seems like the threat of its high damage, is better than its actual damage.

I would hate to take something overpriced on the hope of opponent making mistake big enough to justify gimping my own army...

You don't hope for a mistake, you make a "no go zone" with the threat of damage. And the single damage from a plasma shot rarely makes a difference for much. Forcing your opponents heavier units and lone characters to stay 12+movement away from my gunline is in my experience better than the plasma. And its only 4pts more.

If he avoids something that makes less damage than other's he's making mistake.

It's like folding in poker because size of bet is big even though you know you win most of the time because it MIGHT hurt you once in a blue moon.

 meleti wrote:
Salamanders synergize fairly well with melta carriers. They're still good with plasma, but they're good with melta, too.

They really don't. If you could re-roll damage die, maybe, as it is, all Salamander trait does is making overcharge safer meaning their plasma is even better at stepping at melta toes...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Which is why I think plasma should be S6/7 and S8 only on cannons.

Then Tau one would need to be S5 and would be utterly pointless.

Honestly, melta needs to be made better, not just receive a point drop. If it had a second firing mode, 'sweep', like in DoW, which would be less damaging but usable against infantry, you can bet a lot more people would take it. Or maybe it could ignore cover, bush or even a brick wall would do nothing against it. Or maybe flamer-like profile like Necron ones?

 Irbis wrote:

Then Tau one would need to be S5 and would be utterly pointless.

Why does it have to be S5?

The best way of fixing plasma would be to remove the overcharged profile entirely. That would also help two wound infantry immensely.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Why does it have to be S5?

Because that is literally the only Tau weapon that functions like it should?

Tau plasma was always more primitive than Imperial one, and sacrificed shooting power for safety. Hence, no gets hot and -1S. Make it same strength and you lose fluff, gameplay distinction, and buff one faction that frankly doesn't need it. All Tau guns need to be made worse across the board, with maybe point reduction, they are rising race, not better-than-thou one besting designs from impossibly advanced age like ones Imperium, Eldar, and Necrons use (and Tau weapons being better than guns of these 3 races is hilariously stupid unless setting advances millennium or so forward).

pismakron wrote:
The best way of fixing plasma would be to remove the overcharged profile entirely. That would also help two wound infantry immensely.

Yes please

And, let plasma kill on a 'natural' roll of '1', regardless of modifiers. This both makes it more lethal to some, and removes the silly "I'm at -3 to hit so if I fire my plasma gun on high, I'm definitely going to die".

The plasma mechanic is very poorly implemented when you have modifiers come into play.

Personally I'd like to see

24" Rapid 1, Strength 6, -2, 1 damage.
24", Rapid 1, Strength 7, -2, 2 damage.

A basic reduction would make them completely viable without making every other weapon in the game sub-par by comparison.

Melta is a splendid weapon on a flying unit. I received from a friend a Deathwatch Master with jetpack, with combi-melta and TH, and he never disappoints. Being able to potentially one-shot most characters at close range is precious, plasma couldn't do that. But plasma is more versatile due to its limited damage output, you risk death every time you want to double its power, and can only minimise it with rerolls in most cases. The melta is a specialist weapon in my eyes.

Agree that plasma could go down a notch in damage like suggested above (and I play Dark Angels). Right now it's the go-to anti-armour weapon, especially with Hellblasters (though they are supposed to fill this role), maybe leave the Hellblasters, because they're supposed to be anti-armour. It would fit with the fluff too, I think about the Tau plasma that is safer but weaker, well now that you can chose a regular shot from your plasma it shouldn't be stronger, as it's under the danger threshold.

So yeah we're paying extra for a weapon that is short-ranged and one shot only, to be used to great effect it needs the right platform, and so implies dangerous manoeuvres, as you have to be within 6" of your target to deliver good damage. Also, the days of one-shotting a vehicle with a single melta are gone with 8th, so you have to pay at least two of them to perhaps achieve the same effect.

 Irbis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Why does it have to be S5?

Because that is literally the only Tau weapon that functions like it should?

Tau plasma was always more primitive than Imperial one, and sacrificed shooting power for safety. Hence, no gets hot and -1S. Make it same strength and you lose fluff, gameplay distinction, and buff one faction that frankly doesn't need it. All Tau guns need to be made worse across the board, with maybe point reduction, they are rising race, not better-than-thou one besting designs from impossibly advanced age like ones Imperium, Eldar, and Necrons use (and Tau weapons being better than guns of these 3 races is hilariously stupid unless setting advances millennium or so forward).

I'm still not seeing how Tau at S6 and Imperium at S6/S7 with Gets Hot invalidates these things.