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.
No, it isn't. My local meta is FILLED with plasma and half of them never overcharge it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
I have. You know what happened to me? Five over charging hellblasters annihilated all 12 wounds of my deepstriking Obliterators, BEFORE I got to even shoot.
I would argue they are wasting their points. I haven't missed plasma at all since dumping it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are plenty of 2 damage weapons outside of iom plasma. Why single it out?
Plasma is being used as a shorthand for high-rate-of-fire S5+/AP-2 or better/Dd3 or D2-3 weapons, which includes battle cannons, disintegrators, starcannons, Reaper launchers, every weapon on a Knight...
The problem is that high-volume good-against-all-targets guns with that damage profile get spammed in 8e because they're better than taking a specialist tool. And the most cost-effective target for the most versatile gun in the game is armoured multi-wound infantry (like, oh, say, Primaris Marines...).
Plasma is frequently used to illustrate the problem because when a Space Marine or a Guardsman is given the option to take a "special weapon" the plasma gun is a better anti-tank gun than the meltagun, a better anti-horde weapon than the flamer, and a better anti-armoured-infantry weapon than the grav-gun. The weapon with all its stats in the middle is a better pick than the weapon that pushes one or two stats to an extreme.
I was actually referring to Disintigrators, Star Cannons, etc as actually-Plasma, not just generally in the same profile.
That said, I agree that almost all the high-ROF multi-damage and/or good AP wapons should be nerfed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/23 20:03:42
No, it isn't. My local meta is FILLED with plasma and half of them never overcharge it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: LOL go play marines once please. Take your OP 10 hell blasters and just blow people off the table. See how effective it is.
I have. You know what happened to me? Five over charging hellblasters annihilated all 12 wounds of my deepstriking Obliterators, BEFORE I got to even shoot.
I would argue they are wasting their points. I haven't missed plasma at all since dumping it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are plenty of 2 damage weapons outside of iom plasma. Why single it out?
Plasma is being used as a shorthand for high-rate-of-fire S5+/AP-2 or better/Dd3 or D2-3 weapons, which includes battle cannons, disintegrators, starcannons, Reaper launchers, every weapon on a Knight...
The problem is that high-volume good-against-all-targets guns with that damage profile get spammed in 8e because they're better than taking a specialist tool. And the most cost-effective target for the most versatile gun in the game is armoured multi-wound infantry (like, oh, say, Primaris Marines...).
Plasma is frequently used to illustrate the problem because when a Space Marine or a Guardsman is given the option to take a "special weapon" the plasma gun is a better anti-tank gun than the meltagun, a better anti-horde weapon than the flamer, and a better anti-armoured-infantry weapon than the grav-gun. The weapon with all its stats in the middle is a better pick than the weapon that pushes one or two stats to an extreme.
I was actually referring to Disintigrators, Star Cannons, etc as actually-Plasma, not just generally in the same profile.
That said, I agree that almost all the high-ROF multi-damage and/or good AP wapons should be nerfed.
Grav costs almost the same and is terrible. It goes to damage 1 against non 3+ targets and its only 18" range too....it sucks. It's not about the str so much.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
Lets see...
Okay lets see....what is it bad against.
Orks
Harliquens
DE Str 5 is also not sufficient for heavy infantry killing with T5. So what is it good against....killing marines pretty much. Plasma does that just fine with better range...grav needs big buff. When it does people will stop using plasma.
6" range is also a big deal. Look at the difference between a metla gun and a blaster. Blasters are phenomenal - melta guns suck. The difference. 6 ".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/23 20:32:28
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
Lets see...
Okay lets see....what is it bad against.
Orks
Harliquens
DE Str 5 is also not sufficient for heavy infantry killing with T5. So what is it good against....killing marines pretty much. Plasma does that just fine with better range...grav needs big buff. When it does people will stop using plasma.
6" range is also a big deal. Look at the difference between a metla gun and a blaster. Blasters are phenomenal - melta guns suck. The difference. 6 ".
The difference is Transports.
Blasters on foot? Suck.
Blasters in a Raider or Venom? Good.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/23 20:36:21
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
Lets see...
Okay lets see....what is it bad against.
Orks
Harliquens
DE
Wait, you think D:1 makes the weapon bad against Harlequins and Orkz? DE, I get, as the Covens have some multi-wound infantry.
I've never had trouble killing multiwound Harlequin infantry units, but that might just be because *THERE ARE NONE*
Str 5 is also not sufficient for heavy infantry killing with T5. So what is it good against....killing marines pretty much. Plasma does that just fine with better range...grav needs big buff.
IOW, S5 isn't as good as S8. So, to put your arguments together:
-Grav is bad, but not because it's not S8
-Grav is bad, because it's not S8
Do you see my problem?
When it does people will stop using plasma.
6" range is also a big deal. Look at the difference between a metla gun and a blaster. Blasters are phenomenal - melta guns suck. The difference. 6 ".
6" difference in range certainly isn't nothing. It's just not nearly as impactful as S8 vs S5.
Aren't you one of those guys who thinks Avenger Shuriken Catapaults being 18" instead of 24" isn't really a downside, because it's just 6"? But when it's a *Marine* weapon that's only 18", suddenly it's a BFD.
Are you saying you wouldn't take 17 point blasters on marines over plasma guns? Cause I would in a heart beat. Priamris marine unit with 10 blasters...yeah...I'd take that.
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
Lets see...
Okay lets see....what is it bad against.
Orks
Harliquens
DE
Wait, you think D:1 makes the weapon bad against Harlequins and Orkz? DE, I get, as the Covens have some multi-wound infantry.
I've never had trouble killing multiwound Harlequin infantry units, but that might just be because *THERE ARE NONE*
Str 5 is also not sufficient for heavy infantry killing with T5. So what is it good against....killing marines pretty much. Plasma does that just fine with better range...grav needs big buff.
IOW, S5 isn't as good as S8. So, to put your arguments together:
-Grav is bad, but not because it's not S8
-Grav is bad, because it's not S8
Do you see my problem?
When it does people will stop using plasma.
6" range is also a big deal. Look at the difference between a metla gun and a blaster. Blasters are phenomenal - melta guns suck. The difference. 6 ".
6" difference in range certainly isn't nothing. It's just not nearly as impactful as S8 vs S5.
Aren't you one of those guys who thinks Avenger Shuriken Catapaults being 18" instead of 24" isn't really a downside, because it's just 6"? But when it's a *Marine* weapon that's only 18", suddenly it's a BFD.
Starweavers...Venoms....these kinds of units. Normally str 5 is a great str profile but it usually comes with 3 or more shots...at 2 shots str 5 is freaking garbage.
No i am not - I am a firm believer that a dire avenger and a marine should be about 1 point difference and a marine should be 11 or 10 points. This is ofc in a world where an infantry is 4ppm and and a guardian should probably be 7.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/23 20:44:17
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
From a conceptual perspective, I'd rather a Lascannon or a MeltaGun, depending on the squad. Either holding ground while putting heavy AT downrange, or getting up close and melting something.
From a crunch perspective, the MG is simply outclassed by the PG.
Blaster is more or less a sidegrade to the MG. A little better, sure, but not in PG territory.
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
Lets see...
Okay lets see....what is it bad against.
Orks
Harliquens
DE
Wait, you think D:1 makes the weapon bad against Harlequins and Orkz? DE, I get, as the Covens have some multi-wound infantry.
I've never had trouble killing multiwound Harlequin infantry units, but that might just be because *THERE ARE NONE*
Str 5 is also not sufficient for heavy infantry killing with T5. So what is it good against....killing marines pretty much. Plasma does that just fine with better range...grav needs big buff.
IOW, S5 isn't as good as S8. So, to put your arguments together:
-Grav is bad, but not because it's not S8
-Grav is bad, because it's not S8
Do you see my problem?
When it does people will stop using plasma.
6" range is also a big deal. Look at the difference between a metla gun and a blaster. Blasters are phenomenal - melta guns suck. The difference. 6 ".
6" difference in range certainly isn't nothing. It's just not nearly as impactful as S8 vs S5.
Aren't you one of those guys who thinks Avenger Shuriken Catapaults being 18" instead of 24" isn't really a downside, because it's just 6"? But when it's a *Marine* weapon that's only 18", suddenly it's a BFD.
Starweavers...Venoms....these kinds of units. Normally str 5 is a great str profile but it usually comes with 3 or more shots...at 2 shots str 5 is freaking garbage.
I'm so glad to hear that 2 shots str 5 is garbage. So are Dark Reapers going down in points with the FAQ?
More seriously 2 shots str 5 isn't great (in this case), because it's only Str 5. 2 shots Str 8 is great.
Starweavers and Venoms - you'd rather have S5 shooting them than S8? Why?
S8 is a huge upgrade over S5.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadenuat wrote: Marines are part of the game game has to be changed around, not part that needs change and more special rules.
That's my dream.
The first change is, IMO, dropping almost all AP-1/AP-2 down a point of AP. When there's less high-ROFAP-1/-2 out and about, Marines will do better. Certainly not the only change needed, but probably the most impactful one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/23 20:50:27
That would make clearing out cheaper units harder as well.
I find it incredible when you can take like, 7 point or so model and still do your job quite well compared to more expensive ones, or even 3-4 point models and still do some job you want done in the army.
Doubling all points in the game for more fine tuning would be good for a start. I am not sure GW will do that though. I think they have a belief that some unit prices are like, legacy stuff, and should not change.
Martel732 wrote: Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Personally I think Grav Guns should have translated to RF2 18 inch
Grav Cannons & Amp RF3 24 inch
You can buff or nerf Grav as required to balance out loyalist marines for the most part as it's not shared with the rest of the imperial soup armies like plasma is.
Plasma should have got S6 Ap-3 D1 with S7 Ap-3 D1 and overheating as profiles.
Martel732 wrote: Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Personally I think Grav Guns should have translated to RF2 18 inch
Grav Cannons & Amp RF3 24 inch
You can buff or nerf Grav as required to balance out loyalist marines for the most part as it's not shared with the rest of the imperial soup armies like plasma is.
Plasma should have got S6 Ap-3 D1 with S7 Ap-3 D1 and overheating as profiles.
I'm okay with Plasma going from S7 regular and S8 Overcharge. That's 3+ and 2+, respectively, against T4. Which seems reasonable.
I do agree that if it stayed D1 the whole time, it'd be a lot better balanced relative to the other specials. (Of course, Marines suck right now and that'd be a distinct nerf, but hey.)
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Martel732 wrote: Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Personally I think Grav Guns should have translated to RF2 18 inch
Grav Cannons & Amp RF3 24 inch
You can buff or nerf Grav as required to balance out loyalist marines for the most part as it's not shared with the rest of the imperial soup armies like plasma is.
Plasma should have got S6 Ap-3 D1 with S7 Ap-3 D1 and overheating as profiles.
I'm okay with Plasma going from S7 regular and S8 Overcharge. That's 3+ and 2+, respectively, against T4. Which seems reasonable.
I do agree that if it stayed D1 the whole time, it'd be a lot better balanced relative to the other specials. (Of course, Marines suck right now and that'd be a distinct nerf, but hey.)
Marines sucking isn't an excuse to make plasma OP, because a guardsmen with a plasmagun is way better than a marine with 1.
Plasma needs to loose the strength inflation it got for a meltagun to even have the hint of design space to exsist in.
There are a number of reasons people are getting annoyed with Plasma, but at the core is the fact that a lot of guns aren't all that different any more.
The essential components to a gun are Type, Range, Strength, AP, Damage, and Abilities.
It used to be that every single one of these (except Damage, which didn't exist) was a major dividing factor, because the game was much more binary. A low AP gun and a high AP gun were completely different, because firing an AP4 gun at a Space Marine was no better than firing an AP6 gun. Each AP level therefore existed in a strict "tier" of what it was good for, and changing that AP changed the whole context of the gun. Strength hasn't changed quite as obviously, but previously you could fire a gun with no chance whatsoever to wound a target that was too tough, and its role in Armour Values was extremely important. With vehicles now using Wounds and Toughness, Instant Death completely gone, and every Strength having a chance to wound every Toughness, that's a less important distinction. The game is much more granular; each pip of AP isn't a massive change, it's just a 16% (or less) boost to the wounds you inflict.
Let me explain what I mean by way of example. Imagine a Strength 2, AP2 gun, and a Strength 6, AP6 gun. In earlier editions, there is no way to compare the two. They are both completely different weapons with completely different uses and no real overlap in terms of tactical role. In 8th edition, those same guns (let's translate them to AP-4 and AP-0, for argument's sake) are much more comparable; all those two values do is nudge the wounds you inflict up by 16% (or less) per pip. Strength won't affect vehicles or Instant Death, and AP won't fail against a highly-armoured unit. Damage has largely absorbed these two distinctions; Vehicles use Wounds, so you need high Damage to get them, not high Strength. Terminators represent their bulkiness with an extra Wound, so you need D2 to get them, as much as AP2.
(I prefer the streamlining done in 8th edition, but with the exception of Pistols it's also hard to argue that Types aren't less distinct than they used to be. Everything can now be fired on the move and before a charge, just with a -16% penalty for Heavy. Blast weapons are also much more homogenized thanks to the loss of templates and the increased prevalence of random shots in general)
So in YE OLDEN DAYS, plasma guns were all risky because, as a high-AP high-Strength weapon with a decent number of shots, there was very little they weren't good at. They couldn't bust open a Land Raider, but they had an okay shot against any vehicle short of that, and shredded even elite infantry. The middling range and Gets Hot! were the trade-off for that. In the modern game, where the plasma gun exists on a sliding scale from the boltgun rather than a whole other dimension, that's a much harder sell. It's less different, so why should I risk killing myself? The plasma gun doesn't do anything special, after all, it just does the same thing but better. Overcharge is therefore an attempted compromise; you can have your "better bolter" with no risk, but Overcharge adds +1D (and an extra pip of Strength, which would have been a much bigger deal a few editions ago), which is the new, valuable difference-maker in this edition.
The result of trying to hack the traditional Plasma Gun into an edition that can no longer accommodate it is a weapon that against many targets has no reason to be Overcharged (against Guard or Tau infantry? same difference), but that is obscenely strong against those that do call for an Overcharge, while also being much easier to avoid backlash from due to ubiquitous rerolls and +1 modifiers. C'est la vie.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/23 22:00:29
Shadenuat wrote: That would make clearing out cheaper units harder as well.
I find it incredible when you can take like, 7 point or so model and still do your job quite well compared to more expensive ones, or even 3-4 point models and still do some job you want done in the army.
Doubling all points in the game for more fine tuning would be good for a start. I am not sure GW will do that though. I think they have a belief that some unit prices are like, legacy stuff, and should not change.
While it makes Guardsmen and Guardians 20% harder to kill, it makes Marines 50% harder to kill (assuming no cover on a currently-AP-1 weapon). Net advantage: Marines in that change.
"The first change is, IMO, dropping almost all AP-1/AP-2 down a point of AP. When there's less high-ROFAP-1/-2 out and about, Marines will do better. Certainly not the only change needed, but probably the most impactful one."
Doesn't matter as long as lasguns kill more marines than guardsmen. You're just making things like baneblades harder to deal with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/23 23:21:53
Martel732 wrote: "The first change is, IMO, dropping almost all AP-1/AP-2 down a point of AP. When there's less high-ROFAP-1/-2 out and about, Marines will do better. Certainly not the only change needed, but probably the most impactful one."
Doesn't matter as long as lasguns kill more marines than guardsmen. You're just making things like baneblades harder to deal with.
Bluntly, things like Baneblades shouldn't be worried by things like Heavy Bolters or Stalker Bolt Rifles in the first place.
Martel732 wrote: "The first change is, IMO, dropping almost all AP-1/AP-2 down a point of AP. When there's less high-ROFAP-1/-2 out and about, Marines will do better. Certainly not the only change needed, but probably the most impactful one."
Doesn't matter as long as lasguns kill more marines than guardsmen. You're just making things like baneblades harder to deal with.
Bluntly, things like Baneblades shouldn't be worried by things like Heavy Bolters or Stalker Bolt Rifles in the first place.
Thank the simpification of the damage table for that one....
It's also why VotWL is so strong.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Martel732 wrote: Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Personally I think Grav Guns should have translated to RF2 18 inch
Grav Cannons & Amp RF3 24 inch
You can buff or nerf Grav as required to balance out loyalist marines for the most part as it's not shared with the rest of the imperial soup armies like plasma is.
Plasma should have got S6 Ap-3 D1 with S7 Ap-3 D1 and overheating as profiles.
Dude....you literally want to double the power of a gravgun and more than half the power of a plasma gun...why?
If you look at competitive play - you will see approximately 0 plasma guns. Like literally 0 - at LVO I saw 0 plasma guns. OFc you don't see any grav guns ether because no one is playing marines because marine price points are terrible. I can't believe anyone is suggesting a nerf to plasma guns - it is blowing my mind. They are already quite a bad weapon. One of the few weapons that can outright slay your own 16 wound vehicle. "Just don't overcharge" is just such a laughable response - all I hear is "use the much weaker profile that you paid way too much for"
Grav just needs to wound based on armor save again and just make it assault 2 for cannons heavy 4 24 "with reroll wounds.
Melta needs +1 to wound vehicles MM needs to be 2 shots (twinlinked) maybe with a cost of like 30 points.
LC needs a drop to 20 points
Rockets needs to be 15 points
GC with that profile - 25 points.
Lastalon needs to change too. It needs to be better than a twin las. If it's going to have half the range. IDK...maybe make it str 10 flat 3 damage or something.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Martel732 wrote: Blasters are not better just because of the range. 6 pt dudes with BS 3+ in open topped transports that move 14" has a lot to do with it, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: It has 6" less range (and you were just complaining about how a 6" gun is apparently better than a 24/36" gun just up this page....), does 1 less damage mostly on 1W models, and has 3 less S.
The big difference between them is clearly S.
(Although Grav does need a buff)
And cost, and range. If grav got two shots at 18", I'd use it a lot.
Personally I think Grav Guns should have translated to RF2 18 inch
Grav Cannons & Amp RF3 24 inch
You can buff or nerf Grav as required to balance out loyalist marines for the most part as it's not shared with the rest of the imperial soup armies like plasma is.
Plasma should have got S6 Ap-3 D1 with S7 Ap-3 D1 and overheating as profiles.
Dude....you literally want to double the power of a gravgun and more than half the power of a plasma gun...why?
If you look at competitive play - you will see approximately 0 plasma guns. Like literally 0 - at LVO I saw 0 plasma guns. OFc you don't see any grav guns ether because no one is playing marines because marine price points are terrible. I can't believe anyone is suggesting a nerf to plasma guns - it is blowing my mind. They are already quite a bad weapon. One of the few weapons that can outright slay your own 16 wound vehicle. "Just don't overcharge" is just such a laughable response - all I hear is "use the much weaker profile that you paid way too much for"
Grav just needs to wound based on armor save again and just make it assault 2 for cannons heavy 4 24 "with reroll wounds.
Melta needs +1 to wound vehicles MM needs to be 2 shots (twinlinked) maybe with a cost of like 30 points.
LC needs a drop to 20 points
Rockets needs to be 15 points
GC with that profile - 25 points.
Lastalon needs to change too. It needs to be better than a twin las. If it's going to have half the range. IDK...maybe make it str 10 flat 3 damage or something.
I think this is because you're still looking at Plasma as anti-tank. S7 D1 isn't half the power when you're shooting at 1W models.
As for your example showing how bad plasma was - being picked 0 times when the guys who take it were present 0 times just tells us it's not good enough to make an otherwise bad unit OP.
I also think you're missing the fact that we're talking about nerfing all Plasma, not just IoM Plasma.
As for
"Just don't overcharge" is just such a laughable response - all I hear is "use the much weaker profile that you paid way too much for"
The argument is that you *didn't* pay for 24" RF S8 D2 with no downsides; you're paying less than you'd pay for 6" S8 Dd6 with "no downsides".
Now, you're certainly overpaying for what's taking those options - which is a whole other problem.
Dessie cannon ravagers are more effective vs t8 and dark lance ravagers. This is just the way the game works. Plus - plasma has always been effective anti tank. It just wasn't good for destroying land raiders...vs rhinos and other light vehicles it was totally fine. That is pretty much where it is now.
Literally every space marine weapon is over costed...Plasma is the only option that does reasonable damage per cost but it kills you. It is the option that no one wants to take but is the only choice.
You are absolutely paying for the overcharge damage profile with the added stipulation that it kills you. It is absolutely not worth the point not overcharged.
Nerfing all the damage in the game is a joke. Just up the defensive stats on the units you want to help or reduce their cost. It is much easier.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/24 15:43:52
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
I don't see why you are focused on plasma when there are dozen of other 2 damage and D3 damage weapons out there. I've lost way more marines to battlecannons that magically shoot twice than plasma.
Oh, right you are counting dissy cannons as "plasma". I'm sure the Drukhari community is going to be just fine with your classification and nerf of their #1 heavy weapon.
Dessie cannon ravagers are more effective vs t8 and dark lance ravagers. This is just the way the game works.
Well, maybe, it shouldn't. Blasters and Lances and Melta and Lascannons should terrify vehicles. Plasma should terrify MEQ.
Plus - plasma has always been effective anti tank. It just wasn't good for destroying land raiders...vs rhinos and other light vehicles it was totally fine. That is pretty much where it is now.
Plasma has always been better than Bolt or Flamer against light tanks, but not great. And bad against heavy vehicles. And it's S7 D1 profile still is.
Literally every space marine weapon is over costed...Plasma is the only option that does reasonable damage per cost but it kills you. It is the option that no one wants to take but is the only choice.
Or maybe, just maybe - there's a problem in the cost/effectiveness of *marines*? If every other option is worse for the points, isn't it smart to improve the platform and bring the one outlier into balance?
You are absolutely paying for the overcharge damage profile with the added stipulation that it kills you. It is absolutely not worth the point not overcharged.
I dunno. It's not a lot of points for something that wounds most troops on 2s and makes their armor saves a joke. But certainly, part of it's value is that you can out-Melta Melta with it for cheaper at a risk, in exchange for the flexibility.
Nerfing all the damage in the game is a joke. Just up the defensive stats on the units you want to help or reduce their cost. It is much easier.
Just upping the defensive stats and/or reducing the cost on all the units in the game is a joke. Just nerf the damage or up the cost on the weapons you want to hurt. It is much easier.
No matter how you change marines, melta, flamer, grav will not be taken at their current cost. I'll just buy more suppressors. IoM Plasma isn't even being used in its current incarnation. Why nerf it?
Marines have to play scared in 8th. Overcharging is extremely unattractive, imo. Except against 2W models with high value. Like primaris.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/24 16:53:21
I'd agree that specifically IoM Plasma has become a distraction to this thread. Most of the proponents of nerfing it are proposing broader nerfs which also apply to IoM Plasma; most of the opponents are arguing that the proponents are just trying to nerf IoM Plasma. It's clearly going nowhere.
If you nerf things that are decimating marines, then a lot of OTHER units get a lot better, too. Many of those don't need to be better. The problem is marines, not what's shooting at them. Not really. Everyone deals with the lethality problem. Marines, due to their cost, just can't. Does the IG really care about dissy cannons? No. Because they are well-costed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/24 17:21:25
Which is why just nerfing the MEQ-killers isn't the only change needed to bring Marines back to where they should be.
But if you buff Marines directly without addressing the MEQ-killers, you have to buff them to the point where every list must use MEQ-killers. If you nerf MEQ-killers and then buff Marines, they fit the game more naturally.
Everything is an meq-killer, though. Because of costing. Doubly so when you put non-zero cost equipment on them. GW won't allow power armor horde, which is the only fix appropriate for 8th. Because survivability is not an option.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/24 17:27:10