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.
2022/11/24 03:25:25
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Insectum7 wrote: Quite wide. Plasma remains a longer ranged, multi-shot weapon. Melta however has crazy damage potential up close. (And won't kill you).
Wide on the scale of an infantry skirmish game, maybe. But on the scale from grot to warlord titan? Not so much. For a game like 40k merging them into a single weapon works just fine as an approximation, especially since going back to at least 4th edition they've had overlapping roles and you always take the one which is better under the current rules.
Maybe since 8th, but since 4th? You punch through a lot of AV14 with S7 plasma guns?
Insectum7 wrote: Quite wide. Plasma remains a longer ranged, multi-shot weapon. Melta however has crazy damage potential up close. (And won't kill you).
Wide on the scale of an infantry skirmish game, maybe. But on the scale from grot to warlord titan? Not so much. For a game like 40k merging them into a single weapon works just fine as an approximation, especially since going back to at least 4th edition they've had overlapping roles and you always take the one which is better under the current rules.
Although warlord titans do technically exist in 40k, that's clearly not the design space the game is built around. Far, far, far from typical.
It's easy to differentiate between to two by making the melta the vehicle killer. Flamer for hordes, plasma for elite infantry, melta for heavy infantry/vehicles. No problem. And some crossover is fine.
Hell, make them good at taking on superheavies. I know I favored drop-Meltas when locals were occasiinally taking Gargants and Warhounds.
Heh, I once nuked a Baneblade with a melta Raptor squad in one turn in 4th. Try doing that with plasma.
And yeah, Warlord Titans have rules in 40k. They're also 5500 PPM. I really don't think that they're much of an issue for most people.
2022/11/24 03:31:37
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Insectum7 wrote: Quite wide. Plasma remains a longer ranged, multi-shot weapon. Melta however has crazy damage potential up close. (And won't kill you).
Wide on the scale of an infantry skirmish game, maybe. But on the scale from grot to warlord titan? Not so much. For a game like 40k merging them into a single weapon works just fine as an approximation, especially since going back to at least 4th edition they've had overlapping roles and you always take the one which is better under the current rules.
Maybe since 8th, but since 4th? You punch through a lot of AV14 with S7 plasma guns?
No, because what AV14 vehicle besides the 4th edition Necron Monolith has been worth that effort to kill or want to prepare for?
2022/11/24 06:47:28
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Insectum7 wrote: It's easy to differentiate between to two by making the melta the vehicle killer.
History shows that it's a lot harder than you think. For an anti-elite weapon you need high strength to wound on 2s, good AP to get through their saves, D2 or better to kill a whole model with every shot, and decent volume of fire. And those things are also exactly what you need for an effective vehicle killer, with the only difference being the melta does its damage in one big shot vs. two smaller shots with the same total damage. Going back at least as far as 5th it's rarely been the case that both of them are viable choices at the same time. Usually one is the obvious winner and the other only has very circumstantial advantages. In 5th it was melta everywhere for killing tanks and elite infantry, now it has shifted to plasma almost exclusively (with a period of grav spam in the middle for anyone who had it).
If you want to differentiate them without making one the obvious choice you'd need to do a major overhaul of the core rules, introducing something like the split AP/AT profiles from Epic and Apocalypse to prevent the overlap by force. But as long as both targets have such similar ideal weapon profiles it's going to be very difficult.
"For an anti-elite weapon you need high strength to wound on 2s, good AP to get through their saves, D2 or better to kill a whole model with every shot, and decent volume of fire." Actually untrue. You really just need good AP and high volume of fire to get the job done. The Grav Cannon is a good example of this. The Grav Cannon also happens to be good at killing vehicles because the to-wound chart is dumb. You can see that if the to-wound chart were the 7th-prior paradigm, Grav Cannons would really struggle against high-T targets.
The current math for melta and plasma vs. elite and vehicles breaks down just fine, imo. (stripping to-hit out of calculations because it's unnecessary)
Plasma vs. MEQ (overcharging, naturally, but ignoring AoC because it complicates things) .83 x .83 x 2 x 2 = 2.7
Melta vs. "same" .83 x 2 (because it can only kill one) = 1.66
Plasma vs. LREQ (Leman Russ) = .5 x .666 x 2 x 2 = 1.3
Melta Vs "same" = .5 x .83 x 5.5 = 2.2
In each set, the more specialized weapon is nearing twice the effectiveness as its counterpart. And each weapon has an additional downside. Melta is short ranged. Plasma can kill the user. This is a reasonable design balance.
There's a further conversation here around how many elites these days have 3 or more wounds and invulnerable saves, which brings the weapons closer together in performance against those targets, but my response to that is
A: It's ok in the crazy 40k universe that there are models that straddle the line between infantry and vehicle.
B: I'm tired of the stat-creep to begin with, and I wish much of it would just get collapsed back down in most cases.
It's very clear to me that the design goal of meaningfully distinguishing anti-Elite and anti-vehicle/monster is pretty achievable.
No, because what AV14 vehicle besides the 4th edition Necron Monolith has been worth that effort to kill or want to prepare for?
Sometimes you gotta deal with multiple Leman Russes, and the side/rear is hard to get to, so you gotta go through the front. Also I faced Titans in local PUGs at times, so melta had a place there.
I recall Melta being better against Knights too, because of the bonus to the Damage Chart they brought with AP1, and the negative modifier only Glancing would give against Plasma. With the positive modifiers on Melta it was more likely to inflict multiple Hull Point hits with your shots, bringing things down easier.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/24 06:55:44
Insectum7 wrote: Actually untrue. You really just need good AP and high volume of fire to get the job done.
Technically true, but if you make an anti-elite weapon that relies on volume of fire instead of wounding on 2s with D2+ you end up encroaching into the design space for anti-horde weapons and making a different class of weapons obsolete.
And each weapon has an additional downside. Melta is short ranged. Plasma can kill the user. This is a reasonable design balance.
Except it doesn't end up working out that way outside of math comparisons. Melta has a crippling drawback of needing to be within 6" to have a meaningful advantage in a game where deep strike and similar abilities can rarely get you that close, while plasma's drawback is easily mitigated with the re-rolls you want to be applying to your units anyway and/or ignored because the unit will die next turn anyway. The end result is that plasma is almost always the right choice for both roles, while melta is limited to a handful of specialist units that can deep strike within 6" or extend the range for bonus damage.
2022/11/24 08:14:20
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
The current math for melta and plasma vs. elite and vehicles breaks down just fine, imo. (stripping to-hit out of calculations because it's unnecessary)
Plasma vs. MEQ (overcharging, naturally, but ignoring AoC because it complicates things) .83 x .83 x 2 x 2 = 2.7
Melta vs. "same" .83 x 2 (because it can only kill one) = 1.66
Plasma vs. LREQ (Leman Russ) = .5 x .666 x 2 x 2 = 1.3
Melta Vs "same" = .5 x .83 x 5.5 = 2.2
In each set, the more specialized weapon is nearing twice the effectiveness as its counterpart. And each weapon has an additional downside. Melta is short ranged. Plasma can kill the user. This is a reasonable design balance.
There's a further conversation here around how many elites these days have 3 or more wounds and invulnerable saves, which brings the weapons closer together in performance against those targets, but my response to that is
A: It's ok in the crazy 40k universe that there are models that straddle the line between infantry and vehicle.
B: I'm tired of the stat-creep to begin with, and I wish much of it would just get collapsed back down in most cases.
It's very clear to me that the design goal of meaningfully distinguishing anti-Elite and anti-vehicle/monster is pretty achievable.
Your maths is wrong or at the very least biased, as you mentioned there is plenty, if not more, elite units out there with 3+ wounds or t5+ now. Melta actually catches up and often outperforms against all of those.
You also gave the plasma gun the random benefit of firing twice, which they'd need to be inside 12" to do. I can understand that because you want to show the direct comparison to the meltagun, but it's main advantage is range.
Russ are t8 now so the wounding is off there and you've given melta the bonus damage which they only get within 6".
Without all the context the numbers are just numbers.
To humour me, imagine an:
Assault 4 24", with +2 auto hits within 12" s4 ap0 d1 gun
Assault 2 18" s6 ap-2 d2 gun
Assault 1 18" s8 ap-4 d d3+3 gun
Those could be generic base special weapons (heavy would likely be a similar set) you can apply to nearly every unit at that point, tweak slightly for a faction flavour and you've got clear definitions and can model them as you please.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/24 08:17:39
2022/11/24 09:04:35
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
The current math for melta and plasma vs. elite and vehicles breaks down just fine, imo. (stripping to-hit out of calculations because it's unnecessary)
Plasma vs. MEQ (overcharging, naturally, but ignoring AoC because it complicates things) .83 x .83 x 2 x 2 = 2.7
Melta vs. "same" .83 x 2 (because it can only kill one) = 1.66
Plasma vs. LREQ (Leman Russ) = .5 x .666 x 2 x 2 = 1.3
Melta Vs "same" = .5 x .83 x 5.5 = 2.2
In each set, the more specialized weapon is nearing twice the effectiveness as its counterpart. And each weapon has an additional downside. Melta is short ranged. Plasma can kill the user. This is a reasonable design balance.
There's a further conversation here around how many elites these days have 3 or more wounds and invulnerable saves, which brings the weapons closer together in performance against those targets, but my response to that is
A: It's ok in the crazy 40k universe that there are models that straddle the line between infantry and vehicle.
B: I'm tired of the stat-creep to begin with, and I wish much of it would just get collapsed back down in most cases.
It's very clear to me that the design goal of meaningfully distinguishing anti-Elite and anti-vehicle/monster is pretty achievable.
Your maths is wrong or at the very least biased, as you mentioned there is plenty, if not more, elite units out there with 3+ wounds or t5+ now. Melta actually catches up and often outperforms against all of those.
Addressed towards end of post. Reduce the spread of profiles significantly.
You also gave the plasma gun the random benefit of firing twice, which they'd need to be inside 12" to do. I can understand that because you want to show the direct comparison to the meltagun, but it's main advantage is range.
Went with both weapons max effectiveness. Brevity. Also I'd argue that it's advantage is multiple shots.
Russ are t8 now so the wounding is off there and you've given melta the bonus damage which they only get within 6".
Both weapons wound on 4+ (plasma is overcharged)
Without all the context the numbers are just numbers.
Context is that Gue'vesa Emmissary is suggesting that plasma and melta can be collapsed to one gun because they are "close enough" in effect. I argue that you can make them more differentiated from each other, but also that they're arguably different enough already.
To humour me, imagine an:
Assault 4 24", with +2 auto hits within 12" s4 ap0 d1 gun
Assault 2 18" s6 ap-2 d2 gun
Assault 1 18" s8 ap-4 d d3+3 gun
Those could be generic base special weapons (heavy would likely be a similar set) you can apply to nearly every unit at that point, tweak slightly for a faction flavour and you've got clear definitions and can model them as you please.
I don't see where the last bit is going and am out of time for math. It just sorta seems like a spread of special weapons attempting specific goals? Seems fine and I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. I mean it sorta seems like you're making part of my argument for me.
Insectum7 wrote: Actually untrue. You really just need good AP and high volume of fire to get the job done.
Technically true, but if you make an anti-elite weapon that relies on volume of fire instead of wounding on 2s with D2+ you end up encroaching into the design space for anti-horde weapons and making a different class of weapons obsolete. Flamers aren't exactly super great at their job these days (especially when compared to the days when they used an actual template). Make it better.
And each weapon has an additional downside. Melta is short ranged. Plasma can kill the user. This is a reasonable design balance.
Except it doesn't end up working out that way outside of math comparisons. Melta has a crippling drawback of needing to be within 6" to have a meaningful advantage in a game where deep strike and similar abilities can rarely get you that close, while plasma's drawback is easily mitigated with the re-rolls you want to be applying to your units anyway and/or ignored because the unit will die next turn anyway. The end result is that plasma is almost always the right choice for both roles, while melta is limited to a handful of specialist units that can deep strike within 6" or extend the range for bonus damage. Plasma would not be as good of an all-rounder if the old to-wound chart was brought back and it's Strength reduced. The point is that there is a solve. Range has obviously been less of an issue in the past using Drop Pods, and so another way that Melta can stand out in it's anti-armor role. Melta is also Assault, and so better able to get those close shots. Personally I play UM, so Melta can often be used after I fall back out of combat.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/11/24 09:40:37
The current math for melta and plasma vs. elite and vehicles breaks down just fine, imo. (stripping to-hit out of calculations because it's unnecessary)
Plasma vs. MEQ (overcharging, naturally, but ignoring AoC because it complicates things) .83 x .83 x 2 x 2 = 2.7
Melta vs. "same" .83 x 2 (because it can only kill one) = 1.66
Plasma vs. LREQ (Leman Russ) = .5 x .666 x 2 x 2 = 1.3
Melta Vs "same" = .5 x .83 x 5.5 = 2.2
In each set, the more specialized weapon is nearing twice the effectiveness as its counterpart. And each weapon has an additional downside. Melta is short ranged. Plasma can kill the user. This is a reasonable design balance.
There's a further conversation here around how many elites these days have 3 or more wounds and invulnerable saves, which brings the weapons closer together in performance against those targets, but my response to that is
A: It's ok in the crazy 40k universe that there are models that straddle the line between infantry and vehicle.
B: I'm tired of the stat-creep to begin with, and I wish much of it would just get collapsed back down in most cases.
It's very clear to me that the design goal of meaningfully distinguishing anti-Elite and anti-vehicle/monster is pretty achievable.
Your maths is wrong or at the very least biased, as you mentioned there is plenty, if not more, elite units out there with 3+ wounds or t5+ now. Melta actually catches up and often outperforms against all of those.
Addressed towards end of post. Reduce the spread of profiles significantly.
You also gave the plasma gun the random benefit of firing twice, which they'd need to be inside 12" to do. I can understand that because you want to show the direct comparison to the meltagun, but it's main advantage is range.
Went with both weapons max effectiveness. Brevity. Also I'd argue that it's advantage is multiple shots.
Russ are t8 now so the wounding is off there and you've given melta the bonus damage which they only get within 6".
Both weapons wound on 4+ (plasma is overcharged)
Without all the context the numbers are just numbers.
Context is that Gue'vesa Emmissary is suggesting that plasma and melta can be collapsed to one gun because they are "close enough" in effect. I argue that you can make them more differentiated from each other, but also that they're arguably different enough already.
To humour me, imagine an:
Assault 4 24", with +2 auto hits within 12" s4 ap0 d1 gun
Assault 2 18" s6 ap-2 d2 gun
Assault 1 18" s8 ap-4 d d3+3 gun
Those could be generic base special weapons (heavy would likely be a similar set) you can apply to nearly every unit at that point, tweak slightly for a faction flavour and you've got clear definitions and can model them as you please.
I don't see where the last bit is going and am out of time for math. It just sorta seems like a spread of special weapons attempting specific goals? Seems fine and I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. I mean it sorta seems like you're making part of my argument for me.
Sorry I missed that you'd left off the hit roll on the russ, I assumed you'd gone with a bs 4+ unit firing, it is an extra relevant step mind as 2 shots increases the overall damage once accuracy is taken into account. Unless I've got lost here, you were saying the weapons are differentiated for their purpose enough? Your numbers show the output between plasma and melta is largely negligible, in fact it likely says that the majority of the time plasma is simply better (lower risk, greater range, similar output vs vehicles, kills multiple marines).
If so then no, it doesn't reinforce your stance that existing weapon profiles are fit for purpose, which is why I suggested generic profiles that have obvious and clear roles. If you need to do a spreadhseet of maths to prove that 2 weapon options are largely interchangeable in output but one has distinct advantages, then they're not unique enough.
2022/11/24 12:16:16
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Not really sure on "the plasma gets extra range". On paper yes - but in almost every game scenario this is an illusion. I've hardly ever seen someone fire an overcharged plasma gun outside of 12" except as some act of desperation. Its always been about jumping into 12", throwing out two overcharged shots - maybe dying which is a bit unfortunate, but since you are almost certainly getting taken off the table next turn, it doesn't matter. Its reasonable to say getting meltas into 6" is harder.
But the question I think is *how far* of a difference should there be between these guns. Because at 12" and when overcharging, a guard squad with a plasma gun "averages out" to doing 5 points more worth of damage shooting into intercessors (including AoC) than the same squad with a melta gun. And this feels a bit "so" on the tabletop. I guess if you bring 10 plasma guns over 10 melta guns and they are all shooting intercessors an expected 50 point swing in damage is reasonable - but is that really going to happen in game? And is that really going to be the reason you've won or lost?
I mean the plasma is only averaging out to about 6 points more than having a flamer. Its getting close to a wash if they pop Transhuman.
If this was all standardised its unclear the game would be dramatically different, or that list building would be dramatically affected.
The counter to this is hyperspecialising - but that makes for bad games. I.E. "Oh you brought termagants, well my double flamer squad insta-kills 10~ or so for a 100%+ points return, haha gg" isn't going to be fun to play. Even if the Termagant-using player has their own array of optimised weapons that give 100% returns into guard, marines, Leman Russ etc.
I guess the other approach is the reverse. So you somehow make pointing a melta gun/plasma gun/flamer at the wrong target do absolutely nothing. But I'm unclear that's much fun either.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/24 12:17:45
2022/11/24 12:44:22
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2022/11/24 13:53:06
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Dysartes wrote: What do people think of the argument that Imperial/Chaos Plasma, at the very least, is one point of Strength too high on both settings?
then the only reason to overcharge would be for damage 2, right?
2022/11/24 14:40:34
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Dysartes wrote: What do people think of the argument that Imperial/Chaos Plasma, at the very least, is one point of Strength too high on both settings?
then the only reason to overcharge would be for damage 2, right?
Or better odds to wound vs t6/7
2022/11/24 14:44:01
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
The current math for melta and plasma vs. elite and vehicles breaks down just fine, imo. (stripping to-hit out of calculations because it's unnecessary)
Plasma vs. MEQ (overcharging, naturally, but ignoring AoC because it complicates things) .83 x .83 x 2 x 2 = 2.7
Melta vs. "same" .83 x 2 (because it can only kill one) = 1.66
Plasma vs. LREQ (Leman Russ) = .5 x .666 x 2 x 2 = 1.3
Melta Vs "same" = .5 x .83 x 5.5 = 2.2
In each set, the more specialized weapon is nearing twice the effectiveness as its counterpart. And each weapon has an additional downside. Melta is short ranged. Plasma can kill the user. This is a reasonable design balance.
There's a further conversation here around how many elites these days have 3 or more wounds and invulnerable saves, which brings the weapons closer together in performance against those targets, but my response to that is
A: It's ok in the crazy 40k universe that there are models that straddle the line between infantry and vehicle.
B: I'm tired of the stat-creep to begin with, and I wish much of it would just get collapsed back down in most cases.
It's very clear to me that the design goal of meaningfully distinguishing anti-Elite and anti-vehicle/monster is pretty achievable.
Your maths is wrong or at the very least biased, as you mentioned there is plenty, if not more, elite units out there with 3+ wounds or t5+ now. Melta actually catches up and often outperforms against all of those.
Addressed towards end of post. Reduce the spread of profiles significantly.
You also gave the plasma gun the random benefit of firing twice, which they'd need to be inside 12" to do. I can understand that because you want to show the direct comparison to the meltagun, but it's main advantage is range.
Went with both weapons max effectiveness. Brevity. Also I'd argue that it's advantage is multiple shots.
Russ are t8 now so the wounding is off there and you've given melta the bonus damage which they only get within 6".
Both weapons wound on 4+ (plasma is overcharged)
Without all the context the numbers are just numbers.
Context is that Gue'vesa Emmissary is suggesting that plasma and melta can be collapsed to one gun because they are "close enough" in effect. I argue that you can make them more differentiated from each other, but also that they're arguably different enough already.
To humour me, imagine an:
Assault 4 24", with +2 auto hits within 12" s4 ap0 d1 gun
Assault 2 18" s6 ap-2 d2 gun
Assault 1 18" s8 ap-4 d d3+3 gun
Those could be generic base special weapons (heavy would likely be a similar set) you can apply to nearly every unit at that point, tweak slightly for a faction flavour and you've got clear definitions and can model them as you please.
I don't see where the last bit is going and am out of time for math. It just sorta seems like a spread of special weapons attempting specific goals? Seems fine and I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. I mean it sorta seems like you're making part of my argument for me.
Sorry I missed that you'd left off the hit roll on the russ, I assumed you'd gone with a bs 4+ unit firing, it is an extra relevant step mind as 2 shots increases the overall damage once accuracy is taken into account.
? The extra shot is taken into account already. The second 'x2' in each plasma equation is the number of shots.
Unless I've got lost here, you were saying the weapons are differentiated for their purpose enough? Your numbers show the output between plasma and melta is largely negligible, in fact it likely says that the majority of the time plasma is simply better (lower risk, greater range, similar output vs vehicles, kills multiple marines).
I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion when Melta gives average 80% increase in damage against the vehicle target when deployed for it. Melta also has a much higher max damage output, which can be useful at times. (Dreadnoughts particularly, as it stands. Ignoring a point of damage from each hit cuts the plasma effectiveness in half.)
If so then no, it doesn't reinforce your stance that existing weapon profiles are fit for purpose, which is why I suggested generic profiles that have obvious and clear roles. If you need to do a spreadhseet of maths to prove that 2 weapon options are largely interchangeable in output but one has distinct advantages, then they're not unique enough.
Again, I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion. Melta currently has a clear advantage against certain types of targets. This makes me conclude that bringing some of each is beneficial to a build. Plasma for all-rounder ability, but Melta to deploy advantageously to more quickly break specific target types.
Plus that wasn't even the original push of the argument. My entire argument is that Melta and Plasma shouldn't be consolidated because even if you feel they overlap in use case, there's still space to differentiate them further if desired, and your proposed weapons clearly show is true. I'm just pointing out thateven as they currently stand, there are reasons to consider one instead of the other. I know my builds use both.
I don't believe that 10th either needs to be either a full reboot or "more of the same".
If any of you truly remember the changes between older editions, there were many quite far reaching changes bewteen editions even if the basic rules were still mostly the same. The 4th to 5th edition change basically doubled vehicle durability only for 6th to nerf it to the ground, and basically each edition added USRs and had their own way of allocating wounds. Even 8th to 9th had significant changes to terrain rules, the introduction of the Aircraft keyword and the removal of the Maelstrom missions.
10th edition could radically change the game by changes to the wound table, by reintroducing USRs, by limiting or even removing stratagems and adding armor facings and yet still using the current 9th ed codexes.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/11/24 16:50:45
2022/11/24 17:10:21
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Insectum7 wrote: Quite wide. Plasma remains a longer ranged, multi-shot weapon. Melta however has crazy damage potential up close. (And won't kill you).
Wide on the scale of an infantry skirmish game, maybe. But on the scale from grot to warlord titan? Not so much. For a game like 40k merging them into a single weapon works just fine as an approximation, especially since going back to at least 4th edition they've had overlapping roles and you always take the one which is better under the current rules.
Maybe since 8th, but since 4th? You punch through a lot of AV14 with S7 plasma guns?
No, because what AV14 vehicle besides the 4th edition Necron Monolith has been worth that effort to kill or want to prepare for?
Leman Russes, Baneblade chassis, Land Raiders, and Chaos Predators/Vindicators with Mutated Hull all spring to mind if we're just sticking to 4th. Obviously the list would grow if later editions are considered.
Dysartes wrote:What do people think of the argument that Imperial/Chaos Plasma, at the very least, is one point of Strength too high on both settings?
Probably. Overcharged plasma is probably too good at wounding heavy armour (T8), which was something plasma wasn't even capable of doing in previous editions, when that armour was AV14. Though I think that the squashed wounding table and removal of meaningful weapon restrictions (no charging after shooting Rapid Fire, for example) also contribute to the problem.
2022/11/24 17:28:38
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
^One wonders why plasma can overcharge in the first place as well . . .
And then one remembers that the start of 8th ed also coincided with the release of Hellblasters, a unit that could ONLY take plasma weapons. And Guilliman, mr. Rerolls himself.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion when Melta gives average 80% increase in damage against the vehicle target when deployed for it.
Because the advantage only exists on paper. In real games the difficulty of getting within 6" compared to getting within 12" means that melta is usually firing at over half range, where it has a negligible advantage over plasma.
2022/11/24 19:57:31
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Hellblasters were good in early 8th. Guilliman, captain rerolls, UM Strat rerolls, etc etc. They always did work for me, assuming I could hide them appropriately. They were always a high priority target for my opponents.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/24 19:59:06
Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750
2022/11/24 20:29:27
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Insectum7 wrote: I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion when Melta gives average 80% increase in damage against the vehicle target when deployed for it.
Because the advantage only exists on paper. In real games the difficulty of getting within 6" compared to getting within 12" means that melta is usually firing at over half range, where it has a negligible advantage over plasma.
Then you're not getting into the same proximities I am, I guess. I see a lot of gameplay at sub 6" because of how I use my units, and Melta has a clear advantage there.
If you don't like melta don't take it, but don't tell me it should be removed from the game because you can't use it.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion when Melta gives average 80% increase in damage against the vehicle target when deployed for it.
Because the advantage only exists on paper. In real games the difficulty of getting within 6" compared to getting within 12" means that melta is usually firing at over half range, where it has a negligible advantage over plasma.
Then you're not getting into the same proximities I am, I guess. I see a lot of gameplay at sub 6" because of how I use my units, and Melta has a clear advantage there.
If you don't like melta don't take it, but don't tell me it should be removed from the game because you can't use it.
I thought you didn't play contemporary 40k or am I confusing you with someone else? Apologies if so.
2022/11/24 21:46:08
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Insectum7 wrote: I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion when Melta gives average 80% increase in damage against the vehicle target when deployed for it.
Because the advantage only exists on paper. In real games the difficulty of getting within 6" compared to getting within 12" means that melta is usually firing at over half range, where it has a negligible advantage over plasma.
Then you're not getting into the same proximities I am, I guess. I see a lot of gameplay at sub 6" because of how I use my units, and Melta has a clear advantage there.
If you don't like melta don't take it, but don't tell me it should be removed from the game because you can't use it.
I thought you didn't play contemporary 40k or am I confusing you with someone else? Apologies if so.
Played a crapload of 8th. I played some of 9th in the beginning, but found it just unfun. I haven't had too much time to game since, but have dabbled with 2nd again, and I'd like to try OPR.
I'd like to try out more semi-competitive PUGs of 9th to bring out my SMs again and get a feel for things and try out my list though.
The thing is, in 8th, I was in very short ranged firefights all the time. Within 6" was a not-uncommon place to be. 9th is arguably even more localized through center-table objectives, smaller table sizes, and more effective LOS blocking terrain. Not to mention a -1 to-damage mechanic which neuters plasma effectiveness. Both Melta ans Plas feature in my builds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/24 21:47:21
I'm also saying that 8th & 9th overall are just gak editions to begin with rules wise. Compare to whatever other edition or other game you prefer.
Better than previous editions in more limited ways, worse in more.
THEN you add in balanced obsessed players, constant errata & rules shifts, the tourney worship, etc....
So no, I don't think making upgrades free makes things any worse.
Why do you have more fun playing an unbalanced game, i.e. one where one of the players has an unearned advantage?
I never said I have more fun.
I have said, or at least implied, that I have the same amount of fun.
Then why wouldn't you want a balanced game? You have the same amount of fun but those of us without dysfunctional mirror neurons also have fun.
Insectum7 wrote: It's easy to differentiate between to two by making the melta the vehicle killer.
History shows that it's a lot harder than you think. For an anti-elite weapon you need high strength to wound on 2s, good AP to get through their saves, D2 or better to kill a whole model with every shot, and decent volume of fire. And those things are also exactly what you need for an effective vehicle killer, with the only difference being the melta does its damage in one big shot vs. two smaller shots with the same total damage. Going back at least as far as 5th it's rarely been the case that both of them are viable choices at the same time. Usually one is the obvious winner and the other only has very circumstantial advantages. In 5th it was melta everywhere for killing tanks and elite infantry, now it has shifted to plasma almost exclusively (with a period of grav spam in the middle for anyone who had it).
If you want to differentiate them without making one the obvious choice you'd need to do a major overhaul of the core rules, introducing something like the split AP/AT profiles from Epic and Apocalypse to prevent the overlap by force. But as long as both targets have such similar ideal weapon profiles it's going to be very difficult.
Or you could have the melta specifically gain bonuses to wound or damage vs. Vehicles. Honestly lascannons should have it too.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/25 02:25:14
2022/11/25 02:30:20
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
Dysartes wrote: What do people think of the argument that Imperial/Chaos Plasma, at the very least, is one point of Strength too high on both settings?
Not really. The extra strength is because you can kill yourself.
Dysartes wrote: What do people think of the argument that Imperial/Chaos Plasma, at the very least, is one point of Strength too high on both settings?
Not really. The extra strength is because you can kill yourself.
It would still have an extra point of strength and damage, but just be s6 base and s7 overcharged, which admittedly seems a lot healthier to diversify the weapons.
2022/11/25 07:40:35
Subject: Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?
If plasma is supposed to be anti-infantry, going from S6 to S7 makes no difference against T3,4,5 in the current rules, if I remember correctly.
It would either require a good AP bonus to be worth it, or a special rule to make it more effective against infantry but not tanks.
Otherwise nobody would ever overcharge when not firing at a T7 vehicle, ironically.
no". 
Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 
