Plasmagun vs gravgun

[ERJAK]

It's funny seeing as how in lore a Grav Gun is among the most powerful non-heavy weapons you can carry and just a single blast from it is enough to reduce something the size of a Leman Russ to a refrigerator. Yet when you take it up against an actual Leman Russ it barely scratches the paint off.

 

IMO the issue with Grav is that it just doesn't even make sense in its current form because it's just gakkier plasma. It should instead be a less powerful version of a meltagun with more shots. Rapid Fire 1, S7, AP-2, and flat D3 damage with 14".

You can't have 'flat d3 damage'. You get flat 3 damage, flat d3 makes no sense.

[Ultramarine vet]

 

The problem is compounded by the fact that in it's current form plasma is to good. It is great at killing heavy and light vehicles as well as elite infantry. Imo I would like to see it st5 ap1 d1 normal and st7 ap2 d2 overcharged. That way it is a good elite and light vehicle killer but not quite as good as heavy.

A plasma gun being the same Strength, AP and Damage as a heavy bolter whilst having less shots? That makes no sense, in terms of fluff and crunch they have always been excellent at punching through heavy armour. They’re weapons that are meant to scare Terminators!

This doesn’t seem like an adjustment or even a nerf, this seems like ‘I just want plasma guns gone from the game.’ Grav is ludicrously overcosted for what it does but the answer to that is either make grav better or reduce its cost, not kill off the thing that outperforms it.

The real issue with plasma is not that the gun performs well, it’s that it’s so ubiquitous. The amount of plasma an army can bring to bear is way more than we’ve ever seen outside of Heresy games. Add in the fact that most armies have very easy access to rerolls means it’s downside can be minimised quite well and you end up with plasma being the king in more situations than is probably healthy for the game overall. Plasma should be a strong and devastating weapon, it’s just that somewhere along the way the designers forgot it was also meant to be quite rare too.

But space marines have always been able to bring a lot of plasma to the battlefield. You have always been able to outfit whole devastator squads with them. I really don't think limiting how much plasma you can bring makes sense, game or fluff wise. Grav weapons have to come down in price so that the thought of bringing them enters our heads. Because I can guarantee you no one is gonna look at a grav gun and think, "Wow, that is definitely worth more points than a plasma gun!" Someone really fudged that up when they made those points costs.

[Volt]

 

It's funny seeing as how in lore a Grav Gun is among the most powerful non-heavy weapons you can carry and just a single blast from it is enough to reduce something the size of a Leman Russ to a refrigerator. Yet when you take it up against an actual Leman Russ it barely scratches the paint off.

 

IMO the issue with Grav is that it just doesn't even make sense in its current form because it's just gakkier plasma. It should instead be a less powerful version of a meltagun with more shots. Rapid Fire 1, S7, AP-2, and flat D3 damage with 14".

You can't have 'flat d3 damage'. You get flat 3 damage, flat d3 makes no sense.

 

Flat D3 as in not dependent upon the armor save of the enemy.

[Subtleknife]

 

The problem is compounded by the fact that in it's current form plasma is to good. It is great at killing heavy and light vehicles as well as elite infantry. Imo I would like to see it st5 ap1 d1 normal and st7 ap2 d2 overcharged. That way it is a good elite and light vehicle killer but not quite as good as heavy.

A plasma gun being the same Strength, AP and Damage as a heavy bolter whilst having less shots? That makes no sense, in terms of fluff and crunch they have always been excellent at punching through heavy armour. They’re weapons that are meant to scare Terminators!

 

This doesn’t seem like an adjustment or even a nerf, this seems like ‘I just want plasma guns gone from the game.’ Grav is ludicrously overcosted for what it does but the answer to that is either make grav better or reduce its cost, not kill off the thing that outperforms it.

 

The real issue with plasma is not that the gun performs well, it’s that it’s so ubiquitous. The amount of plasma an army can bring to bear is way more than we’ve ever seen outside of Heresy games. Add in the fact that most armies have very easy access to rerolls means it’s downside can be minimised quite well and you end up with plasma being the king in more situations than is probably healthy for the game overall. Plasma should be a strong and devastating weapon, it’s just that somewhere along the way the designers forgot it was also meant to be quite rare too.

Those states would still scare a terminator. I dont want plasma gone from the game either. What I want is for it to have a role not be an auto include because it can do everything. It's high strength, high ap, high rate of fire and good damage application mean there is no need to take anything else. Want to kill heavy veh...take plasma. Want to kill light veh...take plasma. Want to kill elites....take plasma. The adjusted stats I suggested would give it a niche. Good at killing elites and light veh not so good against heavy veh. Obviously if this was implemented grav etc would need to be tuned too.

 

Look all I want is for each option to be viable. However they achieve that i dont really care.

 

 

 

The problem is compounded by the fact that in it's current form plasma is to good. It is great at killing heavy and light vehicles as well as elite infantry. Imo I would like to see it st5 ap1 d1 normal and st7 ap2 d2 overcharged. That way it is a good elite and light vehicle killer but not quite as good as heavy.

Um, strongly disagree, couldn't disagree more honestly lol. I think plasma could go up a point or 2 if its REALLY needed, and I don't think it is. I think nerfing its ap and str by 2 is gross overkill on something that IF it needs anything needs a tap... not a sledge hammer lol. Honestly if grav was 6-7 points it would be costed appropriately, and do what its supposed to, be anti elite, with some use as AV in a pinch. Not like this meta is being dominated by plasma.

It is a no brainer take over every other weapon nearly. It is great at killing light armour, heavy armour, elites etc. It means taking another weapon is pointless. I dont see how giving it a more specific niche is a bad thing. I want to see reasons to take another weapon option.

 

At the end of the day I dont care what they do as long as the make different options viable.

[Finkmilkana]

It is a no brainer take over every other weapon nearly. It is great at killing light armour, heavy armour, elites etc. It means taking another weapon is pointless. I dont see how giving it a more specific niche is a bad thing. I want to see reasons to take another weapon option.

 

At the end of the day I dont care what they do as long as the make different options viable.

But it’s only a no brainer for the armies that are based around it, and those for the most part are only ‚ok‘ in the larger picture. Nerfing plasma guns specifically (unless done as part of a sweeping rebalancing of all armies that does far above what chapter approved does) doesn’t make the other options viable, it only makes the armies that currently use plasma worse.

[Subtleknife]

 

It is a no brainer take over every other weapon nearly. It is great at killing light armour, heavy armour, elites etc. It means taking another weapon is pointless. I dont see how giving it a more specific niche is a bad thing. I want to see reasons to take another weapon option.

 

At the end of the day I dont care what they do as long as the make different options viable.

But it’s only a no brainer for the armies that are based around it, and those for the most part are only ‚ok‘ in the larger picture. Nerfing plasma guns specifically (unless done as part of a sweeping rebalancing of all armies that does far above what chapter approved does) doesn’t make the other options viable, it only makes the armies that currently use plasma worse.

Well if course it isnt going to be a no brainer for armies that dont have access to it. Not sure your point you are trying to make. Look at the last line of my reply. I stated something along the lines that I wanted "all options to viable" therefore other options would need tweaking as well. So grav would need a buff etc. I'm not talking about just nerfing plasma in isolation but making all options have a niche. So if I want to kill horde flamers are great at that (which they arent now), if I want to kill elite infantry and light vehs I take plasma, if I want to kill light veh and heavy veh I take grav etc. Because right now I would just take plasma as point for point it is miles more efficient.

[Finkmilkana]

I didn’t say armies that can take it, but armies that are based around it. Competitively, they are already not really taken by many armies that could take them, because running for example troops cheap, without any special weapons, is often better already. Nerfing plasma guns simply compounds that and makes SM armies even worse. Plasmas niche is already „allrounder that is dangerous to use (especially against the deluge of -to hit, making overcharging often a bad idea) and struggles against the extremes (it’s already terrible by points against any kind of light/medium infantry and, without special buffs like votlw, heavy tanks, i.e. T8+). That some of the even more specialized weapons are completely useless here is not Plasmas fault, but the fault of these weapons being badly designed.

[Subtleknife]

I didn’t say armies that can take it, but armies that are based around it. Competitively, they are already not really taken by many armies that could take them, because running for example troops cheap, without any special weapons, is often better already. Nerfing plasma guns simply compounds that and makes SM armies even worse. Plasmas niche is already „allrounder that is dangerous to use (especially against the deluge of -to hit, making overcharging often a bad idea) and struggles against the extremes (it’s already terrible by points against any kind of light/medium infantry and, without special buffs like votlw, heavy tanks, i.e. T8+). That some of the even more specialized weapons are completely useless here is not Plasmas fault, but the fault of these weapons being badly designed.

Just because spacemarines are not in the best place doesnt mean plasma cant be touched. I disagree with that line of thought. Nerfing plasma is valid when it is literally the go to weapon. Flamers, grav and Melta etc should have there niche. Atm it is better to take plasma most of the time. Plasma can still be an all rounder however it shouldn't be just the best choice. Plasma is not really dangerous to use either especially with marine re rolls. And it wounds vehs on 4/3 at t8....hardly bad.

[Panzer]

I agree that simply nerfing Plasma would nerf Marines and they really don't need that. However objectively Plasma IS too strong and should be nerfed. It just means that Marines really really need to get buffed elsewhere. Relying on an unbalanced thing doesn't make the thing balanced.

[GrinNfool]

I agree that simply nerfing Plasma would nerf Marines and they really don't need that. However objectively Plasma IS too strong and should be nerfed. It just means that Marines really really need to get buffed elsewhere. Relying on an unbalanced thing doesn't make the thing balanced.

Still strongly disagree... I see where you are coming from I do... but I stand by if plasma needs ANY adjustment its a +1-2 point cost.  As it stands you 2 are describing a 25 point model being assisted by a 90+ point model that it MIGHT be 2-4 damage to a vehicle... not trying to be disrespectful really mean that... but its not like this is the moment GW went too far, when a 25 point model and a 90+ point model can team up to possibly do 2-4 damage to a vehicle with ~ 1/18 chance of killing itsself.  There is soooooo much better stuff in 40k that this hardly bears looking at IMHO.

[Panzer]

 

I agree that simply nerfing Plasma would nerf Marines and they really don't need that. However objectively Plasma IS too strong and should be nerfed. It just means that Marines really really need to get buffed elsewhere. Relying on an unbalanced thing doesn't make the thing balanced.

Still strongly disagree... I see where you are coming from I do... but I stand by if plasma needs ANY adjustment its a +1-2 point cost.  As it stands you 2 are describing a 25 point model being assisted by a 90+ point model that it MIGHT be 2-4 damage to a vehicle... not trying to be disrespectful really mean that... but its not like this is the moment GW went too far, when a 25 point model and a 90+ point model can team up to possibly do 2-4 damage to a vehicle with ~ 1/18 chance of killing itsself.  There is soooooo much better stuff in 40k that this hardly bears looking at IMHO.

 

 

Uhm I had no particular model or whatever in mind, so no I wasn't describing a 25p model being assistend by a 90+ point model. My statement was of a more general nature. I'm honestly not even sure what models YOU had in mind there since no model with Plasma requires any teamup whatsoever and is perfectly capable of doing 2 damage to a vehicle on its own.

[Closet Skeleton]

Flamers need more hits against Hordes and melta needs to be cheaper. Plasma doesn't need nerfing, arguably plasma cannons actually need buffing.

 

I'd rather see grav get an extra special rule like a movement debuff+ always strikes last. The original first edition grav-gun was a non-lethal weapon, marines don't need another killer ray gun.

[GrinNfool]

 

 

I agree that simply nerfing Plasma would nerf Marines and they really don't need that. However objectively Plasma IS too strong and should be nerfed. It just means that Marines really really need to get buffed elsewhere. Relying on an unbalanced thing doesn't make the thing balanced.

Still strongly disagree... I see where you are coming from I do... but I stand by if plasma needs ANY adjustment its a +1-2 point cost.  As it stands you 2 are describing a 25 point model being assisted by a 90+ point model that it MIGHT be 2-4 damage to a vehicle... not trying to be disrespectful really mean that... but its not like this is the moment GW went too far, when a 25 point model and a 90+ point model can team up to possibly do 2-4 damage to a vehicle with ~ 1/18 chance of killing itsself.  There is soooooo much better stuff in 40k that this hardly bears looking at IMHO.

 

 

Uhm I had no particular model or whatever in mind, so no I wasn't describing a 25p model being assistend by a 90+ point model. My statement was of a more general nature. I'm honestly not even sure what models YOU had in mind there since no model with Plasma requires any teamup whatsoever and is perfectly capable of doing 2 damage to a vehicle on its own.

 

Was, I thought clearly, my mistake, directed at you and subtle because you liked his post specifically detailing why its "so good" for marines due to rerolls etc.  W/o rerolls 17% (~30ish in rapid fire) chance to kill self for 2-4 damage... for a 67% hit 50% wound vs t8.... and a marine w/ plasma is 24 (25 was thinking it was 12 point plasma) point model.... which is what you and subtle are talking about seemed to by on the same page... guess not sorry.

 

In any case this thread isn't about the need for balance or lack thereof surrounding plasma and we are derailing this.  It was plasma vs grav, and plasma is the clear winner, more the fault of the point cost of grav coupled with 18" rapid fire than anything else.

[MegaVolt87]

Melta, Grav and flamer should be buffed up with a resulting pts increase before plasma gets a nerf. That way the points can be better overall balanced out. Nerf plasma first is an extremely lazy way to go about the wider issues. 

[The Unseen]

When plasma is more points effecient at killing guardsmen than flamers, and is better at killing tanks than melta, and just outdoes grav all the time, either plasma needs nerfing, or all the other special weapons need *substantial* buffs.

And changing points on the other guns won't help anything, right now plasma is so good and so cheap that what's limiting it is how many bodies can take it.

Even if flamers were free, you'd still take plasma over it, because the opportunity cost of that flamer is -1 plasma gun.

 

Melta needs a bonus to wound vehicles of some kind, either +1 or a reroll.

It used to be THE weapon to crack big targets, now it wounds them on a 4+, which for a weapon that short range, expensive, with low rate of fire, is just unacceptable, especially when a lascannon is almost the same price, with 4 times the range, at the critical Strength 9 vs the big targets.

Flamers need extra hits based on unit size and probably ignore cover to be worth the opportunity cost of not just taking plasma.

Grav just needs to do d3 damage all the time, and be cheaper.

 

Plasma right now isn't just the all-rounder choice, it's statistically better than everything else outright, especially at its point cost.

 

Except for maybe plasma cannons, they're pretty reasonable. Heavy Bolters are better at killing T3 infantry, lascannons are the premier anti-tank weapon, PC sits between them and is good at killing heavy infantry.

The mm and grav cannon are sad bois thanks to 24" and little payoff for getting there.

[Schlitzaf]

Your wrong? A flamer kill 1.6 guardsman while a plasma will kill 1.1 gaurdsman (in rapid). A flamer is less than half a plasma in cost.

 

A meltagun is almost half the cost of Lascannon...so um your wrong?

[The Unseen]

Your wrong? A flamer kill 1.6 guardsman while a plasma will kill 1.1 gaurdsman (in rapid). A flamer is less than half a plasma in cost.

 

A meltagun is almost half the cost of Lascannon...so um your wrong?

Do you enjoy being pedantic Schlitzaf?

And alright, fine, ya got me, a flamer is slightly better at killing guardsmen, within 8".

A whole whopping .5 extra dead dudes.

But if that guardsmen happens to be in cover, or for some reason in carapace, plasma and flamer are about the same.

 

I don't know where your getting your points dude, but try 6 pts to 11 pts, over half.

But if you stop using percentages and compare pts to pts, you realise that your paying just 5 extra points for plasma, losing a very small amount of efficiency vs chaff, which your other guns should be able to manage, for the benefit of killing literally everything else a whole lot better, from further away.

Hence, opportunity cost says take plasma everytime, which is what we see in non-mathhammer as well.

 

And as far as meltaguns, try 14 pts to 25, again not even close to less than half.

A really hefty whole 11 pts to gain +1 str and quadruple the range (eight times the really effective range), at the cost of 1 AP, and heavy. I know which one I'd rather have, and it's the same one people bring at the top tables for their anti tank, and it ain't melta.

And that isn't even comparing the melta to its real competition, over charged plasma, which is cheaper, longer ranged, and more consistent, with a little less overall damage, while being better at killing everything besides vehicles/monsters on top of it.

 

And now that I've gone off topic too far, between plasma and grav, no contest, plasma everytime.

Even without a reroll aura, normal plasma compares roughly equivalent, and overcharged plasma blows it out of the water with a chance of death.

With a reroll aura applied to both, plasma wins extremely handidly.

[Finkmilkana]

I don’t think anyone is really denying plasma is better than the other SM special weapons right now. The main thing people seem to disagree on is whether this is because plasma is too strong or whether the rest is too weak.

[Closet Skeleton]

In the same numbers over the same amount of turns Melta guns are way better at killing tanks than Plasma, the issue is that the short range means that they only get one shot and the high price means that bringing them to bare for that one shot is massively inefficient.

 

Melta, Grav and flamer should be buffed up with a resulting pts increase before plasma gets a nerf. That way the points can be better overall balanced out. Nerf plasma first is an extremely lazy way to go about the wider issues. 

 

Flamer and melta weapons don't need a price hike and a buff, they either need a price drop or a buff.

[MegaVolt87]

In the same numbers over the same amount of turns Melta guns are way better at killing tanks than Plasma, the issue is that the short range means that they only get one shot and the high price means that bringing them to bare for that one shot is massively inefficient.

 

Melta, Grav and flamer should be buffed up with a resulting pts increase before plasma gets a nerf. That way the points can be better overall balanced out. Nerf plasma first is an extremely lazy way to go about the wider issues. 

 

Flamer and melta weapons don't need a price hike and a buff, they either need a price drop or a buff.

 

GW design team disagrees with buffing without a points increase. Most recent case in point- the new CSM obliterators. The points can always drop later after a new buff. 

[Panzer]

Generally all the shooting in the game should be nerfed quite a bit imo, but that's a whole different topic.

[MegaVolt87]

Generally all the shooting in the game should be nerfed quite a bit imo, but that's a whole different topic.

 

Sorry I disagree, if I wanted more melee I would play Age of Sigmar or Lord of the Rings strategy battle game, or go back to Ancients. 

[Panzer]

 

Generally all the shooting in the game should be nerfed quite a bit imo, but that's a whole different topic.

 

Sorry I disagree, if I wanted more melee I would play Age of Sigmar or Lord of the Rings strategy battle game, or go back to Ancients. 

 

 

I didn't say the game should be more melee focussed either. But again, that's a whole different topic so I'm not going into detail here.

[Ultramarine vet]

I think its utterly preposterous that flamers don't ignore cover. Why they took that away from flamers, I'll never understand. Makes no sense. I think to a degree, you can say the other special weapons are lacking.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It is part of the simplicity of 8th edition ruleset.