The plasma gun on maximal does 19 damage on average. I am using the BC stats because that's what I have in front of me. I am assuming that the TT gun is firing using that mode.

Even with 19 points of damage, we are still in the S6 category (right above the Heavy Bolter (S5) and next to the Multilaser (S6)). And as I have mentione,d I don't think that the TT plasma gun is supposed to represent maximal-mode shots, mostly because Recharge and blast increment (in the TT, some plasma weapons have the ability to increase their blast radius with an "overcharge" mode, that is probably a Maximal equivalent, but plasma guns don't have this option).

Don't have the book infront of me so I can't double check the rules, but how on earth does blast give you a 100% chance to hit? You can still miss and scatter, at which point hilarity can ensue.

The plasma cannon on maximal has a Blast of 5, which is also the maximum scatter range. Which means that it cannot miss.

I see. Still only 90% though since it will overheat on 91-100? I need to get home and look up the book on this, just as a curiousity

You know, I don't remember if overheating voids the shot or not.

The plasma gun on maximal does 19 damage on average. I am using the BC stats because that's what I have in front of me. I am assuming that the TT gun is firing using that mode.

Even with 19 points of damage, we are still in the S6 category (right above the Heavy Bolter (S5) and next to the Multilaser (S6)). And as I have mentione,d I don't think that the TT plasma gun is supposed to represent maximal-mode shots, mostly because Recharge and blast increment (in the TT, some plasma weapons have the ability to increase their blast radius with an "overcharge" mode, that is probably a Maximal equivalent, but plasma guns don't have this option).

Well i think TT IS supposed to represent maximal shots, because a maximal of sorts was introduced in the Inquisitor's Handbook, presumably specifically because plasma weapons were not living up to their reputation.

I think the multilaser issue is probably because of how vehicles work. AP6 is generally translated into 40KRPG as Pen 2, which is what the multilaser has. But because AP has no effect (except for AP1) against vehicles in TT, but instead everything is done with S, but the multilaser is nevertheless an antivehicular weapon, its damage has to go up to the effect in the RPG.

Well i think TT IS supposed to represent maximal shots, because a maximal of sorts was introduced in the Inquisitor's Handbook, presumably specifically because plasma weapons were not living up to their reputation.

Ah, well, from the viewpoint of the RPG, this could be true. Though it is an odd solution: why not just straight-out increase the damage? It is not like we don't have super-powerful Tau plasma weapons, right (that are actually weaker than their Imperial counterparts on the TT )?

Also, the multi-laser is an anti-infantry weapon and not anti-vehicle. Or at least that's what its description says.

Well i think TT IS supposed to represent maximal shots, because a maximal of sorts was introduced in the Inquisitor's Handbook, presumably specifically because plasma weapons were not living up to their reputation.

Ah, well, from the viewpoint of the RPG, this could be true. Though it is an odd solution: why not just straight-out increase the damage? It is not like we don't have super-powerful Tau plasma weapons, right (that are actually weaker than their Imperial counterparts on the TT )?

Also, the multi-laser is an anti-infantry weapon and not anti-vehicle. Or at least that's what its description says.

It plays an antivehicular role pretty well. S6 will glance a Chimera's side armour half the time (if it's 10, which is what my memory says it is).

It plays an antivehicular role pretty well. S6 will glance a Chimera's side armour half the time (if it's 10, which is what my memory says it is).

AV10 is the lowest low for a vehicle's armor. Even a boltgun can glance it with its S4 .

Right, but a multilaser can do it reliably.

Anyway it's a weird weapon in TT (can blow up vehicles, but flak armour can bounce it off) so it's not a surprise that they have problems converting it.

I don't see it as always bouncing off, but more glancing blows, near misses and so on. Which is a problem the more you simplify any system.

As for Plasma Guns, MAXIMAL is essential to it being close to TT, by denying it maximal (something fully introduced in RT, with test runs in DH1), is absurd. Might as well take away tearing from bolters.

As for Plasma Guns, MAXIMAL is essential to it being close to TT

Yeah, but it only applies to the damage. TT plasma weapons do not have Recharge for example. Shoving Maximal into the equation is only good to ring some justice to the damage model, like "Hey guys, with Maximal, it totally has the damage model of the weakest TT plasma weapon!" and then just ignore Recharge or the fact that TT also had a quasi-Maximal mode back in the Rogue Trader era but later it was removed because reasons. Not to mention the phenomena called the Tau Plasma Rifle (a Plasma Gun with Maximal always on but without Recharge/Overheat - the okay-ish representation of the TT Tau Plasma Rifle that is actually weaker than the Imperial Plasma gun).

TT plasma weapons had recharge until GW realised tracking recharge on a wargame scale is a pain. Chaos weapons had Overheats instead, because Chaos Marines had no regard for weapon safety and ignored the safety measure of letting plasma guns cool.

TT plasma weapons had recharge until GW realised tracking recharge on a wargame scale is a pain. Chaos weapons had Overheats instead, because Chaos Marines had no regard for weapon safety and ignored the safety measure of letting plasma guns cool.

Yup, that was the quasi-Maximal mode. IIRC you could increase the damage of the weapon too.

I'll just quote myself on maximal and plasma from another thread (because I know everyone craves, truly craves, my opinion ).:

I think that we should be clear on what maximal is -- it's an inherited cludge.

In DH1 plasma guns do 1d10+6 Pen 6. Not only does this not perform like plasma weapons in TT, once bolters were given Tearing, the average damage of a bolter actually became higher than the average damage of a plasma gun.

So, rather than do what FFG did later with Deathwatch and errata a whole new set of weapon stats, BI introduced plasma weapons with an alternative "maximal" setting in the Inquisitor's Handbook.

I suspect that if plasma weapons were being designed today, they would have no standard/maximal distinction but would simply use the maximal stats.

I don't see it as always bouncing off, but more glancing blows, near misses and so on. Which is a problem the more you simplify any system.

It's a problem in conversion. Generally FFG/BI have converted AP values into Pen flatly: AP6 = Pen 2, AP5 = Pen 4, AP4 = Pen 6, etc. Which is what they did with the multilaser.

HOWEVER, the mutlilaser can kill vehicles in TT, while having poor AP! This is not a problem in TT, because mechanically ability to damage vehicles runs entirely off Strength (except for AP1).. The only way in the RPG to get a weapon that has low Pen to damage vehicles is to give it a whole lot of damage, which is what they did.

Not to mention the phenomena called the Tau Plasma Rifle (a Plasma Gun with Maximal always on but without Recharge/Overheat - the okay-ish representation of the TT Tau Plasma Rifle that is actually weaker than the Imperial Plasma gun).

There are 2 Tau pulse rifle stats running around: Deathwatch stats pre-errata (which are the same as Rogue Trader stats and Only War stats, oddly enough) and Deathwatch stats post-errata, 2d10+3 Pen 5 and 1d10+12 Pen 5. Since they have returned to the former in Only War (presumably because the changes in how Righteous Fury work make it much more effective) I assume this is the "standard".

Comparing it to a plasma gun (on maximal, natch), the plasma gun (outside of the kill yourself and recharge bits) is much better: 2d10+3 Pen 5 vs. 2d10+8 Pen 10. (Actually the Imperial plasma gun can destroy a light vehicle without much difficulty.)

Note that I am NOT arguing against you here -- I'm just thinking out loud.

(I'm assuming BC stats again, because that's the book next to me.)

FINAL COMMENT: I think that in DH plasma, like melta, looks a lot less effective than it is in its original military context due to lack of appropriate targets. It's an anti heavy-infantry weapon for use against things with high AP like Space Marines. Such targets are few and far between in DH. 90% of the time a bolter will be just as, or almost as, effective.

Ahaha... Yeah, because if the Plasma Gun had 2D10+8 damage from the get go then it would be horrible - a better-than-average damage roll and people would -Le Gasp!- die from one shot. That's unacceptable!

Ahaha... Yeah, because if the Plasma Gun had 2D10+8 damage from the get go then it would be horrible - a better-than-average damage roll and people would -Le Gasp!- die from one shot. That's unacceptable!

It didn't have that from the get-go because of the stats developed in the original DH by a different company .

I would have no problem with dropping the "standard" setting period, although having two does give the firer more versatility. and more ammo.

Well, the newest update I feel psychic powers are a rather...safe option really. With the "roll two pick one", shifting the roll up to your willpower bonus and no automatic 1 corruption for phenomena there's not really many drawbacks to psychic phenomena anymore.

Well, the newest update I feel psychic powers are a rather...safe option really. With the "roll two pick one", shifting the roll up to your willpower bonus and no automatic 1 corruption for phenomena there's not really many drawbacks to psychic phenomena anymore.

It sounds like you're describing the Astra Telepathica Bonus pre-Update#6. If we're talking about the same thing, after Update #6 it's a "roll once, pick 1 of 3"...since the psyker rolls and then decides to keep that result or add their WPB to the die result or subtract their WPB from the die result?

My concern about it is how Out-of-Character (OOC) it makes the whole psychic mishap process. I prefer to have the psyker roll and then I pretty quickly describe to everyone In-Character what happens. With this new AAT Bonus, the Player rolls and play stops as the player then analyzes the Table for his three choices. In my opinion, it's slowed down the game, is too OOC & taken a lot of the quick spontaneity out of something "suddenly and "unexpectedly" happening. By the time the psyker has crunched on his menu of options for a bit...it's more "chewed over" than "unexpected".

Update #6 says:

That is IF the group has more than one Astra Telepathica characters within it. The group would need one pskyer or some such character to trigger the phenomena and another AT character to modify the result of the roll.

That is IF the group has more than one Astra Telepathica characters within it. The group would need one pskyer or some such character to trigger the phenomena and another AT character to modify the result of the roll.

He can modify his own roll too... So why would the group need another AAT character?

That is IF the group has more than one Astra Telepathica characters within it. The group would need one pskyer or some such character to trigger the phenomena and another AT character to modify the result of the roll.

He can modify his own roll too... So why would the group need another AAT character?

Ah, I see. No need for a second AAT character in that case.

Would the AAT benefit stack with multiple characters in range?

Would the AAT benefit stack with multiple characters in range?

No, because they always modify the result of the roll. For example Player 1 could increase the 45 roll to 49 or decrease it to 41 with his WPB4 and Player 2 could increase it to 48 or decrease it to 42 because he would still work with the original result of 45 and not Player 1's modified results.

Fair enough

Why not change the AAT power so it simply reduces the rolled result on the Phenomena table by the psyker's WPB? This keeps things spontaneous while still providing a strong benefit, since lower rolls are typically less dangerous than higher ones.

I overall like the changes to psychic powers though I do think that they could use some form of aim action, perhaps added onto the focus power action. By taking extra time and care the psyker may increases there chances of success by spending an additional half action when making a focus power test they gain a +10 bonus a full action spent grants a +20 bonus. Just like aiming making a reaction or anything else that could ruin your concentration causes the action to fail and just for fun causes the psyker to roll on the psychic phenomenon table.

then again I think most actions should have a potential supplemental action to grant them a bonus a character who spends extra time working on a project should gain a bonus from it.