Plasma Pistol Downgrade

[Skaffolding]

So I recently made a calculation which was approved by a calc group member that downgraded the plasma pistol to Large Building level, here it is; https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Skaffolding/Warhammer_40k:_Handgun_Recalc

I was advised to make a thread about the scaling and all sorts of other stuff so that it could be discussed which characters would be affected by this change, so... discuss.

 

[Skaffolding]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

You can use the Warhammer 40,000 page and the Knowledgeable Members List to find members that you can ask to comment here.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think this seems reasonable, but would like to here thoughts from Matthew Schroeder or Crabwhale. I think Wokistan is also a supporter of the verse.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Feel free to contact them about it.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Uh I'm not sure

 

[Wokistan]

I don't think anyone is actually scaled from the plasma pistol. I suppose it would be possible to scale most of the 8-Cs to High 8-C from it because Power Armor does provide some protection against it and its less outliery, but idk.

 

[Crabwhale]

Yeah, considering nobody actually scales from the Plasma Pistol, this should be okay to use.

Btw Wok, plasma weapons almost always yeet anyone not in Termie armor, so High 8-C gun with 8-C Astartes actually makes sense.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm not familiar with the Verse, but it does seem to oneshot all the 8-C characters and do nothing to any of the High 6-C and above. So I suppose it seems fine either way.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that nothing in particular needs to be done here then?

 

[Skaffolding]

Don't Custodes and Dreadnoughts scale from the Plasma pistol currently?

At least their durability does, since it's more durable than terminator armour which can survive a plasma pistol.

 

[Crabwhale]

Plasma Cannon actually. Toootally different thing.

 

[Skaffolding]

Oh right, is that not just scaled from Plasma Pistols?

 

[Crabwhale]

No. Plasma Cannons scale roughly from Lascannons, which can sub-atomize tanks.

 

[Skaffolding]

Ah right.

 

[Crabwhale]

Side note, but the Plasma Weapons profile should probably be deleted.

Like, this is the reason we don't do profiles for an entire class of weapons in a verse, there are just too many variations on plasma weapons, and the ones in the actual profile barely scratch the surface.

 

[Skaffolding]

I think Warhammer is, like, REALLY inconsistent in terms of pretty much everything. One minute Primarchs can suck a million bolt rounds into their skull with no consequences, the next Konrad Curze gets killed by a few puny human assassins just because he's naked. The weapons are probably just as bad, if not worse, in terms of consistency.

Also do you know where I can find that Lascannon calculation? I kind of want to see it, sorry if it's too much trouble.

 

[Crabwhale]

Konrad actually allowed himself to be assassinated.

But yeah, that's what happens when you go through hundreds of different writers throughout your lifespan as a franchise.

 

[Crabwhale]

And here:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:FanofRPGs/Power_of_Martian_Fighting_Machines

It's for a different thing altogether, but it is applicable to Warhammer as well.

 

[Skaffolding]

Thank you. Where was it decided that Lascannons destroyed things subatomically though? I thought they just vaporized massive holes in things.

 

[Crabwhale]

In all honesty, I don't know. Azzy requested it out of ArbitraryNumbers here and Matt told me that Numbers himself said the calc above was more reliable.

 

[Skaffolding]

Oh right, I thought there was a scan somewhere for a Lascannon breaking apart nuclei. I remember seeing one for a Gauss Flayer, but it also said that the target was turned to "dust" so it's probably not too reliable.

 

[Crabwhale]

There is a calc for that Flayer feat.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Darkanine/Warhammer_40k:_Sub-Atomizing_stuff

 

[Skaffolding]

Yeah, the quotes used for that calc show someone's muscles being consumed "atom by atom" and then the end result being described as dust. Is that enough to justify subatomic destruction being used? I thought it needed to be directly stated that the nuclei were being broken down into their components, this seems more like it's just pulling the nuclei of the atoms away from each other than anything. That's not even mentioning the dust part, which would be pulverization.

 

[Crabwhale]

Well, that calc isn't even being used at this point.

 

[Skaffolding]

Alright, thank you for the help.