Re: Plasma weapons
 

I have a problem with the power cartridge explanation in that it sounds too much like the plasma warheads listed in the same book, like for instance the fuel rod gun in halo could easily be seen as a form of gravitic gyroc launcher firing plasma warheads and if thats the case why have "energy" weapons that are effectively the same thing?

Thanks guys this was my first forum posting and it was surprizingly productive and I think I will be participating in this forum more often as so far you guys have been awesome.

Thanks!

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Personally, I'd stay away from blasters if you're going for a Halo feel to your plasma weapons. In Halo, the various plasma weapons have comparable accuracy and spread to the human firearms, while GURPS blasters are highly accurate with negligible spread (basically short-range, slightly-less-accurate lasers). I'm away from my books, but I'd agree with probably using the plasma weapon stats from UT without the Exp modifier. To fully emulate Halo, plasma weapons would end up having something like the surge modifier, except in the Halo-verse unshielded machines and energy-based defenses take extra damage from surge attacks (rather than risking shutdown on a critical hit).

As for swapping power, that's up to the GM but the default is indeed a "no." You could go for the route giving the weapons two separate "ammo" slots - one for holding the hydrogen, one for slotting in the power cell - in which case the power cell would be interchangeable. Going back to Halo again, the non-reloadable nature of the plasma weapons could be due to them having a purely internal reservoir of hydrogen that requires taking the weapon apart to refuel.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I'm in agreement with using the UT plasma weapons and swapping the ex modifier for surge and corrosive (to represent armor being burned away on each hit). I think the higher base damage of the plasma weapons will work well with the corrosive damage type. Don't they also have an inherent AD (2) as well? Pretty sure you said that, and I'd keep it. It'll help get through armor even faster. This model will create a paradigm where armor is quite effective at first, but only lasts a few hits. This fairly accurately models both XCOM and Halo style plasma weapons.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I just realized if you use a corrosive attack against a forcefield or a dr with the forcefield enhancement would the corrosive effect not work against the forcefield, as the forcefield is an energy and cannot be dissolved?

Re: Plasma weapons
 

The Plasma Warheads are inexplicably terrible compared to most other weapons. Their damage is lower than same-sized Thermobaric warheads, and little better than HEC despite costing much more. A conventional pistol deals less with plasma shells than with normal bullets (especially if allowing ETC), and an equivalent-sized plasma pistol deals far more than either one. Perhaps Plasma Warheads are intended to be "less supersciency" than other plasma weapons, but they come across as trying to fill a niche that doesn't exist.

By default, Corrosion treats all DR the same, including force fields. Innate DR that's immune to Corrosion would need an enhancement, perhaps as much as Cosmic: Rules Exemption (+50%). Of course, technological force fields can work however you like. Most of them are Semi-Ablative, meaning they already are degraded by normal damage. Personally, I'd have Corrosion effects "stack" with Semi-Ablative, for -3 DR per 10 damage (effectively -1 DR per die).

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Probably not on topic, but isn't a blaster technically plasma in the scientific definition? Essentially the ionization and "blasting" of the particles at the target after the ionization?

I just found that slightly interesting that people differentiate the weapons.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Plasma is ionized, a GURPS Blaster bolt is not. With a particle accelerator-based blaster, you start (as I understand it) with negative ions which are propelled through the blaster. Once they reach atmosphere, the extra electrons are stripped off, leaving a stream of high-velocity neutral particles to continue onward and hit the target. The particles essentially rip apart the target at the atomic level, causing heavy ionization. By contrast, a plasma weapon starts by converting hydrogen into an extremely high-energy (and thus high temperature) plasma, presumably keeping it together using a magnetic field, then fires this. The magnetic field is somehow maintained such that the (much slower-moving) plasma bolt stays together until it hits the target, at which point it explodes, dumping a great deal of thermal energy onto the target. Without some sort of superscience to maintain the cohesion of the plasma, the result would be the plasma "bolt" exploding as soon as it leaves the barrel. Plasma is essentially impossible to contain at a distance.

TL;DR version: A blaster isn't superscience, a plasma weapon is. While their projectiles have some superficial resemblance, they really are distinct.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I just compared a plasma flamer to a tl 6 flamethrower and I noticed a couple of things that seem odd.
With the flamethrower the rof is jet
With a heavy flamer the rof is 1

First shouldn't the rof of the flamer also be jet.
Second as far as I know it is not possible to "hose down an area" with a jet so that means that with a flamethrower you can only hit one person a round as if you were using a lever action riffle does this seem right?

Re: Plasma weapons
 

A particle beam isn't plasma, though it generates plasma if used in an atmosphere. A 'blaster' is poorly defined.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I'd imagine a plasma flamer should indeed have RoF Jet, rather than 1. As for hosing down an area, I believe HT had some explicit rules for how to do that with a flamethrower, which should be easily adapted for the flamer (provided you change its RoF to Jet).