Plasma weapons
 

I am working on a ultra tech campaign and plan on having plasma weapony being
one of the major armaments of the campaign, but I am finding that the description of plasma weapons from the book to be somewhat confusing.
The ultra tech book lists 2 plasma weapons types the first being a "plasma flamer" that says that it is a projector yet they seem to behave like normal guns and the other plasma weapon causes a small explosion with each shot which is a little to devastating in my opinion to be a standard weapon of soldiers aboard a spaceship.
I am trying to make plasma weapons that behave more like the plasma weapons from the convenient from halo or the plasma weapons wielded by the aliens in xcom enemy unknown, or the staff weapon of the goauld from stargate.
With this in mind I was hoping that someone has a better idea on how to achieve what I am trying to do. The best I can figure is to just use the plasma flamers and jump up their rof and treat them as a plasma bolt thrower rather then a flame thrower.
Also do you think that the energy cells of plasma weapons would be interchangable with the power cells of say a laser weapon or would the plasma weapon require a sort of hydrogen fuel cell to make plasma from?

Re: Plasma weapons
 

For the Halo or X-Com weapons, "Plasma" is mostly fluff. I'd just treat them as Blasters (described in UT as charged particle beam weapons, but can be used as a stand-in for any energy weapon firing discrete bolts rather than a continuous beam). Maybe drop the Surge damage effect and replace it with linked Corrosive damage (ie, the plasma is so hot it melts through armor). Weaponized plasma is so far outside what is remotely plausible that you can have it do whatever you want.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I really like what you said about adding corrosive to the plasma weapons as that is a nice alternative to a armor divisor and makes sense. But I feel that if i used particle weapons as a base I would have to reduce its range, divisor, and accuracy which sounds like it would be easier to modify the plasma weapons altho the particle weapons do provide a good comparison for damage.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Use the blasters from UT. You sound like you want semi-automatic energy weapons (that is, distinct "bolts" of "plasma" energy rather than a beam or a rapid-fire weapon). Blasters are basically that.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Fair enough. I had assumed you were happy with the range and accuracy of the Plamsa "bolt" guns, which are roughly the same as the Particle Beams. As for Armor Divisor, I'd leave that alone unless you want these weapons to be completely ineffective against armor. At TL10-11, even civilian armor like Bioplas has a good chance of protecting against Flamer sidearms, and military-grade armor confers complete immunity.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

well most "plasma" weapons iv seen seem to move comparatively slow compared to particle weapons which seem to move at the speed of light. But I looked up blasters and Im starting to think that you are both right in using blasters as a base instead even if I modified their range as the blasters are much more fleshed out and have a full spectrum of weapons to pull from as opposed to the 4 flamers listed. as far as your point about armor divisor do you think trading the surge for corrosion as the campain is only a 9-10 the armor shouldnt be to overwhelming.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

There's a tricky thing in modeling a lot of space opera in GURPS, namely in that space opera ultra-tech sucks. For example, you're right: most "plasma" weapons move slower than the speed of light. They also move slower than bullets. They typically move about as fast as you'd expect an arrow to move. They also fire about as quickly as a semi-automatic weapon, and tend to be about as lethal as a bullet. So one might find them comparable to a winchester, and actually inferior to an M16 in many ways, never mind what a TL 11 weapon might actually look like.

You can either just stat things up based on what you want, or accept the versions found in UT, which I find a superior option as you'll probably also use armor from UT, and the two are (or should be) balanced against one another.

It does tend to pull your fights very far apart, though.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Let's see.. a Blaster Rifle normally deals 6d(5) burn. It can reliably penetrate up to DR 105. If its entire 6d is also treated as Corrosive for the purpose of damaging armor, each hit will on average knock off 4 DR. If you remove the AD, it would take 21 consecutive hits to drop that DR 105 to the level where it could be penetrated.

Of course, at TL9 the only armor with that much protection is the Combat Walker, or at TL10 the Commando or Heavy Battlesuit. A more modest TL9 Combat Hardsuit could be compromised in about 8 hits. That still leaves the question of why they're bothering to use this Plasma gun, instead of something like a Storm Rifle firing 10mm AP rounds, or 25mm shaped charge mini grenades.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

You bring up a very good point the damage of weapons in gurps without armor divisors are very high, so maybe i should use the higher damage variants of the plasma weapons from the ultra tech book and trade their explosive damage in for a corrosion modifier as a person armed with a plasma pistol of that type would be doing 7 to 10 dice of damage and could potentially work his way thru most armor types he encounters and these guns come with a built in armor divisor of 2 which would make them more lethal against lightly armored opponents but still have a chance against heavily armored opponents especially if they are armed with the heavier riffle sized models

Re: Plasma weapons
 

You can remove the explosion part from the UT Plasma guns. It's not particularly realistic (even considering plasma weapons unrealism) and it's actually more annoying than devastating.

Take that 10D from the Heavy Plasma Pistol. It sounds impressive but the 35 damage to the main target become 11 a single yard away and 5 a yard farther than that. Then 3, 2, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1, and then 0 at 12 yards away.

You could have a high probability of killing an unarmored human and seriously wounding the guy standing right next to him (but only if he has no armor either) but after that you mostly scorch paint or possibly singe your own eyebrows. Get rid of the "exp" and it gets a lot simpler and more sueful to people not in battlesuits who are trying to start fires.

Without the "exp" a Heavy Plasma Pistol wounds like a 12 ga shotgun slug. It won't penetrate at TL11 Combat Hardsuit unless you go for a limb or the faceplate. The regular Plasma Pistol wouldn't penetrate at all.

Simply removing the "exp" is what I'd do.

If you follow the technobabble in the descriptive text for Plasma guns their power cells would not be interchangeable with other weapons. They work on what 33 called "Power cartridges" rather than "Power cells". Power cartridges aren't rechargeable either.

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).

Re: Plasma weapons
 

The Basic Set doesn't have a lot of support for flamethrower-like weapons. A Jet is just treated as a pseudo-melee attack, able to hit any target within its reach without a range penalty. UT Flamers should be Jet weapons based on their description, but a Jet attack with a "reach" of over a hundred yards is pretty hard to swallow. The Flamers also have Acc, which doesn't apply to Jet attacks. All in all, they could probably use a rewrite.

High Tech (which came out after UT) has slightly more detail, and introduces All-Out Attack (Jet), which is similar to Spraying Fire with automatic weapons.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

You could hose down areas with flamers in 3e. The (rather ad hoc) rules text for that wasn't brought forward into 4e.

Of course, general rules for this sort of weapon didn't replace various ad hocisms from 3e.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Huh? Contemporary flamethrowers can incinerate a target some 50–80 meters . The TL7 one is up to 75 yards in High-Tech.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

The problem is the 'jet' mechanic as it exists in GURPS (which ignores range penalties), not the idea of a jet of material with long range.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Don't those flamethrowers throw a flaming liquid explaining their long rang if this is so then plasma flamers may not benefit from the same as they do not use 50 pounds of fuel like a traditional flamethrower, instead dont they use a gasious plasma?

Re: Plasma weapons
 

The things about flamethrowers that make them need _some_ mechanic totally different from guns is that their attack is completely visible to the unaided human eye. It takes place within ranges where human depth perception is relatively good and endures long enough for human reflexes to compensate for being off-target.

I'm pretty sure flamethrowers would be even less accurately modeled if they were wedged into the system used for other Ranged weapons (especially the Rapid fire mechanic).

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Actually, using some version of the rapid fire mechanics would probably improve modeling of flamethrowers, as it gives you a sensible distinction between holding the shot on target for a full second vs a fraction of a second and reasonably standardized spreading rules.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

It sort of does, and sort of doesn't.

It breaks down depending on whether you represent a stream of plasma as RoF 300 of 1d shots, or RoF 15 of 20d shots (even for a recoilless weapon).

Re: Plasma weapons
 

To get this back on track, I'm kind of interested in exploring the idea of adding corr to the burn damage of the UT plasma weapons. I think that the weapons as written do a decent job of emulating the XCOM plasma weapons. For Halo guns, though, you'd need to massively reduce damage and greatly increase RoF.

I'd say that for a Halo style plasma rifle, a RoF 10, 8d(2) burn corr "plasma gun" would be about right. This gun will, on average, reduce the DR of armor by 5 per hit, while doing 28 damage per shot. Let's assume that ODST armor is about DR 60 in the torso. The first hit does nothing, but reduces the DR to 55. THe second also does nothing beyond singe the trooper a bit (1/2 point of damage, on average), but reduces the DR to 50. The third hit does 28-50/2 = 3 burn and further reduces the DR to 45. This is so far fairly accurate in terms of what happens in Halo. The fourth hit starts to hurt (28-45/2 = 5 burn, which is painful, but not a Major Wound) and reduces DR to 40. The FIFTH hit starts to really damage the marine (28-40/2 = 8 burn, which is a major wound on most humans), and cumulative damage is now 3+5+8 = 16, which is almost certainly putting the marine below 0 HP.

This is, frankly, almost exactly the pattern of Halo games on the non-Spartans. A sixth hit is striking DR 35 (28-35/2 = 10.5 burn) and causing very serious surface burning, while a seventh is probably lethal (28-30/2 = 13 burn, cumulative damage 16+10+13 = 39, enough for a couple death checks).

Now, keep in mind that this weapon is RoF 10, Rcl 1 (it's NOT Rcl 2 IMO), so a decent burst may actually hit with 5 shots.

For XCOM weapons, use the UT as written with corr instead of ex (I don't know if that's strictly legal, but I don't see why not)--3dx5(2) burn corr reduces armor by an average of 10 DR pe hit, and does 52 damage per shot. Against an XCOM operative with DR 60, the first hit does 22 burn (ouch), the second hit does 27, and the third does 32. Dead XCOM trooper. (And that's the plasma rifle...a "heavy plasma" is doing even more!)

I kind of like this model for plasma weapons a lot because it allows an armored hero to easily survive a few hits compared to the AD (5) of blasters, which, let's face it, normally put a hero into 0 HP after just 1 or 2 hits. Compare: 6d(5) vs DR 60 = 9 tbb per hit, which can hit Vitals, unlike the plasma guns above, meaning that 1 particularly well-placed blaster bolt will do 18 damage and take someone down very fast.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I'd actually probably model it as around RoF 4. The RoF rules for high rate of fire are problematic, and all we care about is a mechanical effect, since it's not like a stream actually had a distinct RoF.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

It's been awhile since I played the games, and the spread is a bit different in each one, but keep in mind that Rcl 1 is reserved in GURPS for weapons that essentially lack any sort of spread. If memory serves, the plasma rifle tended to have a bit less spread than the assault rifle in Halo 1, and probably about the same spread as the pistol in Halo 2 (Halo 1's pistol was a zero-spread-sniper-pistol-of-DOOM). It seems to fit quite comfortably at around Rcl 2.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

By Halo 3 and Reach (and possibly Halo 4), the plasma weapons are almost spread-less by comparison to the UNSC weapons. Rcl 1 can also simulate super-light to nearly-nonexistent recoil effects, which I think simulates the later Halo games' plasma weapons nicely. I don't recall what they were like in Halo and Halo 2...been too long, but regardless, I'd go with what's in the most recent games, and in those, the plasma pistol and plasma rifle are effectively recoilless.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I didn't play much of 3 (and never bothered with the plasma rifles), and haven't played the others. In the first two, the plasma rifle had a decent amount of spread, while the plasma pistol typically had none at all. Whichever games you'd prefer to go with are, of course, the best, although personally I would run plasma rifles as having Rcl 2. If they have virtually no spread, Rcl 1 is indeed the way to go.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

That might be a fair ruling, given that UT is specific about plasma guns being the only energy weapons to have actual Rcl. That makes them considerably worse weapons, though. I might up RoF to 13 in that case so they can get the +3 RoF bonus.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

ROF 4 would mean you had to succeed by 4 just to hold the whole stream on target when "aiming" one at short range really doesn't seem to be any harder than "aiming" a pressure washer. I mean, how many soldiers put 200 hours of range time in on flamethrowers before using one?

That's the thing about the rapid fire rules. They have substantial and sometimes nigh unavoidable missing built into them and this is done so as to reflect the lack of Skill and negative modifiers of common users and situations rather than the physical properties of the weapon in question. Frequently it results in missed shots when doing such would be nigh impossible.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Intensive learning hours count double, so you'd only need 100 hours of range time. Nobody really uses flamethrowers anymore in the real world though, so the question really should be how many hours were soldiers trained for flamethrowers when they were in use. Back when Marine 0351s used them, I imagine they got as much training as they do on the SMAW or whatever today.

The other thing that reflects "as easy to aim as a pressure washer" is that it ignores range penalties and can probably Telegraphic Attack.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

The weapon might have a bonus to Dodge similar to Telegraphic Attack but the user isn't choosing to use that option.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Why not? "Treat it as a melee weapon with a very long reach rather
than as a ranged weapon."

Telegraphic Attack is an option for Melee attacks.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Because I don't think the bonuis to Di9dge results from the user's actions. It's part of the weapon';s characteristics. There's no way for the user to not give the bonus to Dodge.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Then they should get the +4 to hit as well. It's still easy to aim the things as you've already pointed out.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Well, they're area weapons, so that's something like +4. Holding a fine stream on a moving target for a full second isn't particularly easy.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Except that they're not. Now, I wouldn't mind them being treated as Cones; it certainly seems plausible to hit multiple targets with a single stream. But at present they're Jets. While they do inflict Large-Area Injury when they hit, they're still treated as targeting an individual, not an area.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Isn't there another problem with flame throwers, in that their jets are relatively slow (in comparison to other ranged weapons anyway) so are going to be easier to avoid.

Personally with RAW I'd give a bonus to dodge, (at the very least at ranges over 1/2). I also don't think that I'd give the telegraphed attack and the lack of range penalties together.

Actually that said since flame-throwers were really designed for hitting static targets and areas rather than moving ones (unless you we're facing a charging foe), what I might actually do is this:

Telegraphic attack but with range penalties and the bonus for the target to dodge (its more difficult to hit someone with a pressure hose at it's maximum range than it is at 5m). With no range penalties we're saying a flame thrower is as accurate at 80 yards as it is at 4 yards, which I don't think is true. I think the +4 from telegraph attack theoretically cancelling out up -4 in range penalties is a better way to go.

What I would do is have 'walking the burst', and bonuses for 'aiming' & 'tracers' if you keeping the jet on one second to the next.

I think that's better to model sweeping an area with a flame-thrower and catching as many targets within it in situations were they can't get out the way within it as possible, rather than the current ability to pick off individuals with no penalties for range.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I don't have my books with me but isn't there All-Out Attack (Jet) in HT models covering an area with a flame thrower? (It was mentioned in passing earlier)

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Yeah, on HT178. You can hit targets in a three-hex wide area. It stills seems to be treated as three adjacent point-attacks, rather than attacking an area.

Hmm... perhaps the best way to handle it for now is to treat a Flamethrower as hitting a 1-hex area (and giving +4 for targeting an area instead of a individual within it) instead of a Jet. The AoA lets you enlarge that area by dividing damage equally between adjacent hexes (so 1d in 3 hexes for TL6-8 chemical flamethrowers) and you roll once to place the center of that area. Misses use the normal scatter rules, though if the path of fire hits an intervening object the area lands there instead. If you fire continuously, you can use the Walking The Burst rule from Tactical Shooting, since the path of fire is very obvious. All together this makes flamethrowers easier to target at short distances, though they still must contend with normal range penalties.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I find the idea of depriving flamethrowers of the Jet class to be somewhat weird, because Jet was pretty much created to represent flamethrowers. If we go that far, we might as well go around fixing the Rapid Fire rules to become actually generic/universal.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I know that Jet is supposed to represent flamethrowers, but it just doesn't do a good job of it at all. Ideally we'd fix Jet so it actually makes sense (and I'd love to hear any suggestions you might have on that). Until then, we might as well use some different attack type that better reflects the mechanics of a flamethrower, such as Cone or Area.

Heh, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Aha, cool, cheers. Although I would rule that sweeping a flame-thrower through three adjacent hexes , it's going to be difficult to not hit the area!

That said, I look at that as attempt to turn a Jet attack into a cone attack, which I have no problem visualising.

I like it general, it has the effect of making them more versatile, you can spread one attack quickly for less effect, do it slowly for more effect

The thing is I'm not sure the jet rules as RAW are a very good match for flame throwers, But then I think that's because i don't think jet rules are very consistent with the kinds of attacks that are used to represent. That said I haven't had cause to use them very much.

But as it stands they appear to model extremely accurate attacks that can quickly pick off individuals at distance very well, but are continuous streams of effect. These two things seem to be counter to each other in RL the only examples i can think of are water cannon, and flame-throwers on a large scale and fire extinguishers and super soakers on a small scale. I'm going to have to read up on them some more tonight I think

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Jet was created to represent the Jet category of spells in Magic.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Had another look at jet rules last night, I had forgotten they ignored target speed mods as well!

Yeah really not sure they model flame throwers very well*. The more I think about it I think instead of making them super accurate straight away the best way is to have them being brought onto target by continuous application (i.e as above), which fits the fact that they often have multiple seconds bursts on them.

*really don't think hitting a chap on a motorbike doing 50 mph at 50 yards is as easy as hitting him stationary at 5 yards is. However I do think hitting an area that he's going to drive through is a better description of what happens. I also think that given dispersion of the fuel that at greater ranges flame-throwers are more like area attacks than direct attacks anyway.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

If so, those are still heavily based on modern flamethrowers, watercannon etc. But yeah, rules are . . . interesting.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

No, really, the jet rules have been that way since before GURPS High-Tech (first edition) was even written, and were always used to represent jets with ranges of 1-3 hexes that functioned like unparryable melee weapons; any resemblance to real weapons is accidental.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

3e:
The old Flame Jet describes jet as being comparable to a sword, which doesn't seem to be any wider than a flamethrower's jet. Light Jet seems to have an effective range of 10 yards, but is narrow enough that aiming for the face is required to blind someone. Sound Jet is described as a magical effect "like a high-tech stunner".

4e:
"Your attack is a continuous stream, like a flamethrower." (B106.) 4e Jets also have ½D ranges, like other Guns weapons.

Yes, there does seem to be a legacy connection, but it seems that in 4e, it is the magic jets that got subsumed into flamethrower-like effects, not vice versa.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

That seems to be the intent. About two years ago Kromm and I put together some comprehensive weapon table errata for UT, and one of the things we agreed to do was change the flamer to Jet to make it more like the other flamethrower stats.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

The thing is while it makes sense to make the UT flamer like a HT flame-thrower, does the jet rules model HT flame-throwers (and now UT flamers) well? I.e did you make the consistency run in the right direction?

Re: Plasma weapons
 

Problem is that the Jet rules are crappy for anything other than the jets in GURPS Magic; flamethrowers in general behave much more like conventional ranged weapons than odd melee weapons.

Re: Plasma weapons
 

I'm still looking forward to its release :)