Topic: Blasters - Feedback

[Mungo]

Hi,

I just had a look at the Blaster file. My comments:

- I like the idea about being able to make them explode.
- But compared to the laser they need 1 more cartridge (energy & ammunition), have only 1/3 range (about the same as a Sling) and make only 3 concussion hits more damage on the same adjusted attack roll.
- Adding all together, I think they are too weak compared to Laser weapons, as the ability to overload them will only be used rarely while the other abilities are serious drawbacks that are felt with every shot.
- My suggestion therefore:
       - double the RI (to 2/3 of Laser)
       - increase the Criticals, e.g. add 1 hit/round more on average.
       - have special Blaster Cartridges that combine both energy and the ammunition (but can not used for any other kind of weapon).

And I suggest to also add the Blaster Rifle as possible weapon.

And one other idea would be a Blaster Shotgun....

BR
Juergen

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

I'm happy to simplify the power cell and particle cartridge to a single blaster power pack.

The range is already 1/2 laser range, not 1/3, and part of the explanation of how they work (i.e. quantum entanglement keeping the particle bolt coherent) requires that they be shorter range than lasers.

With regard to increasing the damage on the crit tables, I'm concerned about turning this into an arms race between the blaster and the flamer as to which is more deadly.

Do note that blasters have a higher burst bonus than lasers.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Lord Damian]

I second the vote for a combined "blaster only" "clip".  IMHO its a case of Ocams Razor in reverse.  why overcomplicate that which does not need it.  I don't see the military (who, lets face it, develops most weapons,) WANTING their troops to carry twice as much "ammo".  I think it'd be a case of putting just enough reaction mass together with just the right ammount of energy, with maybe a small reserve of each after the "empty" mark, into a single exchangable housing.  The reserve would be primarily to a) run any electrical systems in an emergency situation (flashlights, laster designators, and/or readouts) and b) to ease "reloading" of the Reaction mass cylender (if there's still mass there, it's less likely to be polluted by admosphere because of posative pressure).  of course, in an Action universe, said reserve is also JUST enough to overload the system. 

Lord Damian

PS pardon the overuseage of quotes.    I was in a quotey mood.

[Mungo]

Hi,

The range is already 1/2 laser range, not 1/3, and part of the explanation of how they work (i.e. quantum entanglement keeping the particle bolt coherent) requires that they be shorter range than lasers.

With regard to increasing the damage on the crit tables, I'm concerned about turning this into an arms race between the blaster and the flamer as to which is more deadly.

In general:
Blasters should definitely have a shorter range than Lasers, as they shoot real particles. But on the other hand they should be more deadly for the same reason (and for game balance as well, as otherwise the Laser is vastly superior).

But comparing Laser to Blaster with current rules:
Burst bonus: Blasters +5 more than Laser equivalent
Hits: Blaster Critical +3 more concussion than equivalent Laser Critical
RI: Mini: Laser 2.5x more / Pistol: Laser 2x more / Assault: Laser 3x more / Hunting: no Blaster yet / Support: no Laser yet
Weapon Cell: both 1 (if Nicholas agrees)

Flamers to Blaster:
Burst bonus: Blasters +5 more than Flamer equivalent
Hits: Plasma Critical +0/+1 bleeding and -10/-15 more penalty and +1 Hit more than Blaster Critical
RI: Flamer 2x more
Weapon Cell: Flamer 2, Blaster 1

I really believe that with this comparison there are 2 results:
If Flamers exist in a game, Blaster always loses.
If only Laser and Blaster exist, Blaster loses as minimal increase in damage is offset by shorter range.

Therefore my suggestions:
- Increase Blaster range at least for Assault Blasters
- Increase Blaster damage - make it that compared to the flamer the weapon with higher range makes less damage.
- Increase Burst Bonus of Blaster further or decrease Burst Bonus for Laser/Flamer.

Otherwise I think the Blaster really does not make sense (as the other weapons are superior) and could be substituted by a statement: "If you want a Blaster, take the Flamer and call it Blaster".

And to simplify things: I suggest also for the Flamer to have only one type of cartridge, combining energy and ammunition.

BR
Juergen

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Hi,

The range is already 1/2 laser range, not 1/3, and part of the explanation of how they work (i.e. quantum entanglement keeping the particle bolt coherent) requires that they be shorter range than lasers.

With regard to increasing the damage on the crit tables, I'm concerned about turning this into an arms race between the blaster and the flamer as to which is more deadly.

In general:
Blasters should definitely have a shorter range than Lasers, as they shoot real particles. But on the other hand they should be more deadly for the same reason (and for game balance as well, as otherwise the Laser is vastly superior).

But comparing Laser to Blaster with current rules:
Burst bonus: Blasters +5 more than Laser equivalent
Hits: Blaster Critical +3 more concussion than equivalent Laser Critical
RI: Mini: Laser 2.5x more / Pistol: Laser 2x more / Assault: Laser 3x more / Hunting: no Blaster yet / Support: no Laser yet
Weapon Cell: both 1 (if Nicholas agrees)

Flamers to Blaster:
Burst bonus: Blasters +5 more than Flamer equivalent
Hits: Plasma Critical +0/+1 bleeding and -10/-15 more penalty and +1 Hit more than Blaster Critical
RI: Flamer 2x more
Weapon Cell: Flamer 2, Blaster 1

I really believe that with this comparison there are 2 results:
If Flamers exist in a game, Blaster always loses.
If only Laser and Blaster exist, Blaster loses as minimal increase in damage is offset by shorter range.

Therefore my suggestions:
- Increase Blaster range at least for Assault Blasters
- Increase Blaster damage - make it that compared to the flamer the weapon with higher range makes less damage.
- Increase Burst Bonus of Blaster further or decrease Burst Bonus for Laser/Flamer.

Otherwise I think the Blaster really does not make sense (as the other weapons are superior) and could be substituted by a statement: "If you want a Blaster, take the Flamer and call it Blaster".

And to simplify things: I suggest also for the Flamer to have only one type of cartridge, combining energy and ammunition.

BR
Juergen

Some misconceptions here, probably due to the fact that the latest pdf has yet to be released.

Flamers are *not* particle weapons. They are firing superheated flammable gas. That's why they do more damage because it is over a larger area. This isn't some neat energy bolt weapon, it's a high-tech flamethrower.

That's why the Flamer is currently top gun. (And likely to remain so until someone produces the Disruptor/Disintegrator table)

Flamers are now in Spread Weapons, *not* 1-H Energy or 2-H Energy. Spread Weapons fumble on 01-04, not the 01-02 of Energy Weapons. And that's a different skill to boot.

I am quite happy to simplify both flamer and blaster ammunition requirements to a single item.

The suggestion to decrease the Burst Bonus of the Laser weapons such that the difference is 10 across the board is interesting. Support Blasters have +10 more in Burst bonus than Support Lasers, so that would be consistent. I don't want to raise the burst bonus.

Likewise the burst bonus of flamers could be tweaked downward and there might be room to reduce the range increment of flamers. I wish to think more on this.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

I shall post in the downloads section revised text on the various weapons, accessories, and relevant ammo, plus accompanying tables.

Regarding the blaster vs lasers:
1) Blaster Burst Bonus vs Laser Burst Bonus is now 10 in favor of Blasters, lasers had theirs lowered where necessary
2) Blaster Point Blank Bonus has been increased to 10 more than lasers (excepting the miniblaster which is only 5 better than the minilaser)
3) Blasters now use powerpacks combining powercell and particle cartridge

Ranges and crit tables stay the same. I'd say the Blaster is now the better close-up weapon, the laser the better range weapon

Regarding the blaster v flamers:
1) The Flame Repeater Burst Bonus was lowered by five
2) Flamers have had their ranges halved

I note also that flamers have a fumble range of 01-04 and their plasmapacks have much more limited ammunition. I also note that spread weapons are now excluded from Sniping maneuvers.

Flamers keep their better crit table.

As an aside, I upped the Range Increment on the Hunting Laser to 40m.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Mungo]

Hi,

Only range problem I had (and that is still valid) is the Assault Blaster, as with an RI of 10m it is - even without comparing to the Laser - not quite sufficient for military purposes. And also comparing to the laser, it is 1/3 of the Laser Rifle, while Blaster Pistol is only 1/2 of Laser Pistol.

So I would still like to see the RI of the Assault Blaster increased, at least to 15m (20m would be better from the military point of view, but I see the problems this causes with weapon balance).

I would also like to suggest the following naming convention:

- A 2-H burst capable weapon is called "Assault ..." (means renaming Laser Rifle to Assault Laser)
- A normal 2-H single fire weapon is called "Hunting ..."

BR
Juergen

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Hi,

Only range problem I had (and that is still valid) is the Assault Blaster, as with an RI of 10m it is - even without comparing to the Laser - not quite sufficient for military purposes. And also comparing to the laser, it is 1/3 of the Laser Rifle, while Blaster Pistol is only 1/2 of Laser Pistol.

So I would still like to see the RI of the Assault Blaster increased, at least to 15m (20m would be better from the military point of view, but I see the problems this causes with weapon balance).

That was a mistake in the updating process. Assault Blasters now changed in manuscript to RI of 15m.

I would also like to suggest the following naming convention:

- A 2-H burst capable weapon is called "Assault ..." (means renaming Laser Rifle to Assault Laser)
- A normal 2-H single fire weapon is called "Hunting ..."

I knew there was a reason why I gave up keeping the entries in alphabetical order. Having now made more than a dozen changes (because the word "laser rifle" was used in robot examples, adventuring examples, etc., as well as in equipment and combat tables), I'm not going to enforce that sort of consistency on sonic stunners and electrostunners, particularly since there are only two types of each.

Best wishes,
Nicholas