PDA

View Full Version : Lasguns are boring, there I said it!



IG_Airborne_Ranger
13-02-2010, 19:21
It seems no matter what GW does with the fluff or the tabletop rules there is simply nothing appealing about Lasguns or any of the Imperial Laser weapons at all! It has to be one of the mose unappealing weapons in sci-fi history! Won't stop me from playing Imperial Guard though, but it is getting really hard for me to imagine these weapons as being badass as an M-16 or AK-47.

Mr Zoat
13-02-2010, 19:28
Feel free to model your Imperial Guard as carrying autoguns.

Brady
13-02-2010, 19:33
i think the lasgun is slightly more powerful than an AK. its just comparitively crap

azimaith
13-02-2010, 19:33
The lasgun itself is kind of boring but the fact you can charge cells by exposing them to sunlight, body heat, or throwing them in a fire is really neat.

Lord of Worms
13-02-2010, 19:38
The lasgun itself is kind of boring but the fact you can charge cells by exposing them to sunlight, body heat, or throwing them in a fire is really neat.

+1. What he said.

Marneus Calgar
13-02-2010, 19:39
The lasgun itself is kind of boring but the fact you can charge cells by exposing them to sunlight, body heat, or throwing them in a fire is really neat.

I totally agree with this statement.

I just love how soldiers can recharge their ammunition if a Chimera is nearby. I find it awesome that when Catachan soldiers run out of ammunition during the heat of battle, they can throw them in a bonfire to recharge the power cells.

The flashlight jokes do get tiring, but whenever I kill a unit with lasguns I mention to my opponent that they should have worn sunglasses..

Lord Malorne
13-02-2010, 19:41
OP: Would you rather the weapon was hilarious? :wtf:

Mannimarco
13-02-2010, 19:43
what do you call a lasgun with a laser targetter?

twin linked

sorry it had to be said :D

lasguns arnt that bad, if you really dont like them though you could always use autoguns as theyre the same stats

IG_Airborne_Ranger
13-02-2010, 20:01
Apart from imagining them as Autoguns, is it also okay to seem them like the Colonial Marine Pulse Rifle from ALIENS? At least they made a cool rapid fire sound.

jsullivanlaw
13-02-2010, 20:04
It seems no matter what GW does with the fluff or the tabletop rules there is simply nothing appealing about Lasguns or any of the Imperial Laser weapons at all! It has to be one of the mose unappealing weapons in sci-fi history! Won't stop me from playing Imperial Guard though, but it is getting really hard for me to imagine these weapons as being badass as an M-16 or AK-47.

The lasgun is actually the 40k equivilent of the AK-47. What made the AK the best assault rifle in the world (and really nothing has surpassed it of yet) was it's reliability. Guns like the M-16 jam occasionally, especially if you don't clean them. With the AK-47 on the other hand, you could crawl around in the mud and use it with no fear of it ever jamming. I own an AK and have never actually cleaned it, because you really don't need to. Ingenius design.

As far as the lasgun goes, it has always been used by the imperial guard for the same reasons as the AK is such a widely used gun now. The lasgun is cheap, easy to mass produce, and is very very reliable. If anyone played Necromunda there was a rule concerning jams/ammo rolls. If you rolled a 6 to hit you had to make a jam/ammo check where you had to make a dice roll and if you failed your gun was useless for the rest of the game. An autogun's ammo roll 4+, bolter's was 6+, lasguns was 2+. Since an autogun is basically an AK, the lasgun seems to be even more reliable.

Marneus Calgar
13-02-2010, 20:20
The lasgun is actually the 40k equivilent of the AK-47. What made the AK the best assault rifle in the world (and really nothing has surpassed it of yet) was it's reliability.

As far as the lasgun goes, it has always been used by the imperial guard for the same reasons as the AK is such a widely used gun now. The lasgun is cheap, easy to mass produce, and is very very reliable.

Yes, but the AK-47 is also very powerful compared to many other standard small arms rifles. Unfortunately, the lasgun is not portrayed to be a powerful weapon, quite the opposite actually. Cheap, mass production, and reliability does not matter if the weapon itself is outstandingly weak and cannot reliably kill the enemy. I feel this is the way lasguns are portrayed far to often, which is a shame.

MegaPope
13-02-2010, 20:26
Guns like the M-16 jam occasionally, especially if you don't clean them. With the AK-47 on the other hand, you could crawl around in the mud and use it with no fear of it ever jamming. I own an AK and have never actually cleaned it, because you really don't need to. Ingenius design

Fascinating. I know the design is based on the StG44. Is the interior of the barrel chrome-plated? I understand that the old PPsh41 had this refinement because it helped to keep it working when dirty.

On lasguns...I think they're based more on the FN FAL self-loader than the AK. The profile view of the weapon bears far more resemblance to this rifle than the AK, although as jsullivan said, autoguns are often sculpted or drawn to look like AKs.

In the grim darkness of the far future, there are only...Belgians? ;)

Chiron
13-02-2010, 20:29
Yes, but the AK-47 is also very powerful compared to many other standard small arms rifles. Unfortunately, the lasgun is not portrayed to be a powerful weapon, quite the opposite actually. Cheap, mass production, and reliability does not matter if the weapon itself is outstandingly weak and cannot reliably kill the enemy. I feel this is the way lasguns are portrayed far to often, which is a shame.

If your opponents are bog standard humans then the lasgun works just fine, 40k though features among other things genetically modified super soliders encased in inch thick armour and demonic creatures living on the essence of your emotions.

Vhalyar
13-02-2010, 20:32
Would you prefer that the IG used multi-lasers?

puppetmaster24
13-02-2010, 20:33
The lasgun is a powerfull weapon, it will blow of a mans arm off with a good hit.
but it is compared to the bolter. a weapon that will blow a six inch hole in a your chest just having gone through your 3 inch body armour.

iPaint
13-02-2010, 20:44
If your opponents are bog standard humans then the lasgun works just fine, 40k though features among other things genetically modified super soliders encased in inch thick armour and demonic creatures living on the essence of your emotions.


The lasgun is a powerfull weapon, it will blow of a mans arm off with a good hit.
but it is compared to the bolter. a weapon that will blow a six inch hole in a your chest just having gone through your 3 inch body armour.

Quoted for truth.

Show me a modern-day massed produced laser weapon, and I'll show you a dancing bear that can sing the alphabet backwards in Russian while juggling three grand pianos.

Lasguns are great weapons that just happen to be subpar to the universe's best weapons.

~iPaint

Lord of Worms
13-02-2010, 20:45
Yes, but the AK-47 is also very powerful compared to many other standard small arms rifles. Unfortunately, the lasgun is not portrayed to be a powerful weapon, quite the opposite actually. Cheap, mass production, and reliability does not matter if the weapon itself is outstandingly weak and cannot reliably kill the enemy. I feel this is the way lasguns are portrayed far to often, which is a shame.

Comparing a future version of what infantrymen are equipped with today (the lasgun), with a .75 self-propelled missile is childish. Of course they don't do anything against power armour, because that's what they designed power armour for. That's like saying that an AK is crap because it can't hurt people inside APCs. It isn't that the lasgun is portrayed to be crappy, it's to emphasise the threat the guardsman faces with that lasgun. Genestealers, Ork Nobz, Chaos Marines.

To be honest in Necromunda, unless I have a few armourers I prefer that my gangers are armed with lasguns rather than bolters. I give my leader a bolt-pistol, and everybody else gets lasguns. The leader is only likely to shoot a few times in the game because I try to rush him forward to get him in cc, but the lasgunners can find a good position and literally shoot all game without worrying about jamming or running out of ammo. If I'm facing genestealers or ogryns/scalies then obviously the lasguns aren't very good. They aren't supposed to be, that's what plasma pistols and heavy weapons are for.

Monospot
13-02-2010, 20:58
The lasgun is a perfectly fine weapon...when taken in the proper context.

From a fluff standpoint, you have a weapon that is reliable, rugged, and easy enough for several BILLION guardsmen from diverse worlds and technology bases to use. The lasgun is actually more reliable than the guardsman using it, and probably more likely to survive any given encounter! That alone makes it pretty interesting.

From a game mechanic standpoint, on face value it is underwhelming compared to most other "base" weapons. However, you have to figure that the lasgun is primarily used against human heretics, with flak armor or worse. In the hands of the average guardsman, shooting at a flak armored rebel, you will score a kill one out of 6 times. I'll avoid the discussion at this point about the number of rounds per kill in historic warfare (some Vietnam war sources estimate a 3000 rounds to 1 kill ratio!), but 1 in 6 against your primary target is not too shabby.

Now, take a space marine. Put this genetically modified monster in a suit of reactor driven power armor that probably the equivalent armor as a modern APC, if not a main line battle tank. Your odds of scoring a shot capable of incapacitate/kill goes to 1 in 18. Considering this is against a superhuman in a futuristic armor, thats still not atrocious.

A bolter, which is another "base" weapon in 40k, is more effective. It is also a rocket-propelled .75 round with both armor piercing and explosive elements. They are also very rare and very expensive....remember, there are billions of guardsmen, but only about 1 million space marines at any given moment. Thats THOUSANDS of lasguns for every one bolter.

So, comparing the lasgun to a M-16 or AK-47 may not seem too sexy based on game mechanics, but I would argue that you have a weapon that is arming BILLIONS of troops galaxy wide, is hyper-dependable, and relatively lethal against a "fair" target. Personally, I think the lasgun is pretty cool, and my IG army has many, many, many men toting them.
Comparing it to a bolter is like comparing a M-16 to a Barret .50 cal rifle....apples to oranges.

DaSpaceAsians
13-02-2010, 21:03
(some Vietnam war sources estimate a 3000 rounds to 1 kill ratio!)


What's that mean ?

unclejimbo827
13-02-2010, 21:12
What's that mean ?

That means 3000 rounds were fired for every kill actually inflicted on the NVA and/or VC. It's an old stat, I've read it before, but I'm not sure I believe it... supposedly that's why the newer M16s don't fire in full auto anymore.

Lactose The Intolerant
13-02-2010, 21:53
Since with a typical automatic rifle in 40k you're rolling 1 shot (2 at closer ranges) in the same space of time as a person can run a pretty good distance, I've always considered these rolls to only represent aimed shots where the firer is actually trying for a kill, and not suppressive fire or any other shooting. Similarly, when I move one of my tanks faster than it's allowed to shoot, I've always imagined the guy on the heavy stubber is still firing madly, he just conveniently never manages to hit anything. :)

So depending on how you interpret things, the actual ammunition expenditure to kill ratio may not match the dice rolled to kill ratio.

Mannimarco
13-02-2010, 21:59
yeah Id agree with that, explains why a heavy bolter (which no doubt fires hundreds of rounds a minute) only rolls 3 dice

keeping the dice levels low does stop the game from degenerating into a dicefest right from turn one: "ok heavy weapons team is 3 heavy bolters, they fire all these rounds per minute......ok I need 600 dice, failing that you can remove that one squad im shooting at and just assume theyre dead"

Bloodriver
13-02-2010, 22:33
Bear in mind also, that when an Imperial Guardsman hits a model comparable to himself (i.e. T3) with a lasgun, he wounds on the same roll (4+) as a Space Marine hitting a comparable model (T4) with a bolter.

The problem is that the guardsman with the lasgun is frequently going to be facing those T4 Marines, but that's because the distribution of opponents in 40k games is completely out of whack with the fluff. Even if there were that many Marines, Guardsmen wouldn't have to fight them very often because they should usually be on the same side.

Brady
13-02-2010, 22:37
Bear in mind also, that when an Imperial Guardsman hits a model comparable to himself (i.e. T3) with a lasgun, he wounds on the same roll (4+) as a Space Marine hitting a comparable model (T4) with a bolter.

The problem is that the guardsman with the lasgun is frequently going to be facing those T4 Marines, but that's because the distribution of opponents in 40k games is completely out of whack with the fluff. Even if there were that many Marines, Guardsmen wouldn't have to fight them very often because they should usually be on the same side.


usually on the same side being the key sentence... :D

Wolfblade670
13-02-2010, 22:38
Actually I've always looked at the lasgun more as the FAL of 40k. Stupidly reliable, but also relatively accurate with good range and adaptability...and it can blow a limb clean off with one shot.

Sygerrik
13-02-2010, 23:56
In some of the 40k background, a lasgun is a relatively high-tech piece. Definitely more powerful than a standard autogun. On a 1-10 scale it doesn't really come out, but if S was measured 1-20, Lasguns would be a point or two higher than autoguns. They punch right through chainmail and other low-tech armor. It would just be kind of imbalanced for a bunch of 6 point Guardsman to have a ranged weapon worth a damn.

Chem-Dog
14-02-2010, 00:27
It seems no matter what GW does with the fluff or the tabletop rules there is simply nothing appealing about Lasguns or any of the Imperial Laser weapons at all! It has to be one of the mose unappealing weapons in sci-fi history! Won't stop me from playing Imperial Guard though, but it is getting really hard for me to imagine these weapons as being badass as an M-16 or AK-47.

Just say "ima firin ma lazor" every time, that'll fix it :D



I find it awesome that when Catachan soldiers run out of ammunition during the heat of battle, they can throw them in a bonfire to recharge the power cells.

Of course there might not have been a battle in the first place if the Catachans hadn't decided to build and ignite a frikkin great big bonfire whilst on recon...:wtf:


what do you call a lasgun with a laser targetter?

twin linked

First rank, FIRE. Second Rank FIRE. Oh dear, where did your squad go?
It always helps to remind people who make this "joke" what happened to the Daemon prince who confidently announced that the Infantry squad in front of him would be sliced and diced in the next turn....


Yes, but the AK-47 is also very powerful compared to many other standard small arms rifles. Unfortunately, the lasgun is not portrayed to be a powerful weapon, quite the opposite actually. Cheap, mass production, and reliability does not matter if the weapon itself is outstandingly weak and cannot reliably kill the enemy. I feel this is the way lasguns are portrayed far to often, which is a shame.

Ever tried firing an AK at a Ork Warboss?:eyebrows:


Would you prefer that the IG used multi-lasers?

I have enough already thanks!


Comparing a future version of what infantrymen are equipped with today (the lasgun), with a .75 self-propelled missile is childish.

Comparing something that's MADE UP with stuff that exists isn't?
There have been a few threads (usually closed down quite quickly) about rl weapons that could be equated to Bolters (AA-12 iirc), so compare those and the damage they do to the bolter, compare that to an AK and then you might have an inkiling of how the Lasgun fares.
If you really must...


That means 3000 rounds were fired for every kill actually inflicted on the NVA and/or VC. It's an old stat, I've read it before, but I'm not sure I believe it... supposedly that's why the newer M16s don't fire in full auto anymore.

So the American Military is equivalent to Ogryns? (joke!)

Although this does highlight one of the Lasgun's biggest strengths, the powerpack, it's reusable, meaning a lot less logistical issues, of course the space this frees up is filled with more ammo for the heavy weapons. 3000 shots per kill doesn't sound half as bad if the ammo used effectively fills the space of a single mobile phone.


Bear in mind also, that when an Imperial Guardsman hits a model comparable to himself (i.e. T3) with a lasgun, he wounds on the same roll (4+) as a Space Marine hitting a comparable model (T4) with a bolter.

The problem is that the guardsman with the lasgun is frequently going to be facing those T4 Marines, but that's because the distribution of opponents in 40k games is completely out of whack with the fluff. Even if there were that many Marines, Guardsmen wouldn't have to fight them very often because they should usually be on the same side.

Yes, this is why I really want there to be a traitor/LatD list to be available, there needs to be an army that the IG can pwn.

Shadow Wulfen
14-02-2010, 00:32
The lasgun is a perfectly fine weapon...when taken in the proper context.

From a fluff standpoint, you have a weapon that is reliable, rugged, and easy enough for several BILLION guardsmen from diverse worlds and technology bases to use. The lasgun is actually more reliable than the guardsman using it, and probably more likely to survive any given encounter! That alone makes it pretty interesting.

From a game mechanic standpoint, on face value it is underwhelming compared to most other "base" weapons. However, you have to figure that the lasgun is primarily used against human heretics, with flak armor or worse. In the hands of the average guardsman, shooting at a flak armored rebel, you will score a kill one out of 6 times. I'll avoid the discussion at this point about the number of rounds per kill in historic warfare (some Vietnam war sources estimate a 3000 rounds to 1 kill ratio!), but 1 in 6 against your primary target is not too shabby.

Now, take a space marine. Put this genetically modified monster in a suit of reactor driven power armor that probably the equivalent armor as a modern APC, if not a main line battle tank. Your odds of scoring a shot capable of incapacitate/kill goes to 1 in 18. Considering this is against a superhuman in a futuristic armor, thats still not atrocious.

A bolter, which is another "base" weapon in 40k, is more effective. It is also a rocket-propelled .75 round with both armor piercing and explosive elements. They are also very rare and very expensive....remember, there are billions of guardsmen, but only about 1 million space marines at any given moment. Thats THOUSANDS of lasguns for every one bolter.

So, comparing the lasgun to a M-16 or AK-47 may not seem too sexy based on game mechanics, but I would argue that you have a weapon that is arming BILLIONS of troops galaxy wide, is hyper-dependable, and relatively lethal against a "fair" target. Personally, I think the lasgun is pretty cool, and my IG army has many, many, many men toting them.
Comparing it to a bolter is like comparing a M-16 to a Barret .50 cal rifle....apples to oranges.

I declare Monospot the winner.

Marneus Calgar
14-02-2010, 00:58
Of course there might not have been a battle in the first place if the Catachans hadn't decided to build and ignite a frikkin great big bonfire whilst on recon...:wtf:


Ever tried firing an AK at a Ork Warboss?:eyebrows:





Who said it had to be a recon mission? It could have very well been an assault on a fort, which very head strong Catachans have been holding for hours.

Why take only against an Ork Warboss, why not a standard ork itself, chaos space marine, necron warrior, a superior armored eldar or tau, daemons, ext..

I would like it more if the Imperial Guard codex glorified the lasgun besides its reliability.

ShogunRua
14-02-2010, 01:34
I can assure you that there is nothing badass about an M-16. I hate the damn things.

big squig
14-02-2010, 01:50
Lasguns are economic and reliable, that's why they are in such heavy use.

Ruleswise, they could be more interesting. I'd be neat if thy uped their range since they are lasers and all.

Luftwaffles
14-02-2010, 02:03
So the American Military is equivalent to Ogryns? (joke!)

Not really, the VC were just REALLY good at making cover saves! :)

Pyriel
14-02-2010, 02:04
I can assure you that there is nothing badass about an M-16. I hate the damn things.

QFT. ex-marine guy here. there realy is nothing badass about this thing. maybe for the more compact, 'assault-y' nature of its m-4 version, but as a generic rifle, i'd prefer a 7,62 cal (like AK-47, hell, even G3, LOL ) anyday. It is a gun that 'wounds but does not kill'. so as to hinder enemy army. this is a great thing... in theory.

so yeah, i can understand how logical the lasgun statline (and more importantly, performance) is.

ShogunRua
14-02-2010, 02:15
QFT. ex-marine guy here. there realy is nothing badass about this thing. maybe for the more compact, 'assault-y' nature of its m-4 version, but as a generic rifle, i'd prefer a 7,62 cal (like AK-47, hell, even G3, LOL ) anyday. It is a gun that 'wounds but does not kill'. so as to hinder enemy army. this is a great thing... in theory.

so yeah, i can understand how logical the lasgun statline (and more importantly, performance) is.

Very good points sir. The lasgun really is the M16/M4 of 40k I think.

The last time we were in the desert some of the SOF guys were toting around those HK417's. Now THAT is a beastly weapon system!

daboarder
14-02-2010, 03:11
that's only cause yank's can't shoot. don't worry the auzzie shot/kill ratio was much lower.

jk haha

on a serious note the soldiers in vietnam lacked the training available today and the military philosophy at the time was for target saturation, or fire enough bullets and eventualy you'll hit something, as for the lack of full auto today it's easier to consistanly hit a target with 3 short burst's than it is the hit the target with the entierity of one long burst.

ShogunRua
14-02-2010, 03:24
that's only cause yank's can't shoot. don't worry the auzzie shot/kill ratio was much lower.

jk haha

on a serious note the soldiers in vietnam lacked the training available today and the military philosophy at the time was for target saturation, or fire enough bullets and eventualy you'll hit something, as for the lack of full auto today it's easier to consistanly hit a target with 3 short burst's than it is the hit the target with the entierity of one long burst.

More/better training?? We do a formal range twice a year with the acceptable passing score being recently made easier to attain by eliminating the "0" from the target board.

DaSpaceAsians
14-02-2010, 03:44
that's only cause yank's can't shoot. don't worry the auzzie shot/kill ratio was much lower.

jk haha

on a serious note the soldiers in vietnam lacked the training available today and the military philosophy at the time was for target saturation, or fire enough bullets and eventualy you'll hit something, as for the lack of full auto today it's easier to consistanly hit a target with 3 short burst's than it is the hit the target with the entierity of one long burst.

That's one of the things that screwed the ARVN. The troopers were mostly trained by the USto use overwhelming fire. The only problem? When the Americans cut down military aid, the troopers and artillerymen simply didn't have the ammo necessary to fight like that. Some received only 60 M-16 rounds for a week and from what my dad told me(18th ARVN Infantry Division veteran), he couldn't even use his M-60 to it's full potential and had to calculate his bursts. He also used an M-16 and had to be careful not to run out ammo and never loaded beyond 27 rounds and was considered foolish for doing so due the M-16's initial lack of reliability. Artillerymen were limited to firing 2 rounds when supporting troops unless being overrun. They would shut their radios off simply not to hear the desperate cries of their fellow Vietnamese.

Absolutionis
14-02-2010, 04:45
According to Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy, comparing the lasgun and autogun:

The lasgun and autogun do the same amount of damage.
The lasgun holds twice the ammunition.
The lasgun ammunition is easily filled (electric socket or open flame works)
The lasgun is lighter.
The lasgun has longer range.
The lasgun is less common (really).
The lasgun is "reliable" (never jams).
The lasgun ammunition is cheaper and more common.

Essentially, the lasgun is really far superior to the autogun in the year 40,000 (Imagine the AK-40000) according to the fluff.

ShogunRua
14-02-2010, 04:50
That's one of the things that screwed the ARVN. The troopers were mostly trained by the USto use overwhelming fire. The only problem? When the Americans cut down military aid, the troopers and artillerymen simply didn't have the ammo necessary to fight like that. Some received only 60 M-16 rounds for a week and from what my dad told me(18th ARVN Infantry Division veteran), he couldn't even use his M-60 to it's full potential and had to calculate his bursts. He also used an M-16 and had to be careful not to run out ammo and never loaded beyond 27 rounds and was considered foolish for doing so due the M-16's initial lack of reliability. Artillerymen were limited to firing 2 rounds when supporting troops unless being overrun. They would shut their radios off simply not to hear the desperate cries of their fellow Vietnamese.

You only load 27 rounds into a 30 round 5.56 mag because they are manufactured in bulk and frequently lock up and fail to feed. But yes most early 15's/16's were horribly unreliable.

Parad0x
14-02-2010, 05:16
People, people! You're seriously confusing some stuff! Stop comparing las-weapons with bolter weapons, that's, as someone mentioned, comparing apples to oranges! Las weapons use laser-based tech, what we know about lasers would be enough to presume the following: they'd be not too powerful (simply not energy-efficient), not armor-piercing (takes time for a beam to melt through stuff), they'd have no recoil whatsoever as they're not solid-slug-based weapons, and that already separates them from bolters quite enough. It would be a logical presumption that those two weapons would be utilized in separate situations (las against heretics and renegates, as previously mentioned.)

And for the love of god, stop comparing them to modern-day weapons, that's even worse, and claim to own some of them like that guy with AK.


The lasgun itself is kind of boring but the fact you can charge cells by exposing them to sunlight, body heat, or throwing them in a fire is really neat.

100% agree, not only that, if one would play Necromunda, he'd see the lasguns are the lowlifes' best friend!:D

Griffindale
14-02-2010, 05:40
Is their an easy way to model that many autoguns on all those guardsmen? I'll be the first to admit they look a lot cooler than lasguns.

In the context of fluff lasguns sound awesome for their role.

ZamOne
14-02-2010, 06:39
Apart from imagining them as Autoguns, is it also okay to seem them like the Colonial Marine Pulse Rifle from ALIENS? At least they made a cool rapid fire sound.

Hasselfree does a sprue of pulse rifles, very nice too.

Sekhmet
14-02-2010, 08:01
The lasgun is actually the 40k equivilent of the AK-47. What made the AK the best assault rifle in the world (and really nothing has surpassed it of yet) was it's reliability. Guns like the M-16 jam occasionally, especially if you don't clean them. With the AK-47 on the other hand, you could crawl around in the mud and use it with no fear of it ever jamming. I own an AK and have never actually cleaned it, because you really don't need to. Ingenius design.


I'd honestly say the AK-47 is not the best assault rifle in the world on an individual basis, and you're somewhat biased because you own one. The lasgun is good because it's accurate, makes logistics a breeze, and is ridiculously reliable (no moving parts at all). AK-47s are made to be mass-produced and given to the masses with little-to-no training. It's not a precision weapon, it's made to be used in large numbers such that someone will land a hit with a heavy round and kill a target.

It's only the "best assault rifle" in that it's probably the cheapest firearm in the world and most influential in terms of what people have accomplished with it. But comparing a single AK to many other assault rifles? Its 60 year design is showing its age.

I agree that lasguns are boring because you never get the literary drama of a jammed weapon, an abundance of missing, or running out of ammo and being forced to scavenge for more and/or a different weapon.

R Man
14-02-2010, 08:06
Actually Sekhmet, the AK47 has had several modifications and updates over the years, so its not quite 60 years old. Besides its lack of accuracy is not that much of a problem, as in combat, everyone's aim is terrible. When bullets start flying accuracy goes way down.

Firaxin
14-02-2010, 08:07
Here, maybe this will help you look at the lasgun "in a more badass way:"

Based on the descriptions of las wounds against flesh from various Black Library novels, I've estimated that it delivers anywhere from 4,000 to 18,000 joules of energy upon impact, typically closer to 15,000 joules on average at a range of ~600 yards.

Taking into account thermal blooming over this distance and the refraction when the lasbolt strikes the target, and taking into account that the lasgun is capable of firing at rates of several hundred shots a minute meaning the energy is generated in at least 1/100th of a second, that means it would take ~3500 modern AA batteries to produce the same effect.

(this is based off a single AA battery doing ~0.15 Joules of work per second in a circuit used to power a laser pointer)

The power pack used by lasguns contains various shot quantities but the average I've seen is 60 shots. That means that a single ammo clip for a lasgun, which is roughly the size of modern ammo cartridges, contains the equivalent of 210,000 AA batteries, or a 422 horsepower engine (which is ~1.5 times the horsepower of the engine a Mustang racing car uses).


Did that help? :angel:

WLBjork
14-02-2010, 08:11
Las weapons use laser-based tech, what we know about lasers would be enough to presume the following: they'd be not too powerful (simply not energy-efficient), not armor-piercing (takes time for a beam to melt through stuff), they'd have no recoil whatsoever as they're not solid-slug-based weapons,

Wow. Just... wow.

Laser weapons tend to do their damage by firing "packets" of photons and cause kinetic impacts. They can cause thermal damage, but that requires a long amount of time.

Lasers are in development for muliple battlefield purposes, from AA through to anti-missile systems for tanks and aircraft. In most cases, the laser won't have the time to focus for long enough to melt the target, plus in a multiple threat environment it's no good destroying one target when there are 5-10 inbound.


Oh, and as for real-world weapons, give me the L1A1 battle rifle over the AKM (mass production version of AK47). More powerful cartridge and more aerodynamic bullet coupled with a long barrel means more accuracy, thank you very much.

Tommygun
14-02-2010, 08:29
Just make it look like something else.

Lord Solar Plexus
14-02-2010, 09:17
Lasguns are indeed boring. Only laspistols are more boring and useless. Rolling dice for the latter only holds up the game.

borithan
14-02-2010, 09:37
Yes, but the AK-47 is also very powerful compared to many other standard small arms rifles.Not massively so. Most more recent assault rifles fire smaller rounds, but fire them at a higher velocity, resulting in about the same energy... now, due to the different sizes and other elements of the bullets they may behave differently, but in 40k scale they would all be S3.



Unfortunately, the lasgun is not portrayed to be a powerful weapon, quite the opposite actually.Well, according to some daft sources it is... whole "blowing limbs off" nonsense. It has pretty much the same lethality as modern small arms, possibly slightly more (but not by much).



Cheap, mass production, and reliability does not matter if the weapon itself is outstandingly weak and cannot reliably kill the enemy. I feel this is the way lasguns are portrayed far to often, which is a shame.The main strength of the SK47 is that it is cheap, mass produced and reliable. There are many rifles that could be classed as "better" than the AK47 in a number of fields (accuracy, energy of the round etc), but the AK has been produced in such large numbers it is easy and cheap to acquire, it is easy to use (Gorbachev's comment when shown the early SA80s was apparently "You must have very clever soldiers"), and it takes a hell of a lot of abuse before it will stop working reliably. Pretty much exactly the same as the lasgun. The lasgun is the AK47 of the 40k universe.



They punch right through chainmail and other low-tech armor.So do modern small arms of all types. Thats why you don't see people wearing chainmail and plate armour anymore. The gun was what ended the dominance of the fully armoured knight, even if it took a little while. Now, if lasguns could easily punch through modern battlefield body armour that might be something (and I am not convinced that it would. I personally think flak armour is roughly equivalent to modern body armour in most fields). Lasers probably actually should be poorer at punching through armour than projectiles, though weaponised they may be more lethal to unarmoured targets.


I'd be neat if thy uped their range since they are lasers and all. Seeing as all energy weapons used to have a range shorter than projectile ones, and in their first incarnation autoguns had a longer range than lasguns (and boltguns), that seems unlikely.


and the military philosophy at the time was for target saturation, or fire enough bullets and eventualy you'll hit something,I believe the general rule is still whoever puts out more shots wins. Been that way since the Second World War.


autoguns on all those guardsmen?Cut the barrel about a bit to change it, and then replace the lasgun power pack with a boltgun magazine. Simple, but maybe not different enough for your tastes.


More powerful cartridge and more aerodynamic bullet coupled with a long barrel means more accuracy, thank you very much.The AK47 remains accurate for most true firefight ranges, and unlike the FAL/SLR doesn't use full powered ammunition, making automatic fire more easily controlled (the SLR not even having the option of fully automatic). The adoption of the full powered 7.62 as the NATO standard round was seen, probably correctly, as a mistake by everyone. Then they switched to the 5.56, but that is now seen as too much of a drop in some situations, and so the Americans are currently developing a larger intertmediate round, similar to that used by the AK47 (and more similar to the round used in the 1950 EM1... which was dropped due to American insistance on a larger round).

Now, as a marksman (not sniper) weapon, the SLR is almost certainly superior, but as a standard rifleman's weapon the AK47 is probably better.

Hrw-Amen
14-02-2010, 11:14
Lasguns are pretty dull. Back a few years ago when that PS2 game was around, the one where you played a Tau, I almost always dropped the lasgun (And Tau weapons) in favour of the autogun. It just had a much more satisfying thunk, thunk sound to it, rather than the pretty whinny of the lasgun.

Sojourner
14-02-2010, 11:35
Comparing it to a bolter is like comparing a M-16 to a Barret .50 cal rifle....apples to oranges.

And the space marine carrying the Barrett would probably still think he got a bum deal...

totgeboren
14-02-2010, 14:23
I'm thinking about changing my lasgun to other kinds of guns.
The are the real life ones.
AK's (http://www.maxmini.eu/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=12&products_id=74) and M16 (http://www.maxmini.eu/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=12&products_id=77).

I'm really tempted by these, but they make the army much less "40k", and might ruin the immersion abit.

On the other hand, the Pulse Carbine (http://www.hasslefreeminiatures.co.uk/pack.php?pack=781) from aliens looks pretty sweet.

Or more generic sci-fi guns (http://www.pig-iron-productions.com/eq2-kolony-weapon-sprue-p-32.html) might look better?

Lots of different guns can be found here (http://www.hasslefreeminiatures.co.uk/range.php?range_id=39&subcat_id=17) too.

I just can't decide, but I agree that the pew pew lasgun feels kinda uninspiring.

DaSpaceAsians
14-02-2010, 14:28
When you look at it, if you shave off the pointy end of the lasgun, it looks like an M-14

Archangel_Ruined
14-02-2010, 14:38
If you used different guns I don't think it would damage the look or feel of the army. The old valhallans had very AK'ish lasguns anyway, there are different patterns out there anyway. You could always just field vets with shotguns anyway, a nasty combo with a chimera, it makes them rather handy for mop up duty. If you can be bothered to convert every single lasgun in a guard army then anyone who criticises you probably isn't worth talking to, that's a big project and respect to you for taking it on.

Parad0x
14-02-2010, 16:18
Wow. Just... wow.

Laser weapons tend to do their damage by firing "packets" of photons and cause kinetic impacts. They can cause thermal damage, but that requires a long amount of time.


That's flatout impossible, what you're suggesting is even less energy efficient than using an actual laser as a weapon in combat situations. :wtf:

megatrons2nd
14-02-2010, 17:16
That's flatout impossible, what you're suggesting is even less energy efficient than using an actual laser as a weapon in combat situations. :wtf:

With modern knowledge, probably, in 40,000 years the tech has probably been solved. A couple hundred years ago humans flying was impossible, now look.

Parad0x
14-02-2010, 17:22
With modern knowledge, probably, in 40,000 years the tech has probably been solved. A couple hundred years ago humans flying was impossible, now look.

No no, what I think he's suggesting is that the gun does not use its coherent light producing capability as a weapon in itself (most logical assumption), but instead, uses photons themselves as a projectile, damaging the target! :confused: And, apparently he attributes the recoil to it, but the mass itself is so insignificant, it wouldn't produce any damage whatsoever, the target would be simply burned by energy.. it just doesn't work that way.

Now, laser weapons indeed are in a development, but they are conceived to work by emitting short bursts of light, causing vaporizing and expansion the target surface, creating shock waves, and that's what damages it.

borithan
14-02-2010, 17:23
Looking at those hasslefree weapons you could give them SA80s... enbough US sci-fi programmes use them as random Sci-fi rifle anyway.

Bunnahabhain
14-02-2010, 17:55
If you used different guns I don't think it would damage the look or feel of the army. The old valhallans had very AK'ish lasguns anyway, there are different patterns out there anyway. You could always just field vets with shotguns anyway, a nasty combo with a chimera, it makes them rather handy for mop up duty. If you can be bothered to convert every single lasgun in a guard army then anyone who criticises you probably isn't worth talking to, that's a big project and respect to you for taking it on.

I've fielded guard armies without a single lasgun anywhere in the army before. Wasn't even trying to, it just happened.
Was the last codex, but everyone either came without one(rough riders, storm troopers), or had them traded away for special weapons that actually do something without needing 30 of them...

EDIT.
Yes, in most circumstances, taking the time to convert every lasgun in the army gets you much respect, and probably a nice long stay in this quiet hospital to help you recover...

Absolutionis
14-02-2010, 18:49
Lasguns are simply superior to autoguns in the fluff.

IG_Airborne_Ranger
14-02-2010, 18:49
I think there's a certain intensity when it comes to imagining projectile firing automatic rifles. The noise bullets make, seeing brass casing spray out of the side of the rifle as they fall to the ground, and ofcourse the recoil. It feels sooo much more dramatic and awesome than seeing phasers go PEW-PEW!

I mean, ever compared a firefight from Star Trek to just about any War movie set in the 20th Century?

Archangel_Ruined
14-02-2010, 18:58
Not using lasguns is another thing altogether, I had a tank army with inquisitor allies in the old codex that didn't used lasguns either, but then the model count was freakishly low and it had four AV14 vehicles in it. I meant for someone to actually run a flashlight army but without the torches is a serious modelling feat and should be applauded.

MegaPope
14-02-2010, 19:03
Looking at those hasslefree weapons you could give them SA80s... enbough US sci-fi programmes use them as random Sci-fi rifle anyway.

Unwittingly proving true Dark Helmet's lament in Spaceballs: "Even in the future nothing works!"

Coasty
14-02-2010, 19:08
When you look at it, if you shave off the pointy end of the lasgun, it looks like an M-14

And if you don't, it looks like a boxy version of the SLR...

Ozendorph
14-02-2010, 19:30
Unwittingly proving true Dark Helmet's lament in Spaceballs: "Even in the future nothing works!"

ROFL, true that.


btw - this thread makes no sense, as laser guns are the opposite of boring. ;)

Archangel_Ruined
14-02-2010, 19:46
I'd agree that laser weapons aren't boring. Unless you compare them to laser swords, that is.

Sekhmet
14-02-2010, 20:33
Lasguns are simply superior to autoguns in the fluff.

Not in every way, no.


Ever wonder what a lasgun battlefield would sound like? Do they make any sound? I'd imagine the weapon itself doesn't. Imagine a battlefield in which the only sounds are people shouting and screaming, but no gunshots.

Archangel_Ruined
14-02-2010, 20:48
I think the guard have enough boom sticks to provide a soundtrack for you, silent lasguns or not.

Sygerrik
14-02-2010, 20:54
Not in every way, no.


Ever wonder what a lasgun battlefield would sound like? Do they make any sound? I'd imagine the weapon itself doesn't. Imagine a battlefield in which the only sounds are people shouting and screaming, but no gunshots.

It does. It makes a high-pitched laser whine. Read any Gaunt's Ghosts book, especially Necropolis.

Ozendorph
14-02-2010, 21:58
I always imagine them sounding like they did in Dawn of War

DeadlySquirrel
14-02-2010, 22:31
sure, they suck in-game against MEQs and TEQs... but just take more lasguns, ALWAYS take more lasguns. Its the answer to everything.

borithan
14-02-2010, 23:16
Lasguns are simply superior to autoguns in the fluff.Hmm... depends. Most things throughout their history suggests they are pretty much comparable. Dark Heresy has them have the exact same stats, except autoguns have the option for fully automatic and lasguns have slightly better range, a much better ammunition capacity, and are more reliable. In 1st ed autoguns were actually better (longer range) but were otherwise identical, while in 2nd they were identical aside from autoguns not having an ASM (so slightly worse). Currently they are treated identically (when 3rd edition came about they said somewhere that autoguns and lasguns had the same stats).



I mean, ever compared a firefight from Star Trek to just about any War movie set in the 20th Century?Though phasers from star trek are both more versatile and, when need be, much more powerful. They are also very flexible tools, while a gun is just a gun.

Though Next Generation phasers onwards are hideous ergonomically.

Jagd44
14-02-2010, 23:23
Lasguns FTW.

http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/post-95473-1211685841.jpg


Lasguns are good enough for a five point model IMO. With First Rank, FIRE! Second Rank FIRE!! they are even better. Besides, the basic Imperial Guard firearm should not compete with the holy bolter of the Space Marines.

ehlijen
15-02-2010, 01:45
If laser rifles seem boring, I recommend watching the original star wars trilogy again. Sure, the guys using the lasers are terrible, but the guns are allright.

Absolutionis
15-02-2010, 01:53
Hmm... depends. Most things throughout their history suggests they are pretty much comparable. Dark Heresy has them have the exact same stats, except autoguns have the option for fully automatic and lasguns have slightly better range, a much better ammunition capacity, and are more reliable. In 1st ed autoguns were actually better (longer range) but were otherwise identical, while in 2nd they were identical aside from autoguns not having an ASM (so slightly worse). Currently they are treated identically (when 3rd edition came about they said somewhere that autoguns and lasguns had the same stats).

Though phasers from star trek are both more versatile and, when need be, much more powerful. They are also very flexible tools, while a gun is just a gun.

Though Next Generation phasers onwards are hideous ergonomically.Well...
According to Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy, comparing the lasgun and autogun:

The lasgun and autogun do the same amount of damage.
The lasgun holds twice the ammunition.
The lasgun ammunition is easily filled (electric socket or open flame works)
The lasgun is lighter.
The lasgun has longer range.
The lasgun is less common (really).
The lasgun is "reliable" (never jams).
The lasgun ammunition is cheaper and more common.Dark Heresy and such do have more of an avenue for specifics than 40k. Guardsmen and Eldar may have most of the same stats in 40k, but in Heresy/Trader you see where they actually differ. An lasgun is no bolter and an autogun is no gretchen-punch, so they're S3.

Also, I don't like comparing across mythos.; I'm ignorant of Star Trek.

Benign
15-02-2010, 02:34
Something to keep in mind is that a Heavy Stubber is a .50 machine gun. So a Bolter has the same hitting power as a .50cal but with greater armour penetration. Presumably because the rounds are explosive.

azimaith
15-02-2010, 03:32
I hear this Stubber is a .50 all the time but I haven't seen evidence for it. It just looks like a heavy 7.62 machine gun.

Lactose The Intolerant
15-02-2010, 04:01
The model bears more than a passing resemblance to a Browning M2HB, which is .50

ShogunRua
15-02-2010, 04:12
I hear this Stubber is a .50 all the time but I haven't seen evidence for it. It just looks like a heavy 7.62 machine gun.

Which 7.62 does a stubber look like?? I'm not being sarcastic I'm genuinely curious. A stubber bears more of a resemblance to the Ma-Duece to me.

baphomael
15-02-2010, 04:27
everyone be hating on the lasgun, but I barely anyone complains about the staple-guns Dark Eldar carry :p

Hellebore
15-02-2010, 04:44
All this proves is that 40k is so ridiculously over the top that what in any other setting would be one mean ass gun is the pissy little malnourished brother of everything else.

Seriously, take the lasgun (as described in this thread with all its advantages) and put it in another scifi setting. Give it to the characters in Stargate. Watch as episodes specfically written to showcase the awesome ability of this gun to recharge in the fire are written. Give it to the characters in BSG and watch them annihilate people.

The lasgun is a nasty and lethal weapon of war, it's just that it exists within the context of the warhammer 40,000 universe which is so drenched in nasty and lethal warfare that what to anyone else would be a human rights violation is simply the weakest gun in the game.

A lasgun has two features that seperate it from an autogun in terms of damage. It cauterises wounds which a bullet does not, but it actually boils tissue away into gas (which should produce a small explosion on impact). Now, we can save people today with bullet wounds because the tissue is torn up and can be stitched back together, but we can't stitch a lung back together if it has a 5cm diameter hole burnt out of it. A large chunk of tissue hasn't been torn, it's been REMOVED.

Burnt tissue is also dead tissue so any surgery would have to remove that tissue first. Sewing up dead burnt tissue is fruitless and could lead to secondary infection.

In any midrange scifi setting the lasgun would be the scary superadvanced weapon that either the genius comes up with to combat an all powerful threat or the badguy invents to aid his world domination plans.

It's just that in 40k it has to compete with gut blasting rocket bullets, flesh shredding gravity powered indestructible ninja stars, liquifying monofilament spray guns, quantum flensing molecular decomposing beams, cannons that shoot hell at you and all the other things listed in the tvtropes 40k article under abnormal ammo. :p
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Warhammer40000

Hellebore

ehlijen
15-02-2010, 05:34
cannons that shoot hell at you

For just a second there I thought you meant hellguns :p

borithan
15-02-2010, 14:50
Also, I don't like comparing across mythos.; I'm ignorant of Star Trek.Oh, I was comparing phasers with current small arms, not lasguns... though the some of the things phasers are capable of probably makes them superior (purely in power and flexibility terms) to a lasgun. But then Star Trek is a setting more concerned with the technology than 40k is.


Which 7.62 does a stubber look like?? I'm not being sarcastic I'm genuinely curious.The picture in 1st edition is basically a slightly stylised M60, and the heavy stubber carried by Escher gangers in Necromunda is very obviously based on the MG34 (the best looking heavy stubber of the lot... The Goliath one, for example, is hideous).

The current heavy stubber for Imperial Guard vehicles does look like an M2 though.

azimaith
15-02-2010, 16:33
Which 7.62 does a stubber look like?? I'm not being sarcastic I'm genuinely curious. A stubber bears more of a resemblance to the Ma-Duece to me.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Imperial%20Guard/Krieg/heavy%20weapons/stubbercomp5.jpg

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/f/f4/Macharius_bolter.jpg

http://www.saguisag.com/photonduck/minis032804_03.jpg

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/renhvystub.htm
MG42 (granted not 7.62)
http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/%20MG42%201943/MG42-13.jpg

Bren Gun:
http://www.military.cz/czech/weapons/bren/schema.jpg

Russian 7.62
http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/uploads/dp28/dp28_11%281%29.jpg

However! This is also similar (Its more than 50 cal!)
http://legion.wplus.net/img.shtml?img=/guide/army/gu/kpv-1.jpg

You'll note the size of the gun compared to the size of the person is vastly different than the heavy stubber.

In the end what it looks like is really irrelevant of course. That doesn't tell us the diameter of the round.

It is used in a fashion very similar to both heavy machine guns and lighter machine guns. Heavy stubber is in my opinion, a large class of weapons ranging from 7.62 to 14mm+ I don't think categorically stating them as .50's is fair as they appear to easily run the gamut. In the end the modelers make pattern the heavy stubber off of any machine gun.

borithan
15-02-2010, 16:55
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Imperial%20Guard/Krieg/heavy%20weapons/stubbercomp5.jpgHmm... they look more like 14.5mm machine guns (ie, even bigger than an M2). Like the last one of your pictures.



http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/renhvystub.htm
MG42 (granted not 7.62)
http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/%20MG42%201943/MG42-13.jpgWell.. an MG42 was 7.92, which is close enough to 7.62 and that renegade heavy stubber is obviously inspired by it (even the pose is copied from WW2 German photos) but it is upped in size.

azimaith
15-02-2010, 16:56
A lasgun has two features that seperate it from an autogun in terms of damage. It cauterises wounds which a bullet does not, but it actually boils tissue away into gas (which should produce a small explosion on impact). Now, we can save people today with bullet wounds because the tissue is torn up and can be stitched back together, but we can't stitch a lung back together if it has a 5cm diameter hole burnt out of it. A large chunk of tissue hasn't been torn, it's been REMOVED.

This is somewhat inaccurate. We can save people today not because we can just stitch them back together. When a bullet enters the body it doesn't just poke holes in you, it tears you apart severing chunks, destroying others into unrecognizable goo from kinetic transfer, not to mention then bouncing around burrowing a nice path through them. (I've seen it before.)



Burnt tissue is also dead tissue so any surgery would have to remove that tissue first. Sewing up dead burnt tissue is fruitless and could lead to secondary infection.

Versus ground up flesh that is dead and the bullet fragments you have to remove?

A "laser burn" would be nowhere near the nightmare an actually bullet wound already is.
Besides the physical pain already incorporating into cleaning that wound out we have to recover the round itself, unless of course it was fired from say, a M16 at medium/short range, at which point were removing the exploded bullet fragments. Then we have to seal vessels as we can, close up any holes using graft material if necessary.

People underestimate how lethal modern arms are and get distracted by lasers just because they're lasers. In the end most of the damage is unseen beyond the entry point for both the lasgun and the solid projectile.

Its easy to dismiss the less spectacular bullet hole from a single slug compared to the cratered impact of a lasgun wound but lethality doesn't care what it looks like.

In the end the lasgun is superheating everything its hitting which is going to cause organ failure, massive cell death and bleeding, granted it might not be surface bleeding.

The solid projectile tears apart everything in its path, pulverizing organs and in some cases, splitting open and carving out wild paths in multiple directions.

Both have to be treated and can be treated, but are treated in a different fashion.

They're both lethal, they're probably about equally deadly except the lasgun is probably slightly easier to armor against (ceramics) and slightly less penetrating (which is a good thing, you want your round to go into someone, deliver maximum energy, and then stop, not punch through them and then the wall, and then your buddy on the other side of the wall.)

Lord Humongous
15-02-2010, 19:02
In some of the 40k background, a lasgun is a relatively high-tech piece. Definitely more powerful than a standard autogun. On a 1-10 scale it doesn't really come out, but if S was measured 1-20, Lasguns would be a point or two higher than autoguns. They punch right through chainmail and other low-tech armor. It would just be kind of imbalanced for a bunch of 6 point Guardsman to have a ranged weapon worth a damn.

Most current day guns will also punch right through chainmail and "low tech" armor. Armor designed to pretect vs swords and such (by cultures that don't have guns) simply isn't much good at stopping bullets. Even a 9mm will go right through chainmail and most plate.

I suspect where the Lasgun would be superior is vs ballistic fiber armor. Armor deigned to catch a small projectile and disperse the kinetic energy won't do so well against a weapon that doesn't use kinetic energy, and instead just burns through, causing e vaporisation. Necromunda actually covers this decently; autoguns have the same strength as lasguns, but no armor modifier. Lasguns do have an armor modifier. Again, 40K uses a simpler system (AP vs armor modifier) that doesn't work well for such fine scale differences.

carlisimo
15-02-2010, 19:08
That means 3000 rounds were fired for every kill actually inflicted on the NVA and/or VC. It's an old stat, I've read it before, but I'm not sure I believe it... supposedly that's why the newer M16s don't fire in full auto anymore.

It's because most of the shooting was just cover fire. They couldn't see what they were shooting at, but the goal was just to keep the enemy's heads down.

Partisan Rimmo
15-02-2010, 20:21
I love lasguns.

There's nothing like watching your oh-so-proud enemy wither, and crumble, and melt in the face of a sheer wall of fire.

It's a weapon which GRINDS them down, and you can feel it working. MORE las, and MORE las, AND MORE LAS! AHAHAHAHA!!!

Happiness is handing your enemy two fist fulls of armour saves.

Raisans
15-02-2010, 23:01
OP: Would you rather the weapon was hilarious? :wtf:

i have nothing against lasguns
however hilarious weapons are a huge plus

Hellebore
16-02-2010, 00:23
This is somewhat inaccurate. We can save people today not because we can just stitch them back together. When a bullet enters the body it doesn't just poke holes in you, it tears you apart severing chunks, destroying others into unrecognizable goo from kinetic transfer, not to mention then bouncing around burrowing a nice path through them. (I've seen it before.)


Versus ground up flesh that is dead and the bullet fragments you have to remove?

A "laser burn" would be nowhere near the nightmare an actually bullet wound already is.
Besides the physical pain already incorporating into cleaning that wound out we have to recover the round itself, unless of course it was fired from say, a M16 at medium/short range, at which point were removing the exploded bullet fragments. Then we have to seal vessels as we can, close up any holes using graft material if necessary.

People underestimate how lethal modern arms are and get distracted by lasers just because they're lasers. In the end most of the damage is unseen beyond the entry point for both the lasgun and the solid projectile.

Its easy to dismiss the less spectacular bullet hole from a single slug compared to the cratered impact of a lasgun wound but lethality doesn't care what it looks like.

In the end the lasgun is superheating everything its hitting which is going to cause organ failure, massive cell death and bleeding, granted it might not be surface bleeding.

The solid projectile tears apart everything in its path, pulverizing organs and in some cases, splitting open and carving out wild paths in multiple directions.

Both have to be treated and can be treated, but are treated in a different fashion.

They're both lethal, they're probably about equally deadly except the lasgun is probably slightly easier to armor against (ceramics) and slightly less penetrating (which is a good thing, you want your round to go into someone, deliver maximum energy, and then stop, not punch through them and then the wall, and then your buddy on the other side of the wall.)

I can guarantee that burnt flesh has a harder time being repaired than mechanically damaged flesh. Burnt flesh denatures proteins, allows toxin buildup from damaged cells having no access to the circulatory system and requires extensive arterial reconstruction.

Fragmenting Bullet damage IS nasty, but mechanical damage is so much easier for tissues to heal from. We don't normally have to deal with internal burns so aren't normally faced with the problems removing tissue will cause to internal organs, nor the effects of high temperature burnining of surrounding tissues. A lasgun will leave charred holes that will need to be cleaned out (cutting back into the healthy tissues around the hole which will in turn increase the size of the wound) as the fused, charred and completely destroyed tissue around the injury will poison the body and inhibit healing.

Hellebore

Lord of Worms
16-02-2010, 22:14
Which 7.62 does a stubber look like?? I'm not being sarcastic I'm genuinely curious. A stubber bears more of a resemblance to the Ma-Duece to me.

The chaos renegade heavy stubber looks exactly like a Mg42 which was 7.92mm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42

The escher heavy stubber looks like the MG34 which also used the 7.92 mauser round
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_34

Archangel_Ruined
16-02-2010, 23:54
I think there's a bit of underestimation in what a bullet does to a body it hits. You don't just have the torn flesh from impact (the mechanical injury) you get a tunnel of, for want of a better word, 'liquidised' flesh around the trajectory of the bullet. The massive trauma caused by an impact isn't actually caused by the bullet in many cases, but what the bullet passes near to and transfers its kinetic energy into. This can actually be worse in lower calibre rounds as these are more likely to tumble on impact, slowing the round faster, thus transferring energy more quickly. I can't see a laser weapon (as I understand lasers, at least) being as potentially deadly as a solid slug projectile. A laser beam would lose energy in a far more 'haphazard' way, with smoke, clothing and armour all playing a factor where a bullet will cleave through in a graceful arc until contacting something solid. That said, I do believe a laser weapon would be far better, for a start bullets are heavy. A lasgun would allow a soldier to 'win the firefight' without having to carry several kilos of ammunition and wouldn't need constant reloading during that firefight. Add in the lack of recoil allowing accurate sustained fire and you've got a weapon far superior to a conventional rifle. The reduced lethality of a single las wound compared to a 5.62 round isn't even a bad thing either, the lack of recoil probably means you would land multiple hits in a firefight anyway. Besides this, wounded soldiers are actually better than dead ones in a war, they take up vast ammounts of resources stabilising their injuries and evacuating them to safety.

Epicenter
17-02-2010, 05:38
The lasgun is weak because 40k is based around Space Marines. That's always been the problem of 40k. The bolter is what the lasgun what should have been - as accurate as the guy shooting it and wounds half of the time against infantry. However, since the "average" trooper of 40k is a Space Marine who's supposed to be superhuman with the best gun that the Imperium can provide, the lasgun is awful.

It gets even worse because every non-Imperial Codex has weapons that are balanced against the "average" guy in 40k - the Space Marine, and not the Imperial Guardsman. So the "average" creature in 40k is T4, not T3 and their average gun is S4, not S3.

The height of this ridiculousness is the Tau Pulse Rifle. You have a T3 species carrying around a S5 basic weapon because GW wanted a gun that would hurt Space Marines on a 3+ instead of a 4+ ... and can score glancing hits on Rhinos from the front and side and penetrate them from the rear and other ludicrousness.

Tau Police Sergeant: "shoot the guy in the leg to wound him then we'll arrest him!"

*fwzzorp*
*T3 Tau fugitive explodes like something from District 9*

Tau Marksman: "Oops, I hit him in the foot, too!"

Olja
17-02-2010, 05:46
Its a lasgun. It is durable, easy to make, easy to use. It is not suppose to be "badass", "sexy", or "whizzbang". What it lacks in quality it more than makes up for in quantity. Just like the guardsman who wields it.

252nd Fire Dragoon
17-02-2010, 06:54
Aloha,
Im sorry but i'd rather be shot by a lasgun than a normal gun.. because If i read fluff correctly its a super hot beam pretty much, and if it cartarizes the wound (like a Jedi sword) then I would rather have that...

ehlijen
17-02-2010, 07:42
The height of this ridiculousness is the Tau Pulse Rifle. You have a T3 species carrying around a S5 basic weapon because GW wanted a gun that would hurt Space Marines on a 3+ instead of a 4+ ... and can score glancing hits on Rhinos from the front and side and penetrate them from the rear and other ludicrousness.

Tau Police Sergeant: "shoot the guy in the leg to wound him then we'll arrest him!"

*fwzzorp*
*T3 Tau fugitive explodes like something from District 9*

Tau Marksman: "Oops, I hit him in the foot, too!"

The Tau pulse rifle is not ridiculous at all. First of all, forget the notion that an unsaved wound in 40k means death. It more likely means a crippling injury. Second, how about S3 guardsmen carrying around a S8 assault weapon? How is that not more ridiculous?

The pulse rifle is fine. It doesn't even have any features that makes them anti marine exclusive: S5 is still better than S4 at killing guardsmen (ie you haven't hit the point of diminishing returns yet) and it's still AP5, ie AP-let the guards care.
And so what if it can glance one of the cheapest vehicles in the game?

The guard still have the better weapons, but the Tau haven't hit the expansion point of not being able to simply give the best to every trooper yet. It makes for a refreshing change as opposed to 'here's another wierd yet bolter equivalent weapon unit with acces to one of these and one of these, or maybe two of the first'.

borithan
17-02-2010, 08:54
Aloha,
Im sorry but i'd rather be shot by a lasgun than a normal gun.. because If i read fluff correctly its a super hot beam pretty much, and if it cartarizes the wound (like a Jedi sword) then I would rather have that...Well, while the area immediately around the impact would likely cauterise, those areas of flesh which have been affected by the blast of the vapourising flesh, but far away enough that they haven't been cauterised, would bleed... and probably quite badly.

Draxonicar
17-02-2010, 10:52
Yes, but the AK-47 is also very powerful compared to many other standard small arms rifles. Unfortunately, the lasgun is not portrayed to be a powerful weapon, quite the opposite actually. Cheap, mass production, and reliability does not matter if the weapon itself is outstandingly weak and cannot reliably kill the enemy. I feel this is the way lasguns are portrayed far to often, which is a shame.

It doesn't have to be so strong when 6000 guardsman are all shooting at the same time :D



And to everyone comparing bolters to a .50 cal, they aren't. They are .75! caliber guided rockets, with DIAMOND tips..that are rapid fire. They are also mass-reactive, and fluffwise 3 can blow through a wall.

Logarithm Udgaur
17-02-2010, 12:05
I can assure you that there is nothing badass about an M-16. I hate the damn things.
^ what he said. I would rather have an AK any day. At least with an AK I don't have to shoot a guy 3-5 times to make sure they stay down.
It does. It makes a high-pitched laser whine. Read any Gaunt's Ghosts book, especially Necropolis.

According to Abnett they also have recoil and shoot "bolts" of energy (whatever that means), so I would not consider him the best source.

Archangel_Ruined
17-02-2010, 12:15
Talking out of your bottom... One bullet will put somebody down, Rambo isn't real. If you hit anywhere centremass they're not getting up, they might still be alive but they're not walking anywhere for a while. Same with limbs, catch one squarely and that's the end of his fight, very hard to run and shoot with a broken bone and massive bloodloss. It's plausible that they could return fire from the floor, this is dangerous, but that's equally plausible from a 7.62 to a 5.56. If you wing someone with either it's much the same, if you put a round through a lung it's amazing how few people stop to ask how big the bullet was.

Logarithm Udgaur
17-02-2010, 12:51
The 7.62 round is designed to kill, the 5.56 is designed to injure/maim. It is as simple as that.

Archangel_Ruined
17-02-2010, 12:56
Or a 5.56 is designed to be lighter and used in firefights under 400 yards...

Nighthawke
17-02-2010, 13:14
how come we've gone from lasguns being boring to what types of bullets do what :/

Kriegschmidt
17-02-2010, 15:48
It seems no matter what GW does with the fluff or the tabletop rules there is simply nothing appealing about Lasguns or any of the Imperial Laser weapons at all! It has to be one of the mose unappealing weapons in sci-fi history! Won't stop me from playing Imperial Guard though, but it is getting really hard for me to imagine these weapons as being badass as an M-16 or AK-47.

Good, I think this is the whole point. Guardsmen are supposed to be drones*, and drones are supposed to be identically unremarkable. As cheaply kitted as possible. So that the Imperium can throw them vast swathes of them forward with impunity, while the big guns hammer the enemy flat.

Leave the "exciting" guns for the space marines.


*In the ant sense, not the Tau sense.

borithan
17-02-2010, 16:56
According to Abnett they also have recoil and shoot "bolts" of energy (whatever that means), so I would not consider him the best source.According to 2nd edition wargear book they shoot "laser shells". Which is even more bizarre. Bolts I feel represent things like the blaster shots in Star Wars. Laser shells... not a clue.


Talking out of your bottom... One bullet will put somebody down, Rambo isn't real.There are recorded instances of people being hit by many types of bullet and still going. Particularly with armour piercing 5.56. However, it is usually with those high on some sort of drug, or high on fanaticism... and it usually "just" means the wound takes longer to have some sort of effect, but that "just" can be very important if a guy is aiming an RPG at you. Hell, there are instances where people have gone on for a short while not realising their leg blown off, as their body just shuts down the pain. Now, you are right, most of the time a bullet, even if "just" wounded, will put someone out of the fight.


The 7.62 round is designed to kill, the 5.56 is designed to injure/maim. It is as simple as that. I believe this is actually a kind of myth. A story meant to explain the apparent lower lethality of the 5.56, possibly put about by the Pentagon after it became clear that it did result in fewer immediate deaths. The reduced size of the round is more to do with 1) lighter weight, both weapon and round and 2) lower recoil, which allows more controllable automatic fire. Now, there is meant to have been/may still be problems with the armour piercing 5.56, which as it is was meant to punch through body armour proved to have a tendency to pass right through unarmoured targets.

There is one story I have read of a guy in Vietnam, just after the M16 was issued. He shot a guy, hitting him in the shoulder (so not centre of mass). In the 20 seconds or so it took for him to get to the guy he had died, apparently purely from the shock of the round. Doesn't sound like a round designed to be non-lethal to me.

wilsongrahams
17-02-2010, 18:55
The 7.62 round is designed to kill, the 5.56 is designed to injure/maim. It is as simple as that.

My army range instructor would disagree with you. The 5.56 round was chosen because it was just as lethal as slightly older 7.62 rounds due to better propellant, and was smaller and lighter so you could carry more ammo, and having less recoil, is easier to be more accurate with.

Lethality, and aiming to kill or maim is down to accuracy and where you aim in the first place. Soldiers are taught to aim for central body mass for two reasons - easier to hit and to most likely injure and therefore other enemy will be occupied picking him up and dragging him off. Killing a man outright takes out one man, injuring one, takes out one, plus any buddies that help him.

eggmarine
17-02-2010, 19:06
They are boring, for being reliable, durable and easily mass produced weapons. They have less moving parts than an autogun/ ak47 type thing so require little maintenence, and you can charge the power cells pretty much anywhere, which is cool.

One lasgun is boring, 30 lasguns on order 'first rank fire, 2nd rank fire' is fun!

Max Jet
17-02-2010, 20:37
That means 3000 rounds were fired for every kill actually inflicted on the NVA and/or VC. It's an old stat, I've read it before, but I'm not sure I believe it... supposedly that's why the newer M16s don't fire in full auto anymore.

It's not only that, but also the fact, that the M16 bullets were extremely easily deflected (or do you say diffracted in the US?) by even to smallest leave on the trees. I guess the Cover Saves where at least 2+
on 2W6 ^^

Bunnahabhain
17-02-2010, 21:15
According to 2nd edition wargear book they shoot "laser shells". Which is even more bizarre. Bolts I feel represent things like the blaster shots in Star Wars. Laser shells... not a clue.


I've got the wargear book open in front of me, page 26, and in the lasgun entry, can see no 'laser shells.'

From above....
" it fires an explosive energy blast with a similar effect to a bullet or small shell"

EDIT:


Yup, mixed it up with a multi laser... that has "laser energy shells"

borithan
17-02-2010, 21:29
Hmm... must have mis-remembered, or it may have been another of the laser weapons.

kamedake88
17-02-2010, 21:33
They may be boring, but combined with orders they become extremely deadly. As in my first game against guard, most of my Marines were mowed down in turn 2.

carl
17-02-2010, 21:53
My army range instructor would disagree with you.

And more recent scientific studies would prove him a liar. Scientists have shown that a slower heavier bullet does more damage than a fast light one, even though the two may have the same KE.

I didn't understand a lot of the science on the peice i read on this as it was several years ago before i did my mechanichal engineering course so some of the terminology went right ver my head, but the ghist iof it seemed to be: Momentum matter more than KE and a low mass high velocity bullet has far less momentum than a low velocity high mass bullet.


As to this whole lasgun versus modern bukllet lethatality syndrome:

Without 40K fudgy physics the lasguns power is horrifficlly underestimatd and overestimated. Overestimated because dust smoke and fog should stop it working alltogether, and underestimated because any laser blast with enough power to inflict serious injury is going to cuase the target site, (be it armour or flesh) to suffer from at least thermal shock and quiote probably flash vapourisation. If you've ever seen a video of a steam exploshion, thats flash vapourisation. Now imagine it's your own armour and body tissues that are exploding. Hitting somone in the head with a hotshot pack would be like setting off a demo charge. A single multi-laser bolt would have the power of a small artillary shell and a lascannon strike should send tanks into bacflips and turn people into a battle cannon strike.

Thats the thing people fail to relaise with laser weapons, the kind of energys required to hurt a person seriouly ina fraction of a second don't cuase burns and neat holes, they make things outright explode.

Culgore
17-02-2010, 22:39
I gotta say that these arguments about the lethality of different caliber bullets is kind of silly. I'm trained on the M-16/M-4 and prefer it due to the AK-47's dubious accuracy. Now I've never been in a firefight but would say it likely doesn't matter if the enemy is shooting 5.56 or 7.62. I also own a Colt Python that will shoot .38 or .357 mag. A friend of mine was telling me that I would want .357 hollowpoints for self-defense. To me if I have to defend myself it doesn't matter what's in the cylinder because getting hit by either probably ends the game right there.

Lord of Worms
18-02-2010, 03:26
And more recent scientific studies would prove him a liar. Scientists have shown that a slower heavier bullet does more damage than a fast light one, even though the two may have the same KE.


They don't even have the same kinetic energy. For a smaller bullet to have equal kinetic energy it needs to travel significantly faster.The 5.56 round doesn't *seem* so weedy, " it's only 2mm smaller than the 7,62", until you realise that the 5.56 is basically a .223 Remington.

According to wikipedia, here's some data

5.56x45mm NATO m=3.15-5.18g; v=772-930m/s; E=1177-1708 J
7.62x39mm Spitzer m=8g; v=710 m/s; E=2010 J
7.62x39mm SG m=10g; v=641.3m/s; E= 2059 J

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56

If you read the articles in the links above, you will notice that anybody who either uses or studies the 5.556 round knows it is garbage. The bullet rarely breaks apart in the target, so no hydrostatic shock (and no stopping power).
Honestly, anybody who would actually prefer an M-16 or AR-15 over a newer model AK in anything but target practice has absolutely no idea what they are doing. The reason the drill instructors go into all the unscientific hyperbole is so you don't go into combat ******** yourself because of how crappy your gun is.

Baracus
18-02-2010, 03:31
According to wikipedia, here's some data
.

Did you really just look on wikipedia for real information.

Horus_Lupercal
18-02-2010, 03:31
i feel the lasgun was way cooler in the inquistor wars trilogy. it was far more powerful and they used them like how dune used them, not firing las packets but as a continues beam that was useful for slicing legs and heads clean off, even the pace marines in those books carried them as sidearms

Epicenter
18-02-2010, 03:47
The Tau pulse rifle is not ridiculous at all. First of all, forget the notion that an unsaved wound in 40k means death. It more likely means a crippling injury. Second, how about S3 guardsmen carrying around a S8 assault weapon? How is that not more ridiculous?

S5 is a heavy bolter. Essentially, every single Tau Firewarrior is walking around with that world's light cannon.

If all ten Guardsmen in a squad in every single infantry squad carried a meltagun, yeah, I'd certainly concede you have a point. As-is, you have the infantry squad with only one guy carrying one which is "realistic" with only a single specialist carrying a specialized anti-armor weapon. You have vet and command squads where three or four guys can carry one, which is pretty ridiculous, but I think is driven by the gameplay driven angle that you need that many to get a reliable effect on its chosen targets due to the vargaries of dice.

Plus:


It makes for a refreshing change as opposed to 'here's another wierd yet bolter equivalent weapon unit with acces to one of these and one of these, or maybe two of the first'.

It is a bolter equivalent. That's the stupid thing about it. GW wanted to have Tau Firewarriors to have the same shooting performance with their basic weapons as Marines. BS3/S5 = BS4/S4.

I don't think how over effective it'd be against T3 troops or light vehicles was ever much of a consideration since 40k is balanced with the Marine being the average ho-hum grunt.

Lord of Worms
18-02-2010, 03:49
Did you really just look on wikipedia for real information.

Is that a question? Yes I did. If you want "more solid" data you are going to have to dig for it yourself if you don't believe me. It confirmed what I remember looking up a few years ago in my ballistics charts. I'm not going to dig for that, so either take my word for it, or don't.:p

Lemmywinkz
18-02-2010, 04:19
Wow, I was expecting something totally different from this topic.


I think lasguns are boring only because they're standard. I think if every guardsman was issued grenade launchers instead, they would become boring also.

Wolfblade670
18-02-2010, 07:57
Everyone seems to write the lasgun off as just causing a really nasty burn. Would it not cause all fluids in the area of impact to flashboil and explode, blowing a big nasty hole in you?

laudarkul
18-02-2010, 08:16
Lasguns cause major burns and also cauterizes the wound. They miss the kinetic impulse of the bullet guns.

Wolfblade670
18-02-2010, 08:36
Lasguns cause major burns and also cauterizes the wound. They miss the kinetic impulse of the bullet guns.

I know, but what I'm saying is the human body is something like 70% or 80% water. So what happens when that fluid is superheated by the impact of the lasbolt? A steam explosion in your ateries.

laudarkul
18-02-2010, 09:30
Ok but the force of the explosion is large enough to break the resistance force of the organs ? Need a doctor to explain...
And another thing: the energy resulted by impact is transformed 100% to heat or a portion is transformed to heat and the rest is dissipated?

borithan
18-02-2010, 11:44
Did you really just look on wikipedia for real information.For the level of casual discussion on a forum like this it is fine, besides things that are controversial (so discussion of political events etc it is pointless referring to wikipedia). Purely factual discussion on a casual level (or as a very basic introduction) wikipedia is perfect.


S5 is a heavy bolter. Essentially, every single Tau Firewarrior is walking around with that world's light cannon.Well, strengths are all a broad category, so the tau pulse rifle could easily be noticable poorer than the heavy bolter in strength. All S5 means is that it has enough more punch than a bolter to matter and enough less than a multilaser.

And truthfully I don't see anything massively daft about that. Background wise they are operate on a similar principle to toned down plasma weapons. As long as you have the technology and manufacturing capacity there is no reason not to arm your average guys with heavy hitting weapons.

carl
18-02-2010, 16:53
Ok but the force of the explosion is large enough to break the resistance force of the organs ? Need a doctor to explain...
And another thing: the energy resulted by impact is transformed 100% to heat or a portion is transformed to heat and the rest is dissipated?

Well consider that flash vapourised water will typiclly be heated by several hundred degrees, also consider how much space one mole of water takes up as steam.

1 mole of water weighs 18 grams, and, (if you could make water turn into steam at this tempreture and room preashure), would occuppy 24 literes of space at 25 degrees celcius. Using basic tempreture preashure figiures at say 200 degrees celcius it would now take up 196 liters of space. Thats roughly a cube 2 feet on each side, (60CM ish).

18 gramms of water is about a thimble full. A standard off the shell small bottle of pop has 27 times that in it. So a hit to the should is suddenl;y going to produce several cubic meteres of steam at several hundred degrees C. When first formed it will not have expanded out to fill those few cubic meteres however, (though thats what it will try to do, and at great speed), and will thus be at extreme preashure, 90 gramms of it for example filling an area the size of your fist will be exhertingv a preashure of over 20,000 Pounds per square inch on any tissues they're in contact with. I don't what the lowest damaging level is but i'm betting that it's still going to be putting out damaging preashure even when it's expanded to cover an area the size of a basketball, (a rough guess iof 40Cm for a basketballs diamiter yeilds a force of 870 PSI for those intrested). Obviously the expanshion won't be uniform, but you get the idea.


And yes all of the energy that a laser puts into you thats cuases damage is through heat. A great deal of a shots energy will be deflected or not absorbed for various reasons, but where just considering the amount absorbed as that determines it's damaging potentiol.

Sojourner
20-02-2010, 19:56
Not in every way, no.


Ever wonder what a lasgun battlefield would sound like? Do they make any sound? I'd imagine the weapon itself doesn't. Imagine a battlefield in which the only sounds are people shouting and screaming, but no gunshots.

I imagine it more like a very loud, high-pitched 'snap' noise. Like the igniter on a gas cooker, but vastly scaled up, including the white flash.

silentsmoke
20-02-2010, 22:54
It seems no matter what GW does with the fluff or the tabletop rules there is simply nothing appealing about Lasguns or any of the Imperial Laser weapons at all! It has to be one of the mose unappealing weapons in sci-fi history! Won't stop me from playing Imperial Guard though, but it is getting really hard for me to imagine these weapons as being badass as an M-16 or AK-47.

I recommend reading:

The Imperial Infantryman's uplifting primer and Imperial Munitorum manual. These go into detail - made me love guard even more.

borithan
20-02-2010, 23:55
But in many ways those things are meant to be propaganda material. Wouldn't regard them as being a great source for anything.

Great fun though. Did you know a Hammerhead Railgun has a punch roughly equivalent to a hotshot lasgun?

EldritchRaider
21-02-2010, 00:39
I've read through most of this, and it's really quite interesting. The lasguns don't pack a really mean punch like a 70. bolter round- or the same rate of fire as a shuriken cannon. But the lasfire is a superheated beam...Imagine a direct hit on your shoulder...It would mean the destruction of every nerve in that part of that section of your arm and the bone would be almost if not completely melt though the bone. The power packs are also very nifty in the ways they can recharge...which makes them very reusable.

freddieyu
21-02-2010, 03:02
The multilaser is an excellent general purpose weapon, for imperial standards.....I always use it on my scout sentinels and chimeras, and it has served well...