Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, but a lascannon certainly could. Which is also an energy weapon, not a solid weapon-- and it's better than an autocannon against heavy armor.

Energy weapons can also be upscaled, too.

I wasnt saying that one was better then the other, I was just pointing out that Rate of Fire meens nothing if it is ineffective.

But we've already established that lasguns are not ineffective. Sure, they can't destroy vehicles,but then only Tau and Necrons can do that with their main guns. Both of which are energy weapons...

here's an interesting thought: What if you coult give a Lasgun armed unit TANK HUNTERS. then they would be Str4 against vehicles Lasgun pops DE Raider. DE captures Guardsmen for questiong.



O, and good news everybody. our long desired Orkmoticon is here:

Solid projectile weapons typically mean any weapon that fires a physical projectile from it. In that case, a bolter is certainly a solid projectile weapon.

While railguns have been mentioned in the thread, they have not been mentioned in their game incarnation of the Tau Railgun, which is the most powerful gun in non-apocalyptic 40k.

So we have Boltgun > Lasgun
Heavy Bolter > Burst Cannon
Auto Cannon > Multi-Laser
Railgun > Lascannon

Which seems to indicate that Solid Projectile weapons are more powerful in 40k, if not neccesarily more cost effective.

Try comparing actual equivalent weapons, instead of random ones.

1: This is an invalid comparison. An autogun is equivalent to a lasgun; If you were to compare hellguns to boltguns, it would be a slightly better one, but even then the two weapons systems have quite different strengths and weaknesses so it's hard to say which one is better without indicating a specific situation for it.

2: That is Tau technology, and therefor irrelevant. The heavy bolter is comparable to the Multilaser-- the ML has better strength, but worse armor penetration, while the HB has better penetration but lower strength. They're still roughly equivalent however.

3: This is an invalid comparison. The multilaser is comparable to the heavy bolter, not the autocannon. The autocannon is more comparable to the lascannon.

4: That is Tau technology, and therefor irrelevant. But if you really want to compare the Railgun to Imperial technology, try comparing it to the Laser Destroyer, which is quite similar to the Railgun as far as statline goes, with some slight differences.


From these (far more accurate and relevant) comparisons, you can see that Solid munitions ≈ energy weapons.

I don't see why Tau technology is irrelevant.

We are examining the issue of lasers versus bullets, not the issue of Imperial lasers vs Imperial bullets.

It only needs the IoM to rediscover the lost template for the Gauss rifle and we would see some changes.

In 40K (and most sci-fi) energy always trumps matter. Power Weapons work by disentigrating matter on a molecular level. They can cut through anything even adamantium.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't see why Tau technology is irrelevant.

We are examining the issue of lasers versus bullets, not the issue of Imperial lasers vs Imperial bullets.

It only needs the IoM to rediscover the lost template for the Gauss rifle and we would see some changes.

Even if you consider the Tau technology, his comparisons are invalid anyway because he's comparing, for example, a tank cannon to a heavy machinegun. Of course the tank cannon's gonna hit harder. Try comparing an HMG to an HMG-- the Heavy Bolter and Multi-Laser.

I'm doing a straight strength scale. IG heavy weapon teams can take an Autocannon or a Lascannon, clearly these are not tank only mounted guns. A Tau Burst Cannon is far more simular to an energy HMG than a Multilaser

It isn't invalid to compare a tank cannon with a heavy machine gun.

We only need compare the energy transmitted to the target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would be more useful to research the absorption of photo energy of a certain wavelength by body tissue.

Visible light energy is effectively 100% absorbed but is 99.9% reflected by mirrors.

X Ray energy mostly goes through mirrors but is only weakly absorbed by body tissue.

We need to find the cross-over point between armour being ignored and effective absorption by the body.

Kroot Loops wrote:A Tau Burst Cannon is far more simular to an energy HMG than a Multilaser

No, it is not, as the multilaser IS an energy HMG, just as the heavy stubber and heavy bolter are solid ammunition HMGs despite having differing stats.

The autocannon is a tank cannon, as that is exactly how it's used on the Predator-- its main gun. The Predator is a light tank, and the Autocannon is a light tank cannon to be sure, but still a tank cannon. The Battle Cannon is only strength eight, and the lascannon is strength nine, if you want to compare a heavier tank cannon. And if you want to compare extremely high strength weapons, both the laser destroyer and rail gun are strength ten, the highest strength in standard games.

I'm sticking with the 40K rule book on this one and saying Solid is better.

After consulting the rule book and looking back over much of the fluff, Soild ammo seems to be much more effective as it has better AP.

This is Sci-fi so no Race can be discounted.

A Railgun beats Lascannon. Both can be used by tanks and infantry. So get over it!

Boltgun is beter than a lasgun, both can be used by IG and Lasguns have no AP unless it's a hellgun or a hotshot which has crap range. Solids can have a wider variety of munition types (See sternguard and shotgun rounds from Necromunda)

The Fluff and the rules support solid ammo. Yes Plasma and Las weapons have some good stuff but I'd Still go for the Solid Ammo type thats used by a bloody TITAN!

Energy weapons have way better AP. A Space Marine can take an autocannon shot in the chest and get back up. Not so much with a Lascannon or even a handheld plasmagun.

Or a railgun.

Kilkrazy wrote:Or a railgun.

... which is comparable to a laser destroyer. Neither of which can be used by infantry (Broadsides are effectively small walkers).

You people are still comparing weapons that are entirely different grades.

Plus a railgun is ultimate pinnacle of solid shot weapons. It pretty special and complicated. Whereas there are many hendheld energy weapons. Yes 1 man can weild a railrifle but remind me what the AP is on that again? Not to mention its huge. Plasmapistol fits in your pocket.

It's not that special. They have them today in experimental format.

Yes. But then the lasgun would be ludicrously advanced, to us.

Not if it can only do 3/-.

I would hope for a lot more from 38,000 years of development.

We ought to be up to meson guns.

Kilkrazy wrote:Not if it can only do 3/-.

I would hope for a lot more from 38,000 years of development.

We ought to be up to meson guns.

The Autogun is effectively better than any modern assault rifle, and it has the exact same stats.

But we have yet to produce an effective and efficient man-portable energy weapon. Nevermind one whose power packs recharge by exposing them to light and/or heat, or just by plugging them into a wall somewhere.

And it goes both ways most armour that can't be pierced (invulnerble save) is? You guessed it made of energy! They often fit discretely on your belt or head or whatever. If you want an invulnerble save made of matter? your going to need 40 tons of adamantium! (terminators)

What enemies are solid rounds most effective against?

those that are vulnerable to Hydrostatic shock.

Chongara wrote:
Greenery and birds have become all the rage amongst the nobility of the Salwal sector, in response the entire 20 billion population of the planet Buwal as been turned over to the production of Pink Lawn Flamingos and AstroTurf in order to meet the demand. Life there is actually somewhat easier there than on other industrial worlds, as the production of these products puts out relatively low pollution. There is one major threat they must deal with, however. The entire southern continent of the planet is undeveloped due to being overrun with an aggressive species of giant fire-breathing ducks. The planet has a slightly wobbly axis and for 3 months every 5 years the climate shifts slightly and the birds migrate. At that time great terror spreads through the cities as feathered bodies blot out the sun, deafening quacking fills the air and huge gouts of flame burn millions alive.

I take my hat off to you, sir.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:And it goes both ways most armour that can't be pierced (invulnerble save) is? You guessed it made of energy! They often fit discretely on your belt or head or whatever. If you want an invulnerble save made of matter? your going to need 40 tons of adamantium! (terminators)

Until a psycannon comes along with its solid shells going right through your force fields... yeah...

The main issue is whether you want the stopping power and damage over time of ballistic weaponry, or the instantaneous hard-hitting power of energy weapons. They both have different uses. Realistically, ballistic weaponry makes for better assault weaponry than energy weapons, because of the stopping power. There's a reason why the imperium still ballistic shotguns.

Also, on the larger scale, ballistic weaponry can be used for indirect ordinance fire.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not, I'm just pointing out that the lasgun seems strangely short of RoF considering its advantage is supposed to be having more ammo on board.

More shots thrown down range usually increases the potential of hits.

Is this still true in a weapon with no (or virtually no) recoil? If you fire a burst they're all going to the same spot. Possibly, the RoF is deliberately de-tuned in order to prevent excessive wasted shots.

That could be so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LThD0FMvTFU

A real laser at work. Obviously the size of this thing will be reduced significantly in years to come, but this gives you a much better idea of how lasers actually work.

It's not a bolt, like a blaster in Star Wars. It's literally a ray of light. First of all, the power is reduced significantly with range. Second, you need to maintain contact between the laser and target long enough to actually cause damage. This laser is huge and very powerful, and yet it still takes several seconds to sufficiently heat the incoming mortar round.

Assuming an X Ray tube ran at 24MeV, how much power would be needed to pump out 2,000 Joules of laser energy in 1/100th of a second?