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.

Sasori wrote:The fact of the Matter is, that the Shoota is useless in some circumstances

So is the flayer.

The Gauss Flayer cannot handle its wielder being outnumbered, but the shoota can.

The best basic weapon? The choppa. It's just a chunk of roughly-sharpened metal, being swung by a gorilla-sized madman who's having the time of his life. It can hack through the most advanced armor in the universe; or if it can't, it can just deliver enough blunt trauma to bludgeon the guy inside the armor to death. And best of all, even a pretty fancy one can be made in a few hours by any ork with a little time on his hands, or bought for a few teef from any mek. Easy to get, easy to maintain, and easy to crack heads with. And there ARE no situations in which it loses its effectiveness; fighting one guy? Bash his head! Fighting a TON of guys? Bash ALL their heads! Fighting a tank? Find a hatch, smash it open, then get inside and BASH THEIR HEADS!


. . . oh, wait. We're only talking about GUNS?! Lame! The lasgun then, for sheer reliability and ease of manufacture.

Melissia wrote:

Sasori wrote:The fact of the Matter is, that the Shoota is useless in some circumstances

So is the flayer.

The Gauss Flayer cannot handle its wielder being outnumbered, but the shoota can.

Not neccessarily. For all its rate of fire it is a wildly inaccurate weapon , whereas I think the Flayer is rapid fire (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore it has the same rate of fire(ish) as a bolter, lasgun etc. More killing power per shot = more dead for the rate of fire.

To make my point: http://wobblymodel.weebly.com/comic-21.html

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Castiel wrote:Sure the rate of fire might be more useful against a horde, but what if you are facing a marine mech assault mounted in Land Raiders?

Which is irrelevant because that almost never happens.

The rate of fire makes the shoota mroe powerful because it's putting out more firepower over the same period of time.

This isn't true at all. You can put out as many bullets as you want, but that doesn't mean you are going to be able to scratch the paint on a Land Raider.

The fact of the Matter is, that the Shoota is useless in some circumstances, while the Gauss Flayer can be used in all instances of combat to varying effectiveness. This makes the Flayer a better weapon, period.

It's not a better weapon if you're facing a horde of Guardsmen/Nids/whatever. More versatile doesn't equal "better".

And the Shoota is worse facing any type of Space Marine/Necron/Any Vehicle.

Guardsman Still employ Vehicles, in which case the Shoota isn't nearly as effective.

In the case of you having no idea, what kind of armament your opponent may bring, the more versatile weapon, is better. The fact that there are things that the Shoota can't even touch While the Gauss Flayer can reduce everything to consitutant atoms, means it IS better.



EDIT

Sasori wrote:The fact of the Matter is, that the Shoota is useless in some circumstances

So is the flayer.

The Gauss Flayer cannot handle its wielder being outnumbered, but the shoota can.

This isn't' true at all. Necrons are almost ALWAYS outnumbered, and the Flayer works fine. Space Marines are outnumbered almost Every time as well, Can the bolter not handle that?

Havent read the new cron codex (have no current plans to)

However, regarding somethining as mighty as a bolter, in the chaos space marine codex it talks about a IG sgt catching a bolter in the shoulder, resulting in him losing it. and pretty much collapsing, but still very much alive until the chaos marine who shot him puts a bolter round in his head (I could be sketchy on the facts here but it basically went like that.

Now compare that to an electrical arc that flays you layer by layer the second it touches you, and I would imagine where it touches you doesn't matter too much.

sooooo yeah, oop gauss flayer would prolly be the most brutal.

When we think of the best basic weapon, are we talking about those weapons being fired from all races? Like if a tau shot a gauss flayer etc etc?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

It's not a better weapon if you're facing a horde of Guardsmen/Nids/whatever. More versatile doesn't equal "better".

Um...yes, it does. If you're equipped for any situation, you're more likely to win than guessing for a single situation. Something that can do everything well is far better than something that excels at only one thing. Real life example: Would you rather get B's in all school subjects (college, HS, whatever) or get an A in math and flunk everything else? The Gauss Flayer is a B in everything. The shoota is an A in hordes and an F in everything else. So is the boltgun. And the lasgun. I can go on. Previous edition Gauss was effective against everything. This edition loses the pseudo-rending it had last edition, but is still highly effective against vehicles and performs as well as boltguns and better than lasguns against infantry.

And Melissia, even if land raiders are rare, what happens if they happen to show up at the battle? You can't say the "best" gun is the one that is only effective against hordes. The best one is the one that fills all roles.

Depends entirely on what you want it for and the circumstances under which you're using it (particularly what you're shooting at)

In terms of versatility, though, it's probably the boltgun - there's a billion kinds of specialist ammo for it, it can be used against prettymuch anything except armoured vehicles. (I agree the gauss is still a better all-purpose, all-comers weapon though)

Castiel wrote:Not neccessarily. For all its rate of fire it is a wildly inaccurate weapon

It's not really more inaccurate than, say, an autogun. The reason Orks are so inaccurate is because Orks like the sound of their guns too much to bother aiming.

The flayer is also worse off facing power armor, because it also cannot reliably penetrate power armor.

And no, the shoota does not stop working in the hands of a non-Ork.

timetowaste85 wrote:Um...yes, it does. If you're equipped for any situation, you're more likely to win than guessing for a single situation.

You are if you know your probabilities.

The average soldier is unlikely to ever hear of, never mind face off against, a Land Raider full of Space Marines. The chance of them facing this is so tiny that that feature is effectively useless compared to a feature which is far more likely to be used (see: rate of fire, because in 40k you're billions of times more likely to face off against Orks, humans, or tyranids than you are to ever catch a glimpse of even a single Astartes). Therefor the rate of fire is more important than armor penetration.


The thread asks "best basic weapon". A basic weapon in 40k is a weapon handed out to every soldier in an army. Other soldiers are still given specialized equipment depending on the army-- what the basic weapon of the infantry needs to deal with is what the infantry will most commonly face, otherwise it is a craptacular choice for a basic weapon.

Melissia wrote:

Castiel wrote:Not neccessarily. For all its rate of fire it is a wildly inaccurate weapon

It's not really more inaccurate than, say, an autogun. The reason Orks are so inaccurate is because Orks like the sound of their guns too much to bother aiming.

The flayer is also worse off facing power armor, because it also cannot reliably penetrate power armor.

And no, the shoota does not stop working in the hands of a non-Ork.

I don't follow-how is a flayer worse than a slugga when facing power armor-neither will reliably penetrate better than the other. Flayers, in fluff, were supposed to pretty much disintegrate their targets. That's better than denting armor, last I checked. But even at equal strength value in game the flayer isn't worse, except its rapid fire, instead of assault. Both have the same penetrating ability, or lack thereof.

Melissia wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:Um...yes, it does. If you're equipped for any situation, you're more likely to win than guessing for a single situation.

You are if you know your probabilities.

The average soldier is unlikely to ever hear of, never mind face off against, a Land Raider full of Space Marines. The chance of them facing this is so tiny that that feature is effectively useless compared to a feature which is far more likely to be used (see: rate of fire, because in 40k you're billions of times more likely to face off against Orks, humans, or tyranids than you are to ever catch a glimpse of even a single Astartes). Therefor the rate of fire is more important than armor penetration.


The thread asks "best basic weapon". A basic weapon in 40k is a weapon handed out to every soldier in an army. Other soldiers are still given specialized equipment depending on the army-- what the basic weapon of the infantry needs to deal with is what the infantry will most commonly face, otherwise it is a craptacular choice for a basic weapon.

So, you're saying those orks and guardsmen are going to hoof it across the battlefield and not come in chimeras, buggys, trucks or anything else and won't bring any kinds of vehicles? Sorry, but no. A flayer allows the army to not worry about taking specialized weapons-this basic weapon is a jack of all trades. The argument doesn't have to be just for land raiders-it can be for all vehicles in general. What basic weapon, besides flayers, can stop a rhino, chimera, truck, buggy, etc before it reaches your lines? Slugga? No. Bolter? No. Lasgun? HAHAHAHAH...no. I'll grant that a slugga is a better weapon against tyranids, because they don't have vehicles. But planning on only bugs is like your example of planning against Land Raiders-it's not going to happen as often as every other possiblity, therefore you take the best weapon to handle every job-what has the capability to kill infantry and vehicles? One item. And it ain't a slugga.

I don't know about the defense you won't see a landraider. From the fiction theres plenty that is awful dang durable. Chaos beasts who skin turns away bolters, carnifexes, etc Id rather have a gauss flayer then a gun that only really works for orkz..

I voted Guass flayer, due to it's desintigrative powers...

However, the fleshborer comes in close second, because it doesn't matter if it is overly effective, it just has to scare the out of you. A rifle that shoots maggots that eat you alive? does this not sound like the ultimate child's nightmare rifle?

Well I thought of "best" as most destructive so the Flayer hands down. I honestly can't see how someone would argue against a weapon that disintegrates anything on the molecular level. A lot of the other weapons can be stopped by a suitable amount of armour, but as long as you're made of matter you're vulnerable to a Flayer.

timetowaste85 wrote:I don't follow-how is a flayer worse than a slugga when facing power armor-neither will reliably penetrate better than the other.

Because one fires more often and though it still won't reliably penetrate, it has more chances of penetrating than the other.

Melissia wrote:So, you're saying those orks and guardsmen are going to hoof it across the battlefield and not come in chimeras, buggys, trucks or anything else and won't bring any kinds of vehicles?

Frequently, yes, and more to the point (in case you didn't read), they have special weapons that deal with equipment their standard weapons aren't designed for.

Because the thread asks for the best basic weapon. Not the best overall weapon. Basic weapons are supported by other weapons in the army. If an Ork needs a vehicle destroyed, they bring one of their rocket-propelled hammers or a rokkit launcha, or just tear it apart with their bare hands for that matter...

Sense when is the botler a basic weapon?

nomotog wrote:Sense when is the botler a basic weapon?

It is a basic weapon when use by Space Marines and Sisters, and a special weapon when used by Guard.

Melissia wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:I don't follow-how is a flayer worse than a slugga when facing power armor-neither will reliably penetrate better than the other.

Because one fires more often and though it still won't reliably penetrate, it has more chances of penetrating than the other.

Melissia wrote:So, you're saying those orks and guardsmen are going to hoof it across the battlefield and not come in chimeras, buggys, trucks or anything else and won't bring any kinds of vehicles?

Frequently, yes, and more to the point (in case you didn't read), they have special weapons that deal with equipment their standard weapons aren't designed for.

Because the thread asks for the best basic weapon. Not the best overall weapon. Basic weapons are supported by other weapons in the army. If an Ork needs a vehicle destroyed, they bring one of their rocket-propelled hammers or a rokkit launcha, or just tear it apart with their bare hands for that matter...

Okay, this thread is also fluff perspective-I'm trying to think of it that way, as it should be: meaning 'rapid fire' vs 'assault' type means very little. And a beam that disintegrates its target is definitely better than a bullet. And I did read your point about special weapons (and ignored it)-the point of the thread isn't about the special weapons, it's about the basic weapons. A flayer fulfills all roles-what happens if the one special weapon was destroyed anyway-missile, grenade, etc (remember, fluff-not gameplay). That unit is screwed against vehicles. You can't always count on that one special weapon making it through the battle. Guass flayers don't need special weapons-they do both jobs, and do just as well as a bolter against infantry, and a helluva lot better than any other basic weapon against vehicles. Versatility is king here.

The sisters and the SMs aren't basic troops though. They are elite troops. If you include them, you might as well include all the other elite troops.

Lasgun.
'Nuff said.

Squidmanlolz wrote:Lasgun.
'Nuff said.

Can you say how? Sure, there are plenty of them, but what else does it bring to the table?

It takes guts to bring a weapon like the lasgun into a firefight. Ultimately, it's the man behind the gun.

So then gauss flayer wins since necron is better then a guardsman. lol

timetowaste85 wrote:Okay, this thread is also fluff perspective-I'm trying to think of it that way, as it should be: meaning 'rapid fire' vs 'assault' type means very little.

Ork weapons are more rapid fire in the fluff.

timetowaste85 wrote:And a beam that disintegrates its target is definitely better than a bullet.

It does not instantly disintegrate the entire target. And Ork shootas fire explosive shells by most accounts, not mere bullets-- there's a reason why they're in the same damage category as bolters and gauss flayers.

timetowaste85 wrote:And I did read your point about special weapons (and ignored it)-the point of the thread isn't about the special weapons, it's about the basic weapons.

Funny, considering you aren't actually bothering to look at what makes a good basic weapon. See below:

timetowaste85 wrote:A flayer fulfills all roles-what happens if the one special weapon was destroyed anyway-missile, grenade, etc (remember, fluff-not gameplay).

However, it is inferior as a basic weapon because it is less useful in the role of the basic weapon, which has nothing to do with taking down vehicles.

Versatility isn't king. Versatility gets its ass handed to it by specialists who play to their strengths.

timetowaste85 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

It's not a better weapon if you're facing a horde of Guardsmen/Nids/whatever. More versatile doesn't equal "better".

Um...yes, it does. If you're equipped for any situation, you're more likely to win than guessing for a single situation.

Which is why you don't send out a platoon of Guardsmen; you send out a platoon of guardsmen with anti-tank grenades and a meltagun.

For a real-life example, take the AK47. It's not the "best" in any of the traditional categories, other weapons outclass it in ROF, accuracy and stopping power. What it DOES do is work, almost all the time. Reliability cranked up to 11, combined with extreme ease of use. You don't make "all-round" weapons (or "all-round ammo" in the case of bigger stuff), you specialize it to take one thing down really effectively and then issue special weaponry to deal with the (relatively speaking) more uncommon threats. If one army's grunts are equipped with .50 sniper rifles, do you honestly expect them to win over an army whose grunts are equipped with AK47s, just because the .50 can take down vehicles?

For another example, take the Panzerfaust anti-tank weapon used by the Germans during WWII. They didn't bother giving their troops weapons that COULD damage tanks, if the shooter got lucky, they gave them the forerunner to the RPG.

The pulse rifle. The ability to send thin line of plasma far further than a normal rifle, with such power that even being close to it would probably burn somone to death, is better than even the shorter-ranged, heavier, less powerful gauss blaster that can only kill what it hits (even if it does slightly better at killing them).

Coolyo294 wrote:The Lasgun. It's powerful, durable, easy to use, easy to make, and can be recharged anywhere there is sunlight.

/thread

I think a gun should be judged by its destructive capabilities. Every gun on the list even the Pulse Rifle has certain defenses/targets they just cannot take down. A Flayer is a threat to anything with molecular bonds, there really isn't a defense againt a Flayer except to be just so massive that it takes a while to disintegrate.

And just because that's one way to circumvent, or really just delay, a Flayer's power does not make it somehow weak, all the other weapons have far more counters. The only counter to the Flayer, (the huge chunk of mass) is also a counter to all the other guns, yet given time the Flayer can destroy it.

Melissia wrote:

Castiel wrote:Not neccessarily. For all its rate of fire it is a wildly inaccurate weapon

It's not really more inaccurate than, say, an autogun. The reason Orks are so inaccurate is because Orks like the sound of their guns too much to bother aiming.

The flayer is also worse off facing power armor, because it also cannot reliably penetrate power armor.

And no, the shoota does not stop working in the hands of a non-Ork.

timetowaste85 wrote:Um...yes, it does. If you're equipped for any situation, you're more likely to win than guessing for a single situation.

You are if you know your probabilities.

The average soldier is unlikely to ever hear of, never mind face off against, a Land Raider full of Space Marines. The chance of them facing this is so tiny that that feature is effectively useless compared to a feature which is far more likely to be used (see: rate of fire, because in 40k you're billions of times more likely to face off against Orks, humans, or tyranids than you are to ever catch a glimpse of even a single Astartes). Therefor the rate of fire is more important than armor penetration.


The thread asks "best basic weapon". A basic weapon in 40k is a weapon handed out to every soldier in an army. Other soldiers are still given specialized equipment depending on the army-- what the basic weapon of the infantry needs to deal with is what the infantry will most commonly face, otherwise it is a craptacular choice for a basic weapon.

From the Ork codex, pg 10:

"Many captured Ok weapons and items of equipment do not work unless wielded by an Ork."

Also, shootas are assault weapons - in game turns 2 shots over short range. The gauss flayer is rapid fire 1 shot at long range and 2 shots at close range, so you begin putting enemies down further away, and then at the same rate closer. And Ork guns aren't exactly well built. they are not accurate to the same degree as other weapons, this is only exacerbated by the fact that the Orks don't aim.

As for the not facing Land Raiders point, as the Cadians about that one, I'm sure Abbadon brought plenty on his Black Crusades. Also, aside from the pulse rifle it is the only basic weapon that can put down a vehicle with an AV of 11 or higher.

I use SM but dont like bolters, i prefer gause flayers

Melissia wrote:text

I'd love to keep up with this, but at some point I'm going to reach levels that cause me to have a couple day ban-and disagreeing with you isn't worth it. I'll let the poll speak for me, and you can keep being happily deluded with your ork weaponry, that, according to fluff, probably breaks down all the time too. Last thought-who makes a better weapon? The most advanced race in the universe that was old when man was still new? Or fungus that just throws scrap together and hopes for the best. Yeah...that's a REAL tough call. At least if you truly believe something, you don't give up at it.