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.

Unit1126PLL wrote:If we take the game literally, the multilaser only shoots 3x as fast as a lascannon, with much less than 33% of the lascannon's power per shot...

Except you have to remember that game stats are reflecting balance, not necessarily fluff.

A multilaser puts down "a continuous, withering hail of fire" to suppress an enemy and tear through hordes of unarmored or lightly armored foes.
A Lascannon fires a single, continuous beam that lasts for a brief time and deals ungodly amounts of damage to anything that gets in its way.

The two are not comparable, except for having "las" in their name. It's like trying to say that a 120mm cannon off the Abrams can be turned into a crew served weapon.

Feasibly? Maybe it could. But it wouldn't be practical.

Kanluwen wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:If we take the game literally, the multilaser only shoots 3x as fast as a lascannon, with much less than 33% of the lascannon's power per shot...

Except you have to remember that game stats are reflecting balance, not necessarily fluff.

A multilaser puts down "a continuous, withering hail of fire" to suppress an enemy and tear through hordes of unarmored or lightly armored foes.
A Lascannon fires a single, continuous beam that lasts for a brief time and deals ungodly amounts of damage to anything that gets in its way.

The two are not comparable, except for having "las" in their name. It's like trying to say that a 120mm cannon off the Abrams can be turned into a crew served weapon.

Feasibly? Maybe it could. But it wouldn't be practical.

Except it's not like saying that at all... the 120mm gun on the Abrams is more like the lascannon, which in 40k IS a crew-served weapon.

The closest modern on-vehicle weapon to a multilaser's function is an autocannon ... which is a crew-served weapon in the Guard.

A continuous, withering hail of fire seems fitting for a multilaser... and a SAW. Incidentally, the Heavy Bolter is nearly identical in function, but requires more maintenance and supply. Why not multilasers in some regiments? Coolant problems? Perhaps.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:If we take the game literally, the multilaser only shoots 3x as fast as a lascannon, with much less than 33% of the lascannon's power per shot...

Except you have to remember that game stats are reflecting balance, not necessarily fluff.

A multilaser puts down "a continuous, withering hail of fire" to suppress an enemy and tear through hordes of unarmored or lightly armored foes.
A Lascannon fires a single, continuous beam that lasts for a brief time and deals ungodly amounts of damage to anything that gets in its way.

The two are not comparable, except for having "las" in their name. It's like trying to say that a 120mm cannon off the Abrams can be turned into a crew served weapon.

Feasibly? Maybe it could. But it wouldn't be practical.

Except it's not like saying that at all... the 120mm gun on the Abrams is more like the lascannon, which in 40k IS a crew-served weapon.

Do you realize how silly of a statement that is?

I'm not talking about the size or role of the weapon. I'm talking about the practicality of it.
A Lascannon is a weapon that is relatively simple to maintain, relatively simple to operate, and requires little interaction on the crew's part.

A Multilaser is not that. A Multilaser requires constant upkeep and input or the thing can blow itself up.

It's worth noting that even Imperial Guard Tarantula Sentry Guns do not use Multilasers. They use Heavy Bolters or Lascannons as standard, due to the ruggedness of the weapon design.

The closest modern on-vehicle weapon to a multilaser's function is an autocannon ... which is a crew-served weapon in the Guard.

Uh no. The closest modern on-vehicle weapon to a multilaser's function is not an autocannon.
The autocannon of today is like the autocannon of the future.
The "closest modern on-vehicle weapon" to a multilaser's function is the GAU-17/A. It puts out a buttload of fire on the enemy, hopefully wounding or killing them but mostly forcing them to keep their heads down.

A continuous, withering hail of fire seems fitting for a multilaser... and a SAW. Incidentally, the Heavy Bolter is nearly identical in function, but requires more maintenance and supply. Why not multilasers in some regiments? Coolant problems? Perhaps.

Again:
It's not a "perhaps".

That's actually stated as one of the reasons why. Multilasers are finnicky weapons, which require constant maintenance--not to mention cooling shrouds and an obscene amount of power.

You might see some Forge Worlds with emplaced Multilasers or them grafted into their Skitarri, but the Imperial Guard at large will not have them.

For most purposes, simple twin-linked heavy stubbers will do the same job.

Multilasers are pretty heavy firepower even for an HMG, capable of destroying many armored transports (even Rhinos from the front).

Kanluwen wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:If we take the game literally, the multilaser only shoots 3x as fast as a lascannon, with much less than 33% of the lascannon's power per shot...

Except you have to remember that game stats are reflecting balance, not necessarily fluff.

A multilaser puts down "a continuous, withering hail of fire" to suppress an enemy and tear through hordes of unarmored or lightly armored foes.
A Lascannon fires a single, continuous beam that lasts for a brief time and deals ungodly amounts of damage to anything that gets in its way.

The two are not comparable, except for having "las" in their name. It's like trying to say that a 120mm cannon off the Abrams can be turned into a crew served weapon.

Feasibly? Maybe it could. But it wouldn't be practical.

Except it's not like saying that at all... the 120mm gun on the Abrams is more like the lascannon, which in 40k IS a crew-served weapon.

Do you realize how silly of a statement that is?

I'm not talking about the size or role of the weapon. I'm talking about the practicality of it.
A Lascannon is a weapon that is relatively simple to maintain, relatively simple to operate, and requires little interaction on the crew's part.

A Multilaser is not that. A Multilaser requires constant upkeep and input or the thing can blow itself up.

It's worth noting that even Imperial Guard Tarantula Sentry Guns do not use Multilasers. They use Heavy Bolters or Lascannons as standard, due to the ruggedness of the weapon design.

The closest modern on-vehicle weapon to a multilaser's function is an autocannon ... which is a crew-served weapon in the Guard.

Uh no. The closest modern on-vehicle weapon to a multilaser's function is not an autocannon.
The autocannon of today is like the autocannon of the future.
The "closest modern on-vehicle weapon" to a multilaser's function is the GAU-17/A. It puts out a buttload of fire on the enemy, hopefully wounding or killing them but mostly forcing them to keep their heads down.

A continuous, withering hail of fire seems fitting for a multilaser... and a SAW. Incidentally, the Heavy Bolter is nearly identical in function, but requires more maintenance and supply. Why not multilasers in some regiments? Coolant problems? Perhaps.

Again:
It's not a "perhaps".

That's actually stated as one of the reasons why. Multilasers are finnicky weapons, which require constant maintenance--not to mention cooling shrouds and an obscene amount of power.

You might see some Forge Worlds with emplaced Multilasers or them grafted into their Skitarri, but the Imperial Guard at large will not have them.

For a second I thought you meant the Gau-8 >_>

As for multilasers, I'd guess it's more like a Browning m2, with a higher rate of fire.... so an M3M.

The Punisher cannon and assault cannon are GAU-style weapons. Both have a higher ROF than the multilaser. The Multilaser is not any faster firing than a regular MG, or quick-firing autocannon. Hence my example.

If it is that finnicky, why do they use it ubiquitously on their armored transports? I'd replace it with the near-identical Heavy Bolter if it's really as bad as it seems to be when it comes to maintenance.

Also note: ROF wise, if the Multilaser is a GAU-17, then the Executioner is a plasma cannon with similar ROF !!

You're focusing far too much on the physical similarities and not the logistical similarities.

GAU weaponry is not mounted outside of vehicles because the gun requires an electric current to operate and a constant ammunition feed.

Multilasers are not mounted outside of vehicles because the gun requires a stable firing platform, a constant energy source, and a constantly regulated cooling mechanism.
Multilasers which are finnicky, are able to be constantly maintained by the Tech-Priests and Servitors who maintain the Chimeras.


And for the record?
Chimeras commonly are fitted with turret mounted Heavy Bolters. But it's most commonly done on Chimeras that serve alongside veteran regiments or that are serving in areas where they'll face Tyranids(where the projectile's heavy mass comes in handy) or the Traitor Legions (where the heavy bolter's armor penetration and volume of fire comes into play).

Very interesting read. Thank you kindly good sir!

Kanluwen wrote:You're focusing far too much on the physical similarities and not the logistical similarities.

GAU weaponry is not mounted outside of vehicles because the gun requires an electric current to operate and a constant ammunition feed.

Multilasers are not mounted outside of vehicles because the gun requires a stable firing platform, a constant energy source, and a constantly regulated cooling mechanism.
Multilasers which are finnicky, are able to be constantly maintained by the Tech-Priests and Servitors who maintain the Chimeras.

Sounds a lot like a lascannon, or perhaps a plasma gun- stable firing platform, constant energy source, cooling mechanisms...

Can the techpriests and servitors not look after some regimental heavy weapons? Especially if the chimeras are equipped with oh-so-reliable heavy bolters, so their services will be demanded less...

look, all I'm saying is it's possible that a multilaser could be found on the battlefield as a crew served weapon in a similar role to the heavy bolter, somewhere in the galaxy.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You're focusing far too much on the physical similarities and not the logistical similarities.

GAU weaponry is not mounted outside of vehicles because the gun requires an electric current to operate and a constant ammunition feed.

Multilasers are not mounted outside of vehicles because the gun requires a stable firing platform, a constant energy source, and a constantly regulated cooling mechanism.
Multilasers which are finnicky, are able to be constantly maintained by the Tech-Priests and Servitors who maintain the Chimeras.

Sounds a lot like a lascannon, or perhaps a plasma gun- stable firing platform, constant energy source, cooling mechanisms...

Plasma Guns do not require a stable firing platform. Plasma Guns are manportable, single man weapons.
Plasma Cannons are not fielded by infantry outside of the Astartes wielding them. They can be mounted on vehicles though, and Plasma Cannon Sentinels are rather new.

Lascannons are best used from prepared positions, and are generally static emplaced weapons alongside of autocannons.
Heavy Bolters and Rocket Launchers are generally considered to be the more 'mobile' heavy weapons and carried in Chimera mounted squads.

Can the techpriests and servitors not look after some regimental heavy weapons? Especially if the chimeras are equipped with oh-so-reliable heavy bolters, so their services will be demanded less...

Looking after weapons is not the purview of techpriests and servitors. It's the Regiment's armorers/camp followers who maintain the majority of weapons, and multilasers are not worth the effort to train people to maintain.

look, all I'm saying is it's possible that a multilaser could be found on the battlefield as a crew served weapon in a similar role to the heavy bolter, somewhere in the galaxy.

And all I'm saying is that it won't be, because GW has gone out of its way to say that it isn't done.
The closest thing is you'll find the forces of the Mechanicus having gun servitors with them fused to the body. You might feasibly find a few cases where a highly advanced world might have Multilasers as some kind of emplaced weapons, etc--but never as crew served weapons being hauled around the battlefield.

Kanluwen wrote:
That's actually stated as one of the reasons why. Multilasers are finnicky weapons, which require constant maintenance--not to mention cooling shrouds and an obscene amount of power.

This claim has been made multiple times but no proof has been provided. Where exactly is this stated? Quote and cite it.

Well, if a Sentinel can power a multilaser....the entire mechanism can't be that bulky, can it?

Ogiwan wrote:Well, if a Sentinel can power a multilaser....the entire mechanism can't be that bulky, can it?

A Sentinel is not as small as you seem to think it is.

It probably depends on how you perceive licensed material. After all, there were novels about Marines carrying multilasers...

That bit aside, I actually have to agree with Kan here, though I do not recall an actual reason given in the studio material itself. I would say man-portable multilasers don't exist because heavy bolters are almost as good (slightly more armour penetration, slightly less strength) whilst being notably easier to transport - at least regarding the weapon; I have no idea how fast a multilaser burns through its batteries and how much they weigh.
Maybe the Imperium would also be capable of fielding a weapon somewhere between the hellgun and the multilaser, which trades some of its larger cousin's strength for a decrease in size, but that weapon would then clearly lose out against the heavy bolter. And/or maybe the technology got lost. *shrugs*

It's not in the rules and it's comparatively easy to find potential reasons for why they aren't, so ...

Just my two shells, though.

Kanluwen wrote:A Sentinel is not as small as you seem to think it is.

The legs are about the height of a human (model), and the Sentinel's cockpit is about the height of a human (model), and about the length of two humans (models) and the width of about 1 human (model).

Granted, GWs ability to portray realistic models is only slightly worse than their ability to produce realistic fluff.

Still, though....I'm not seeing that much in the way of space in a Sentinel. I mean, the Multilaser capacitor is probably underneath the pilot's seat, where the ML plugs in, and that's not a particularly large space. If you're worried about it burning through batteries odiously quickly, well then....give each guy in the squad a battery. Its not like 20th century armies didn't do the same thing for their squad automatic weapons.

Hell, if that is an issue, then how else does a squad carry around all the necessary heavy bolter ammo to keep their SAW fed? After all, they have roughly the same rate of fire. I'm also more than willing to bet that the equivalent amount of HB shots is larger and heavier than the same amount of ML shots, for one unit of fire. Once you factor in recharging locally versus resupplying from operational or strategic stores, well, I'm pretty sure I know which one the logisticians in the Munitorium would prefer.

Oh! There's another advantage to multilasers in infantry squads! Commonality of parts! The regimental Engineers can use the same parts to repair the SAW and the "default" IFV main gun. Granted, the same can be said if the SAW and IFV main gun are both heavy bolters, but still.

Ogiwan wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:A Sentinel is not as small as you seem to think it is.

The legs are about the height of a human (model), and the Sentinel's cockpit is about the height of a human (model), and about the length of two humans (models) and the width of about 1 human (model).

Per Imperial Armour 3, Sentinels are 4.8 meters tall and 2.3 meters wide.

Granted, GWs ability to portray realistic models is only slightly worse than their ability to produce realistic fluff.

Exaggeration for visibility isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Still, though....I'm not seeing that much in the way of space in a Sentinel. I mean, the Multilaser capacitor is probably underneath the pilot's seat, where the ML plugs in, and that's not a particularly large space. If you're worried about it burning through batteries odiously quickly, well then....give each guy in the squad a battery. Its not like 20th century armies didn't do the same thing for their squad automatic weapons.

The Multilaser's capacitor runs off the Sentinel's main powerplant, from what I recall. Same thing with the Lascannon actually.

Hell, if that is an issue, then how else does a squad carry around all the necessary heavy bolter ammo to keep their SAW fed? After all, they have roughly the same rate of fire. I'm also more than willing to bet that the equivalent amount of HB shots is larger and heavier than the same amount of ML shots, for one unit of fire.

SAWs aren't generally fired in 2000 round bursts.
If you ever get a chance to see the Elysian Drop Sentinel with its Heavy Bolter, that relatively small ammunition box carries 2000 rounds. In most engagements, they will use a quarter of that at most.

Once you factor in recharging locally versus resupplying from operational or strategic stores, well, I'm pretty sure I know which one the logisticians in the Munitorium would prefer.

Except Multilasers can't have their batteries recharged. Like Hellguns and Lascannons they require specialist equipment to be recharged--which can't be brought into the field by and large, which is another factor in favor of the Heavy Bolter which has ammunition stamped out in ridiculous numbers. There are entire Hive Cities on Forge Worlds which are devoted to stamping out ammunition for Heavy Bolters and Autocannons.

Oh! There's another advantage to multilasers in infantry squads! Commonality of parts! The regimental Engineers can use the same parts to repair the SAW and the "default" IFV main gun. Granted, the same can be said if the SAW and IFV main gun are both heavy bolters, but still.

The heavy bolters fielded on Chimeras are not necessarily the same as those fielded by the infantry.

Kanluwen wrote:
The Multilaser's capacitor runs off the Sentinel's main powerplant, from what I recall. Same thing with the Lascannon actually.

Where is the proof? Isn't one of the prime points this debate is about is whether the multilaser is man-portable? Any claims supporting or arguing against such a position should have more evidence than just one person's fallible memory. Whether or not the weapon runs off a battery or the vehicle's power plant is a vital part of the issue.

Except Multilasers can't have their batteries recharged. Like Hellguns and Lascannons they require specialist equipment to be recharged--which can't be brought into the field by and large, which is another factor in favor of the Heavy Bolter which has ammunition stamped out in ridiculous numbers.

Again a very definitive statement on your part of multilaser capabilities and what they can or can't do or have done to them. Where is the proof of these claims from GW? Where does it say multilaser batteries cannot be recharged, or that lascannon batteries require specialist equipment to charge. Lasguns can charge from the sun or a fire. What is the evidence to say a lascannon battery cannot do the same? In the absence of actual GW evidence, nothing explicit can be said about the capabilities of a lascannon battery or that of a multilaser.

When arguing a point, simply waving one's hands and saying "They cannot do this. Their batteries cannot be recharged" is not sufficient. If you make claims you need to back them up with evidence, and "from what I remember/recall" is not evidence. Human memory is fallible and someone can just as adamantly claim they remember something completely different from you.

Ogiwan wrote:Once you factor in recharging locally versus resupplying from operational or strategic stores, well, I'm pretty sure I know which one the logisticians in the Munitorium would prefer.

Actually, I read that - unlike lasgun power packs - the ones from lascannons have to be replaced after being emptied. Something about the battery not being able to store as much power again once drained, or stuff burning out. No idea if that is from studio or licensed material, though, so take this with a bit of salt.

Kanluwen wrote:Per Imperial Armour 3, Sentinels are 4.8 meters tall and 2.3 meters wide.

Heh. GW seems to (again) think differently: http://wh40k.lexicanum.de/wiki/Datei:SentinelIA2.jpg
Unless that Guardsman is ~2.2 meters big, of course.

(though one could probably say the height of a walker changes drastically depending on how his legs are positioned?)

Lynata wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Per Imperial Armour 3, Sentinels are 4.8 meters tall and 2.3 meters wide.

Heh. GW seems to (again) think differently: http://wh40k.lexicanum.de/wiki/Datei:SentinelIA2.jpg
Unless that Guardsman is ~2.2 meters big, of course.

(though one could probably say the height of a walker changes drastically depending on how his legs are positioned?)

Problem is that has no units of measurement and it's looking like it's from the 3rd edition.

And I will say that there's no way a Sentinel can fit into a Valkyrie without compacting its legs--so the height definitely changes based upon that.
Forge World, however, had their Drop Sentinel sketches in that same pose for the height/width they put out.

Lynata wrote:

Ogiwan wrote:Once you factor in recharging locally versus resupplying from operational or strategic stores, well, I'm pretty sure I know which one the logisticians in the Munitorium would prefer.

Actually, I read that - unlike lasgun power packs - the ones from lascannons have to be replaced after being emptied. Something about the battery not being able to store as much power again once drained, or stuff burning out. No idea if that is from studio or licensed material, though, so take this with a bit of salt.

The Dark Heresy RPG (if one accepts that as canon or somewhat canonical), says on p.132 that power packs for las weapons can be recharged from most power sources, with the time depending on the power source. No mention is made of specialist recharging equipment or unrechargeable batteries for any las weapon (and a man portable lascannon is listed among the more common lasguns). For all the power packs the option is given to recharge in a fire, at the risk of ruining the power pack.

Iracundus wrote:The Dark Heresy RPG (if one accepts that as canon or somewhat canonical), says on p.132 that power packs for las weapons can be recharged from most power sources, with the time depending on the power source. No mention is made of specialist recharging equipment or unrechargeable batteries for any las weapon (and a man portable lascannon is listed among the more common lasguns). For all the power packs the option is given to recharge in a fire, at the risk of ruining the power pack.

Yeah, DH also wants to tell me there's a difference between the quality of Sororitas and Astartes gear, that bolt weapons are "popular" for PDF, that the Deathwatch is no longer part of the Inquisition and that Vindicares are permanently assigned to some Inquisitor's retinue, so phht. I like the basics of their d100 ruleset and love the narrative quality of their writing, but some stuff in their books is just wrong (much like it happens with other licensed material such as various BL novels).

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Lascannon

The "good for one shot" seems to come from the 3E rulebook... When I get home later I can take a look and confirm - if it's still of any relevance to the discussion.
In general, I found that the older books in particular often feature lots of awesome details about equipment often omitted in newer stuff. Always worth a look. Maybe it says something about multilasers, too.

Lynata, I wasn't aware of the Sentinal measurements in IA 3, which is why I went with my memory. 'Course, now I wonder about 14-15 foot tall Sentinels. But, again, GW figs aren't always the best scale. I mean, how can you fit 10 Astartes into a Rhino without turning it into a clown car?

Still, though, if we accept all writings in GW game products (not novels!) as canonical, then perhaps Lascannons are single-shot per power cell.

It just still would make more sense to me if Lascannons and Multilasers used the actual same (rechargeable!) batteries. Standardization of ammunition is a wonderful thing.

Anyways. Kal, where do you remember the "specialized equipment" bit? I'm wondering what kind of special equipment that is, and if it is capable of being used at the regimental or divisional level to recharge heavy las packs.

Ogiwan wrote:Lynata, I wasn't aware of the Sentinal measurements in IA 3, which is why I went with my memory. 'Course, now I wonder about 14-15 foot tall Sentinels. But, again, GW figs aren't always the best scale. I mean, how can you fit 10 Astartes into a Rhino without turning it into a clown car?

Pretty easily, if you go by the actual measurements of a Rhino rather than just eyeballing it on the vehicles.

They used an abstract scale so that vehicles aren't huge compared to infantry, by all accounts.

Still, though, if we accept all writings in GW game products (not novels!) as canonical, then perhaps Lascannons are single-shot per power cell.
It just still would make more sense to me if Lascannons and Multilasers used the actual same (rechargeable!) batteries. Standardization of ammunition is a wonderful thing.

Feasibly, they might be able to use the same batteries--just not well. You can put a "hot-shot" power cell into a normal Lasgun, but that doesn't make it a Hellgun.

Anyways. Kan, where do you remember the "specialized equipment" bit? I'm wondering what kind of special equipment that is, and if it is capable of being used at the regimental or divisional level to recharge heavy las packs.

From what I remember, it's briefly mentioned in one of the Guard propaganda bits. I do know that they talk about Lascannons not being rechargable in the field in the Infantryman's Uplifting Primer though.

Lynata wrote:The "good for one shot" seems to come from the 3E rulebook... When I get home later I can take a look and confirm - if it's still of any relevance to the discussion.
In general, I found that the older books in particular often feature lots of awesome details about equipment often omitted in newer stuff. Always worth a look. Maybe it says something about multilasers, too.

The relevant bit in the 3rd ed. rulebook says:

In contrast, to maintain maximum power output efficiency lascannon powerpacks need replacing after every shot. p. 61, 3rd ed. 40K rulebook

Strictly speaking that just says it is 1 shot at maximum power output per powerpack, and not literally exactly just 1 shot per pack. If there is a toggle for lascannon power output or the thing can still discharge a shot at less than maximum power, it is possible that in emergencies a firer could squeeze off a few lesser shots against targets that dón't require the full power setting.

Kanluwen wrote:
From what I remember, it's briefly mentioned in one of the Guard propaganda bits. I do know that they talk about Lascannons not being rechargable in the field in the Infantryman's Uplifting Primer though.

Again "I remember" is not evidence.

What page of the Uplifting Primer are you referring to specifically? I cannot find any specific reference ot lascannon recharging in the Primer. The Primer is written for the average lasgun armed trooper, making only indirect references to lascannons when describing heavy weapon squads on p. 34-35. The only specific parts about recharging that I can find are on p. 20, and only refer to the lasgun, not the lascannon.

In short, the Primer does not appear to state what you claim it states. Provide a citation and quote to back up your claim if it is actually in there.

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty easily, if you go by the actual measurements of a Rhino rather than just eyeballing it on the vehicles.

And the actual measurements of a Space Marine.

Ogiwan wrote:It just still would make more sense to me if Lascannons and Multilasers used the actual same (rechargeable!) batteries. Standardization of ammunition is a wonderful thing.

Maybe they do (in fact I'd consider that likely due to the standardization you mentioned) ... it's just that a lascannon would empty it faster that a multilaser?

The lascannon sort of sounds like "space artillery" in that it delivers a single big boom and then has to be reloaded (read: connected to a different chargepack). A multilaser might get, say, half a dozen shots of lesser strength out of the same chargepack before requiring replacement - but for a suppression weapon (which I reckon it is, given the high RoF it gained while sacrificing a lascannon's power), that's a really sucky quota. Get a heavy bolter instead. Which is what they do, only employing the multilaser where it has access to a sufficiently large battery or (preferably) a generator to ensure an uninterrupted feed for continuous fire.

At least that'd be my current conclusion of this debate.

Iracundus wrote:If there is a toggle for lascannon power output or the thing can still discharge a shot at less than maximum power, it is possible that in emergencies a firer could squeeze off a few lesser shots against targets that dón't require the full power setting.

Right, and then you get an improvised semi-auto multilaser good for 3-6 shots. Not that helpful, imo.

I also doubt a lascannon would have such a slider. It makes sense for lasguns, but lascannons are intended for anti-armour use only. I could see "field modifications" being performed to achieve the effect you mentioned, similar to how they turned AA-guns into artillery in WW2, but the end result isn't exactly efficient. I can see it be done. Similar to how I could see a team of Guardsmen hooking up a lascannon battery to a damaged Chimaera to power its multilaser - or take it down to build an improvised field gun. But all of that would be non-standard and there are weapons which perform better at the intended role (-> heavy bolter).

Interesting read!

Lynata wrote:

Iracundus wrote:If there is a toggle for lascannon power output or the thing can still discharge a shot at less than maximum power, it is possible that in emergencies a firer could squeeze off a few lesser shots against targets that dón't require the full power setting.

Right, and then you get an improvised semi-auto multilaser good for 3-6 shots. Not that helpful, imo.

I also doubt a lascannon would have such a slider. It makes sense for lasguns, but lascannons are intended for anti-armour use only. I could see "field modifications" being performed to achieve the effect you mentioned, similar to how they turned AA-guns into artillery in WW2, but the end result isn't exactly efficient. I can see it be done. Similar to how I could see a team of Guardsmen hooking up a lascannon battery to a damaged Chimaera to power its multilaser - or take it down to build an improvised field gun. But all of that would be non-standard and there are weapons which perform better at the intended role (-> heavy bolter).

There wouldn't be a need to mention 1 shot per pack for "maximum power output efficiency" if there were not an alternative: i.e. a less efficient method that was still at least somewhat common enough to be worth making reference to.

What I was suggesting was that if push came to shove, a less than full charge powerpack might still be used and a shot fired at lesser power, not necessarily that lascannons be multilasers stand ins. Instead of a 100% pack giving a 100% strength shot, perhaps a 70% power pack might still be able to be used and a 50% strength (the implied inefficiency) shot fired if that enemy is bearing down on your position and the power pack has not finished recharging.

In the 40K game, we don't see a lot of things due to the coarse granularity of a d6 system and a characteristic system that only goes up to 10.

Iracundus wrote:There wouldn't be a need to mention 1 shot per pack for "maximum power output efficiency" if there were not an alternative: i.e. a less efficient method that was still at least somewhat common enough to be worth making reference to.

Actually I took that more in the way of "this power pack needs to be replaced, not recharged, to maintain maximum efficiency". As with every battery, a power pack's maximum charge level diminishes every time you reload it, so for lascannons, the IG generally seems to prefer to take a fresh pack for every shot and simply throws the old ones away. To do otherwise would make the lascannon a lesser weapon, and when used against armour (the weapon's primary purpose) that can be a deadly mistake. In tank battles (and this includes hidden field guns in ambush scenarios), who hits first, wins. So you better make that shot count.

It may be necessary to recharge these power packs on longer campaigns, though, depending on supply situation / logistics. But I could see why every commander would want to avoid this situation as best as he could. To do otherwise would mean to risk valuable equipment and the success of the mission, if not the campaign.

Anyways, I would not interpret it in a way that the cannon itself is able to "adjust" its consumption, though I'd think that such situations may be improvised. For example, if you have a power pack not fully charged connected to the lascannon, it may give you a warning sign, but when you pull that trigger it would likely still empty the pack, drawing whatever energy is left to deliver a weaker shot.

Still, I believe we were discussing why man-portable multilasers are not standard, and the above doesn't change that. Let us assume just for fun: even if you could jury-rig a lascannon into deliberately not emptying the entire chargepack on its first shot (you heretek!) ... a semi-auto multilaser you'd need to reload after 3-6 shots is about as useful as a heavy bolter with 5 shells left in the belt.

First, I certainly am all about the swapping out powerpacks on a Lascannon after every shot. Its essentially an AT gun; BLAM, open chamber, old pack shoots out, new pack thrown in, close chamber, BLAM.

Still, though, why would a ML necessarily get 3-6 shots per pack out of it? Why couldn't it get more? I mean, if a Lascannon is a few orders of magnitude stronger in terms of power-on-target, and power-through-target, why can't a Multilaser have a few orders of magnitude more shots?

Additionally, even if reloadings degrade packs, why can't they be used over and over again? I mean, if a single Lascannon shot takes 70% of the battery charge, and each reloading takes 1% off of the entire battery (a gross overstatement, IMO), well then there are plenty of reloadings. First shot will bring the charge to 30%, it gets swapped out, recharged, and now its at 99%, and the next lascannon shot from that pack takes the charge down to 29%. That gives us easily 25 shots per pack, which is still quite a lot more efficient than bringing 25 more reloads out of a Forge-world's atmo, through the warp, down a planet's grav-well, unloading it from a transport, transporting it to a front-line unit's ammo dump, and then distributing it to a front-line unit that needs reloads.

Conflicting interpretations, I guess. Personally, I don't think a lascannon would only drain ~70% of a chargepack - it'd take everything it can and channel it into a single discharge.

Your arguments also made me do some more real-life research, though, and there's another argument that may come into play here. Lascannon power packs may not be rechargable at all.

Aside from the obvious price, there's some more differences between pre-loaded and rechargable batteries that could play a role in warfare on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. For example, all batteries experience a "self-discharge" over time, which is much stronger in rechargable batteries than single-use ones. A contemporary standard NiMH battery loses up to 40% of its power in a single month and may be completely drained in two. Unless we assume that the sci-fi tech of 40k has entirely eliminated this problem, this could be a problem for the Imperial Guard. Whereas a lasgun chargepack only loses a couple shots of capacity in a few days or weeks, for a lascannon this loss may drastically weaken the one shot it can take at an enemy tank. And I do not think it feasible that the IG recalls every single lascannon "shot" for daily recharge, for that would require even more of a logistic effort and entire blocks of generators to feed an army. Furthermore, single-use batteries also seem to have a higher storage capacity than their rechargable counterparts, which makes the former an even more likely candidate if you want to put as much power into a lascannon shot as possible.

Just a weird theory, though. It is entirely possible that self-discharge is a non-issue in 40k. I certainly do not think the designers actually thought about it ...

I actually never considered the possibility of non-rechargable power packs until today, so in a way I'm still shaping my opinion and this discussion helps me a lot. In the end, I just like coming up with suggestions and ideas on why something that is in the rules and thus does constitute fact might make sense. Am I entirely convinced by lascannon power packs being single-use? No. But under the current conditions and with the info I've seen, it would be an option.

Ogiwan wrote:Still, though, why would a ML necessarily get 3-6 shots per pack out of it? Why couldn't it get more? I mean, if a Lascannon is a few orders of magnitude stronger in terms of power-on-target, and power-through-target, why can't a Multilaser have a few orders of magnitude more shots?

Yeah, I admit that number was chosen pretty arbitrarily. I just think there's a reason for why the Guard uses heavy bolters. I'm pretty much playing "devil's advocate" here and will cling to anything that makes the facts written in the studio material (which is that man-portable multilasers do not exist) appear reasonable.

I mean, by your theory we could just as well have a lascannon replace multilasers, heavy bolters, autocannons and battle cannons - just move the slider on the power level. But that isn't how it works by the rules, so I try to find explanations.