Actual Lasgun strenght

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.

**Brother Captain Alexander**

I heard many stories and know actual official stameny for being regarded as "flashligh" and "among weakest guns in the fluff".

Now look at those two pictures:

Spoiler:

The first one shows three Ork Nobz being hit by Lasgun fire, the other is the same situation but with Tau stealth suits.
This looks quite powerful for weakest gun in the game.

**Ninjacommando**

Calculations from whAt it does in fluff put its "normal" damage to be roughly equal to 6kg of ANFO based on turning a medal to liquid, killing a large fish through several meters of water, and turning and ork into mist.

**Lynata**

Lasgun power deviates hugely based on the source and the narrative used therein. It's why I prefer the hard numbers of GW's neutral rules (TT 40k as well as the Inquisitor RPG) to the wide range of depictions in comics and novels, even though GW's rules are just one way to represent the setting too.

Yeah, the lasgun is one of the weakest weapons fielded on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. It can still punch holes through Space Marine power armour (going by the above). Everything is relative.

**Void__Dragon**

It isn't powerful enough to reliably kill even an Ork Boy without a headshot, going by official GW fluff.

5e rulebook.

**BlaxicanX**

Brother Captain Alexander wrote:
I heard many stories and know actual official stameny for being regarded as "flashligh" and "among weakest guns in the fluff".

Now look at those two pictures:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

The first one shows three Ork Nobz being hit by Lasgun fire, the other is the same situation but with Tau stealth suits.
This looks quite powerful for weakest gun in the game.

Blaster bolts from Star Wars look just as thick and devastating in Star Wars comics, yet we know from watching the movies that ultimately a direct hit from generic small-arms fire to an arm doesn't even take that arm out of commission.

When dealing with "laser" weapons, it's important to take into consideration that the "glow" from the blast isn't really a reliable indicator of its actual "caliber", so to speak. The light is misleading.

As far as what I've seen from various BL sources, in Eisenhorn we have lasguns firing shots strong enough to amputate his arm. On the other hand, in the Gaunt's Ghost series, Feygor takes a direct hit from one to his unarmored throat and isn't killed by it (though he does die an hour later from the wound).

I'd argue that in general a lasbolt is stronger than a modern day bullet, but not significantly so. Maybe a bit less than a 50. caliber round in devastation.

**rahxephon**

Yeah but going from ork fluff you can practically dismember them, stitch them up and they'll be fine tomorrow. In terms of average humans it seems to kill them easy enough, its just that on the battlefield of 40k, you've got all the crazy species of the galaxy.

**Corporal_Reznov**

Lynata wrote:Lasgun power deviates hugely based on the source and the narrative used therein. It's why I prefer the hard numbers of GW's neutral rules (TT 40k as well as the Inquisitor RPG) to the wide range of depictions in comics and novels, even though GW's rules are just one way to represent the setting too.

Yeah, the lasgun is one of the weakest weapons fielded on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. It can still punch holes through Space Marine power armour (going by the above). Everything is relative.

GW's rules are game mechanics so we shouldn't see them as actual representations of whats going on or how it should be in the setting. Fluff is what should be used. Yes, they are exceedingly variable, still we have to take them all and try and find an average or middle ground. This can be done through analysis.

Lasgun variations can be attributed to different marks of lasgun or variable power settings.

Its how I see things. Will reply to your post in the canon thread later when I have more time.

Void__Dragon wrote:It isn't powerful enough to reliably kill even an Ork Boy without a headshot, going by official GW fluff.

5e rulebook.

Orks are tough bastards, we have known about this for a long time already.

**Void__Dragon**

You all do know one of the examples of lasgun power is a Nob being blasted to hell by lasguns, right, lol?

Is why I brought Ork Boyz as an example.

**Corporal_Reznov**

Before on this site, I linked to SD.net analysis threads where a person named Connor was analyzing every 40k fluff source and trying to see what scale of damage the Lasgun is capable of unleashing.

We also have this from 6e rulebook pg 406:

COMBAT LIFE SAVER
Lesson 243.77fIVs.

HOW TO FIELD DRESS A LAS-WOUND

Laser weapons are easy to produce and maintain, assuring they are amongts the most common weapons in the galaxy. Las-weapons do not fire a projectile or slug, but insead project a brief, high-energy pulse.

This beam can range greatly in strength, depending on the size of the las-weapon and the rating of its power source. The largest of the las-weapons - such as the lancestrike batterries emplyed upon spacecraft of the Imperial navy - produce beams that can sear away entire hab-blocks, leaving only smoking craters hundreds of feet deep. On average however, las-weapons are much smaller. Even the humble laspistol, withing close range and with no atmospheric diffusion of shot, has the power to blast away a foe's face on contact, with he beam penetrating the skull and burning a hole through the brain, causing immediate death.

A las-pule will sheat through flesh producing a cauterised hole surrounded by blister-burns. When first striking flesh, a las-pulse will cause a flash-burn effect upon impact, as the heat of the discharge causes the immediate surface of the target to be vaporised. This can, to the untrained eye, take on the same wound aspects as those of produced by high density explosives, but there are major differences when it comes to field dressing las-wounds. While the brief exploding flash of the initial contact is highly visible, it is rarely the major concern of aid givers. It is typically the continuing the projection of the las-beam boring into the body that causes the most extensive damage - the beam will puncture internal organs and is capable of severing limbs

The following steps should be employed whe confronted with a las-wound:

I] Approach. Do not treat until you have ensured that the victim is removed from the source. Las-weapons produce a narrow amplified beam of light. Most often this is a short burst, however, should the shaft be ongoing and still present, it is dangerous to approach - entering the beam will cause you to become a casualty as well.

II] Expose. Identify the impact site and determine the extent of the flash burn. Lift away any clothing covering the burnt area, without pulling material over the burns. Leave in place any material that has been seared into the burn area. If the victim is wearing armour, be aware that some materials absorb heat, leaving the area dangerous to touch. In hazardous environment (such as chem-zones, rad sites, or other such dangeours areas) do not cut away any protective covering - apply the dressing directly over it.

III] Evaluate. Find the penetration level of the beam. Has the beam passed through the victim cauing an exit wound? It is best to check as soon as possible. The extreme heat cauterizes the wound, leaving minimum bleeding, however, rapid swelling will begin around the area almost immediately, making later diagnosis more difficult. if the las-wound is only a glancing hit, in a limb, or shows no signs of striking a vital organ, proceed with Field Dressing Type I. if you sus pect the las-wound has penetrated a vital organ, go straight to Type II.

IV) Field Dressing (Type I). Using the
cleanest material available, place the
cloth hghtly over the burn, covering rhe
entirety of the wound. If the victim is
able, he may hold the dressing in place.
Use strips to bind in place (wrapping
around limbs or rorso) and tie tightly
enough to avoid slipping. Do not break
blisters or apply ointments to flash burns.

V) Field Dressing (Type II). Cover
the wound as quickly and completely
as possible. This is cosmetic, to hide the
lethal wound from comrades, and may
also allow the victim some false comfort.
The swelling that follows is bound to
cause catastrophic bodlly failures

**Flinty**

The background is 40,000 years in the future with walking tanks and hyper-technology freely available for colonising other star systems. The weapons in the background run from not very good for Grot Blastas, to the quite effective lasgun to ultra-tech plasma weapons and beyond. In any scale there has to be something at the bottom end and in this case its the humble lasgun. Doesn;t mean it isn't effective, just not as powerful as some other weapons that are available. Of course the fluff off-sets this lower power by indicating lasguns being ultra-reliable and easy to run logistically. Horses for courses.

**nomotog**

Lasguns aren't meant to be that strong compared to other weapons.

**Lynata**

Corporal_Reznov wrote:GW's rules are game mechanics so we shouldn't see them as actual representations of whats going on or how it should be in the setting. Fluff is what should be used.

And fluff tends to be hyperbole, propaganda and exceptions - we tend to read only stories about epic fights and legends, but very rarely do we have actual technical descriptions of how something works. And don't tell me we are supposed to take something like the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer as accurate.

However, one technical description we do have is that of Marine power armour from the 2E Codex: Angels of Death, which mentions that it lowers the chance of injury from small arms fire by between 50-85%.
~15% (100-85) happens to be what you get when you translate the lasgun's tabletop dice kill-chance against SM. It is also what you get when comparing a lasgun's damage range to the armour rating of Marine PA in the Inquisitor RPG. Coincidence? Not for me. But that's something all of us have to decide for themselves.

**Corporal_Reznov**

Lynata wrote:
Corporal_Reznov wrote:GW's rules are game mechanics so we shouldn't see them as actual representations of whats going on or how it should be in the setting. Fluff is what should be used.
And fluff tends to be hyperbole, propaganda and exceptions - we tend to read only stories about epic fights and legends, but very rarely do we have actual technical descriptions of how something works.

Irrelevant. We don't get info about how the actual stuff works cause 40k tech is fictional and wouldn't work in RL. So whats your point? Also, how is a gun firing on a target propaganda?

And don't tell me we are supposed to take something like the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer as accurate.

Some things can be gained from it. But there are more trustworthy sources.

However, one technical description we do have is that of Marine power armour from the 2E Codex: Angels of Death, which mentions that it lowers the chance of injury from small arms fire by between 50-85%.
~15% (100-85) happens to be what you get when you translate the lasgun's tabletop dice kill-chance against SM. It is also what you get when comparing a lasgun's damage range to the armour rating of Marine PA in the Inquisitor RPG. Coincidence? Not for me. But that's something all of us have to decide for themselves.

To me fluff should be used. Not game mechanics cause they are toned down for balance reasons. They can be used somewhat in comparing the strengths between weapons and all that, but they shouldn't be fully trusted as the complete and utter truth. Understand what I mean? This is how I see it, in that we should take all the lasgun fluff, analyze it, find a middle ground and throw out the outliers.You're free to have your own way of doing things of course.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, logging off now to do my college work *sigh*

**Flinty**

I think if you analyze the fluff and disregard the outliers you will end up with something very close to the game mechanics. If you read something that focusses on anything in power armour (quite a lot of the BL books), lasguns will be almost totally inneffective and marines will stride confidently throguh hordes of lesser opponents. If you read Guard focussed books (also quite a lot of the total number of BL publications), the humble lasgun does a much better job.

Hence none of the fluff descriptions is an objective description of the workings of any of the GW weapons. There will alsways be a bias, depending on what artistic licence the writer happens to require at the time, hence Lynatas "propaganda" reference.

**Corporal_Reznov**

College work is tiresome. got back online to do some reasearch. Thus will be logged on to dakka dakka mainly to keep an eye on my DAoT thread.

Flinty wrote:
I think if you analyze the fluff and disregard the outliers you will end up with something very close to the game mechanics.

maybe, maybe not.

If you read something that focusses on anything in power armour (quite a lot of the BL books), lasguns will be almost totally inneffective and marines will stride confidently throguh hordes of lesser opponents. If you read Guard focussed books (also quite a lot of the total number of BL publications), the humble lasgun does a much better job.

Can be rationalized and should be. Could be due to power levels or targeting weak areas or overloading the lasgun and using it as a bomb which happened IIRC. And sometimes just plot shields but that happens in all fiction *shrug*.

Hence none of the fluff descriptions is an objective description of the workings of any of the GW weapons.

game mechanics are balanced and such as I already said. But you are of course free to use your own method. I'm just explaining mine.

There will alsways be a bias, depending on what artistic licence the writer happens to require at the time, hence Lynatas "propaganda" reference.

Thats not propaganda. Thats inconsistencies and such that Lynanat loves going on about.

Lynata, I will be more free tomorrow, hopefully. I will finish my reply to you then.

**Lynata**

Corporal_Reznov wrote:To me fluff should be used. Not game mechanics cause they are toned down for balance reasons.

But in saying this you are assuming that the game mechanics are supposed to represent the fluff. I don't think this is accurate. The game came first. The fluff was crafted around the rules.

Besides, lasguns are small arms, and thus obviously fall into that "50-85% protection" chance of the power armour fluff.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:They can be used somewhat in comparing the strengths between weapons and all that, but they shouldn't be fully trusted as the complete and utter truth.

This I actually agree with fully. The game mechanics are an abstraction.

I just don't think the fluff is more objective. It cannot be, if only because it's written by so many people with so many different ideas on how something should work. Flinty already explained it better than I could.

**Corporal_Reznov**

Lynata wrote:
[But in saying this you are assuming that the game mechanics are supposed to represent the fluff. I don't think this is accurate. The game came first. The fluff was crafted around the rules.

And there are people who are into 40k for the setting and not the rules. Fluff is what describes and drives the universe, not the rules.

Besides, lasguns are small arms, and thus obviously fall into that "50-85% protection" chance of the power armour fluff.

What now?

This I actually agree with fully. The game mechanics are an abstraction.

abstration with balance included so it can't trusted fully.

I just don't think the fluff is more objective. It cannot be, if only because it's written by so many people with so many different ideas on how something should work. Flinty already explained it better than I could.

And its not propaganda. Anyway so?

**Lynata**

Corporal_Reznov wrote:And there are people who are into 40k for the setting and not the rules. Fluff is what describes and drives the universe, not the rules. [...] abstration with balance included so it can't trusted fully

Since the fluff was crafted around the game, why should we trust fluff that deviates from it over fluff that respects it?
And how is your story fluff supposed to be any less abstract when each and every instance has author bias and plot armour included? Which of the many conflicting representations of lasgun fluff are we supposed to pick?

You sound like rules and fluff cannot co-exist. I cannot agree with this assumption. And I'm into 40k for the setting myself as well - as far as the rules are concerned, there really are better games out there.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:What now?

"The most important element in the construction of a suit of Space Marine power armour are the large ceramite armour plates, which provide the main form of protection against enemy attack. Individual plates of armour can be up to an inch thick, and have a special honeycomb design which helps to dissipate energy and localise any damage suffered by the suit. Against most small arms the armour reduces the chance of injury by between 50-85%, and it provides some form of protection against all except the most powerful weapons encountered on the battlefields of the 41st Millenium."
- 2E C:AoD

**Melissia**

The lasgun has about the same effects as a high caliber assault rifle, IIRC.

Then again, you have to keep in mind, lasers that are as hot as a lasgun has to be, that carry that much energy, are going to flash-boil blood around the impact wound, creating incredibly nasty wounds and NOT cauterizing them.

**Corporal_Reznov**

Lynata wrote:
And there are people who are into 40k for Since the fluff was crafted around the game, why should we trust fluff that deviates from it over fluff that respects it?

Cause they were made by GW or under GW liscenses and such and are part of the setting. Or that this deviations that other than from Goto, can be rationalized and thus harmonized with the rest of the fluff. Look lynata, if you want to throw all out and just praise GW, is fine by me. You keep your pov and I keep mine.

And how is your story fluff supposed to be any less abstract when each and every instance has author bias and plot armour included? Which of the many conflicting representations of lasgun fluff are we supposed to pick?

Middle ground of course. Author bias and such are irrelevant really. Indeed, the biggest case of author bias came from the holy codex in the form of Matt Ward. So yeah!

You sound like rules and fluff cannot co-exist. I cannot agree with this assumption. And I'm into 40k for the setting myself as well - as far as the rules are concerned, there really are better games out there.

Whatever.

"The most important element in the construction of a suit of Space Marine power armour are the large ceramite armour plates, which provide the main form of protection against enemy attack. Individual plates of armour can be up to an inch thick, and have a special honeycomb design which helps to dissipate energy and localise any damage suffered by the suit. Against most small arms the armour reduces the chance of injury by between 50-85%, and it provides some form of protection against all except the most powerful weapons encountered on the battlefields of the 41st Millenium."
- 2E C:AoD

And? Who has said that lasguns can't hurt power armor?

**Lynata**

Corporal_Reznov wrote:Cause they were made by GW or under GW liscenses and such and are part of the setting. Or that this deviations that other than from Goto, can be rationalized and thus harmonized with the rest of the fluff. Look lynata, if you want to throw all out and just praise GW, is fine by me.

This isn't about GW or non-GW, this is about fluff being fluff and crunch being crunch. These very terms already give us an idea of what's "more solid". You still seem to be in a sort of denial about things being "part of the setting", not realising that "being a part" can, and in the case of 40k does, often just mean a possibility rather than fact.

"Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about 'canonical background' will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...
Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."
- Marc Gascoigne, senior editor, Black Library

Note: I do not *want* to turn this into another debate on the issue of canonicity, but given that you keep pointing to the fluff as being some sort of "true" representation I feel it has to be re-established that this is not how it's intended to work. You are elevating this information to a position it is not meant to occupy. This itself is not really an issue, but simultaneously you seem to believe that this is "what should be used".

"It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."
- Andy Hoare, former GW designer, now freelancing Black Library author and FFG writer

Corporal_Reznov wrote:Indeed, the biggest case of author bias came from the holy codex in the form of Matt Ward. So yeah!

You mean Ward's fluff?

Corporal_Reznov wrote:And? Who has said that lasguns can't hurt power armor?

I've seen enough people post this assumption over the years, and I've seen fluff claiming as such. Like Forgeworld's Siege of Vraks and how lasgun bolts just kept "ricocheting" off power armour, barely leaving a scorch mark.

Ricocheting lasers.

... yeah, sure.

Anyways, as I have already posted above, the 85% range is perfectly in line with the rules in both the 40k TT and the Inquisitor game, so this is a case of something existing in both the rules and the game mechanics.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:You keep your pov and I keep mine.

Okay. I'll just point out that it was you who started this by quoting me and saying I am "wrong" for sticking to detailed and consistent rules rather than self-contradicting fluff whose very creators have dismissed its representative value.

**Rysaer**

Sorry, I'm going to be 'that guy' who derails this slightly.

Where did those pictures come out of Brother Captain Alexander?

**Corporal_Reznov**

Lynata wrote:
This isn't about GW or non-GW, this is about fluff being fluff and crunch being crunch. These very terms already give us an idea of what's "more solid". You still seem to be in a sort of denial about things being "part of the setting", not realising that "being a part" can, and in the case of 40k does, often just mean a possibility rather than fact.

I don't deny it. I just say that crunch is an abstraction and hampered by game balance or tries at it anyway.

"Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about 'canonical background' will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...
Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."
- Marc Gascoigne, senior editor, Black Library

Lynata, I have seen this quote so many times now. Just seeing it again makes me want to strangle you

.

Note: I do not *want* to turn this into another debate on the issue of canonicity, but given that you keep pointing to the fluff as being some sort of "true" representation I feel it has to be re-established that this is not how it's intended to work. You are elevating this information to a position it is not meant to occupy. This itself is not really an issue, but simultaneously you seem to believe that this is "what should be used".

"It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."
- Andy Hoare, former GW designer, now freelancing Black Library author and FFG writer

*groan* Didn't I already tell you my position before. i have been just telling you how I see things. I wasn't telling you to accept it!

You mean Ward's fluff?

And it comes from the holy codexes that you never shut up about.

I've seen enough people post this assumption over the years, and I've seen fluff claiming as such. Like Forgeworld's Siege of Vraks and how lasgun bolts just kept "ricocheting" off power armour, barely leaving a scorch mark.

Ricocheting lasers.

... yeah, sure.

Could have been firing low power or the armor was made tougher by Chaos and gak or FW, which focuses more the the TT side of 40k btw, is an idiot, who knows?! Which btw is hilarious considering you always go on about BL and such when FW works with GW for the TT side of 40k. Or could be that fluff has changed and lasguns don't hurt SM's if just used alone and the rules are just for balancing. Who knows. *Shrug*

Anyways, as I have already posted above, the 85% range is perfectly in line with the rules in both the 40k TT and the Inquisitor game, so this is a case of something existing in both the rules and the game mechanics.

I want to see the fluff. Couldn't care less about the rules. The only rules I give more consideration to are the rpg rules and even then I'm somewhat on the fence like with the TT rules.

Okay. I'll just point out that it was you who started this by quoting me and saying I am "wrong" for sticking to detailed and consistent rules rather than self-contradicting fluff whose very creators have dismissed its representative value.

If so I apologize. I was trying to explain my pov. You do realize that this consistency kick your own is your own right? Seeing as GW doesn't care seeing as they keep changing rules, saves value and so on and so on whenever they get the chance.

**Harriticus**

In the fluff, the Lasgun is usually depicted as being stronger then it is in the game. Its regularly remarked that it's more or less useless against Space Marine power armor (in all the CSM perspective novels, lasguns are pretty useless against them and in Dark Apostle you have a WB terminator taking hundreds of shots over the course of a battle and still not a scratch) but capable to seriously wound or kill an Ork in 1 shot depending on where the shot hits (such as the head). Orks surviving lasgun blasts are usually a result of their resilience in continuing to fight even after losing an arm or the like.

Though Lasguns have power levels. A blast on maximum power that lands on its target from a reasonable distance could probably penetrate Power Armour in 1 shot, but you'd overload the weapon and render it useless for the rest of the battle

**Corporal_Reznov**

Harriticus wrote:
In the fluff, the Lasgun is usually depicted as being stronger then it is in the game. Its regularly remarked that it's more or less useless against Space Marine power armor (in all the CSM perspective novels, lasguns are pretty useless against them and in Dark Apostle you have a WB terminator taking hundreds of shots over the course of a battle and still not a scratch) but capable to seriously wound or kill an Ork in 1 shot depending on where the shot hits (such as the head). Orks surviving lasgun blasts are usually a result of their resilience in continuing to fight even after losing an arm or the like.

Though Lasguns have power levels. A blast on maximum power that lands on its target from a reasonable distance could probably penetrate Power Armour in 1 shot, but you'd overload the weapon and render it useless for the rest of the battle

From what I'v seen it can penetrate weak spots or if you hit power armor enough or use high power shots. I remember an Overloading lasgun was used to destroy a Chaos dreadknought

Though where is it said that firing a lasgun at maximum power will overload the weapon?

**PunkNeverDie110**

Brother Captain Alexander wrote:
I heard many stories and know actual official stameny for being regarded as "flashligh" and "among weakest guns in the fluff".

Now look at those two pictures:

Spoiler:

There, those orks have been killed probably from more than one single Guardsman.

Brother Captain Alexander wrote:

Spoiler:

The first one shows three Ork Nobz being hit by Lasgun fire, the other is the same situation but with Tau stealth suits.
This looks quite powerful for weakest gun in the game.

Here: the Stealthsuits are killed by the primary weapons of the Leman Russ Punisher, and that thing shoots a fuckhuge amount of bolts (the same of the Requiem), so again the suits aren't killed by flashlights.

Now: the lasgun is, compared to all the other weapons in the 40k fluff, the weakest, but is a powerful weapon against "naked" soldier, like cultist or horma and termagaunt, and if "ubercharged" it can damage a Dreadnought (Mkoll, anyone? Tanith First-and-Only).

To put it simply: the lasgun IS powerful, the only problem is that the xenos, traitor, and all the other armor in the 40k fluff are simply stronger.

**Corporal_Reznov**

PunkNeverDie110 wrote:

To put it simply: the lasgun IS powerful, the only problem is that the xenos, traitor, and all the other armor in the 40k fluff are simply stronger.

This.

**washout77**

The lasgun could easily be the strongest small arms weapon today.

Only problem being, everything else is just so much stronger. A lasgun seems to have varied effects based on how much ammo it has left (I remember reading that lasguns get weaker as you run out of ammo), the variant, and certain weather conditions (it is a laser after all). Las-guns have been shown to insta-kill standard soldiers (represented by T3 in game), and even do severe damage to Astartes. We also have las-guns that fail to make a dent in power armor. Power armor does have weakness, and any good shots can still kill the Marine.

On the subject of over-charging it, I seem to remember a fluff piece where Guardsmen over-charged their battery-packs and used them as grenades.

**PunkNeverDie110**

washout77 wrote:
The lasgun could easily be the strongest small arms weapon t
On the subject of over-charging it, I seem to remember a fluff piece where Guardsmen over-charged their battery-packs and used them as grenades.

ù

Mkoll, Tanith First-and-Only, in one of the Gaunt Ghosts novels saga.

**Corporal_Reznov**

washout77 wrote:
The lasgun could easily be the strongest small arms weapon today.

Only problem being, everything else is just so much stronger. A lasgun seems to have varied effects based on how much ammo it has left (I remember reading that lasguns get weaker as you run out of ammo), the variant, and certain weather conditions (it is a laser after all). Las-guns have been shown to insta-kill standard soldiers (represented by T3 in game), and even do severe damage to Astartes. We also have las-guns that fail to make a dent in power armor. Power armor does have weakness, and any good shots can still kill the Marine.

If you can hit the weak points after all and get lucky. SM's are rather tough and gak. They can take a lot of damage.