Talk:Lasgun

From 1d4chan

Lasguns = 20mm cannon?!?

Nearly all the fluff describes them as being able to blow a "fist sized chunk out of a man". The Word Bearer books speak of them "blowing the side of a man head off" Basically they're the m1 of teh dark future.
Are you nuts? A Lasgun uses a laser to superheat the point of impact, thus gassifing things like stone and armor, and making flesh (like watery Human skin and muscle) pop in violent blasts. Lasguns have little stopping power, if any, and will most likely not do much against heat-resistant things like Drop Pod armor or Ceramite.

Dunno about 20 mil. I've heard that .50 BMG is very much capable tearing chunks out of a body and dismembering limbs as well. As for performance against concrete, you could probably dig through 3 metres using a couple dozen armour-piercing rounds.

If you're lucky with a .50 you might take off a limb, but their effectiveness is insanely overstated by people trying to ban .50 cal rifles. Regardless, every weapon in 40k is as powerful as the fluff requires it to be; sometimes a lasgun will blow holes in people, sometimes burn holes through people, and sometimes do nothing at all. Should be noted that a 'realistic' laser would actually deal about ten times more damage to armour than flesh since flesh is mostly water (10 times the specific heat capacity of steel, yo) so the lasgun described in the fluff above would probably be able to disable a tank in one shot. Tim 20:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Or sometimes it burn finger size holes in people...
I'm aware of some aspects of firearms ballistics in that projectiles can either pencil straight through tissue or yaw and tear into flesh for far greater wounding capability. That being said, it wouldn't really be accurate to describe it as a 20 mil round either, and the variations in effect could very well be attributed to the lasgun suffering from variations in actual effectiveness, much like regular firearms.
So would it be better to make mention of this rather than straight-out comparing it to a 20mil autocannon? Like actually trying to table the effects in some way and extrapolating conclusions based on the lasgun's condition (firing mode, power) and the type of surface it is impacting (starship bulkhead, fleshy heretic)? Unlike other weapons, it seems as if lasguns have highly variable effects in even normal modes of operation.
Naw, that's getting too much into writing spackle. We know why, it's because the GW writers don't have a specific "lasgun do this" checklist and tend to have them as powerful as the current storyline requires them to be. The ridiculous variation is largely because guardsmen in stories can vary from HERO OF THE IMPERIUM! to nid fodder. Tim 12:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Trying to vaguely organize the page into something a little more coherent while trying to maintain the unique "neckbeard spirit" of the edits. 99.237.250.110 08:03, 2 October 2012 (BST)

Uhhh... I think we could have a wiki page for the Sniper Rifle, do you? -87.15.110.117

Recharging a lasgun in a fire or via sunlight seems really, really stupid to me. Think about the amount of energy contained in your average campfire. Think about the amount of energy transmitted by the sun on a small patch of ground. Now think about the amount of energy required to instantly flash-boil just about anything in your way, and you'll see that it should be impossible to recharge a lasgun that way. --Bjorn (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bjorn (talk) This is apparently fascinating to me that you don't seem to understand the concept of a store of energy. The average energy of a campfire is apparently enough to produce a fire of around 400 degrees, and sustain it for several hours. If indeed a lasgun battery is able to take heat energy and convert it into electrical energy, you can literally imagine it as storing said 400 degrees of heat inside of a considerably longer lasting source, and then building it up. I shouldn't need to point out that this game takes place in the year FOURTY THOUSAND, so it would be a real fucking leap to insist that electrical storage tech hasn't advanced anywhere past the year 2005 in over thirty eight thousand years. Nevermind that said same exact setting also has biologically immortal seven foot tall demigods, and demons that can consume planets. "YEA, IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE, BATTERIES AND TEGs AREN'T REAL". No, the heat produced by a fire over the course of a second isn't enough to flash-boil someone's liver, but if you store the energy released by a fire over the course of an hour, then FUCK YEA it'll flash boil all the livers your heart can handle. Evilexecutive (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You can also "Flash boil" water at anywhere above 216 degrees at sea level, and 76 degrees in a goddamn vacuum. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that you can flash-boil someone's liver at 400 degrees, if said energy was all imparted into a single pin-prick.Evilexecutive (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Fallacy or not, strike throughs, unless part of a joke as in the Dark Angels page, are considered poor edit form, and little more than a passive aggressive edit war. If you don't like the paragraph, simply delete it.--Asorel (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Lasgun stopping power and penetration issue[edit]

Quote: "the Lasgun has a AP of only -"

Don't really get why the AP- (AP0) gets harped on so often. Crunch-wise, AP- don't mean that you can't penetrate armour. It just affects on probability of the weapon penetrating specific armour. Again, crunch-wise, "humble lasgun" packs enough penetration power

  • according to 7-th edition - to have a chance to punch through rather heavy armour like space marine's power armour (1/3 probability of penetration), XV-8 Crysis battlesuit (again, 1/3 probability of penetration) or even such things like terminator armour or mighty Stormsurge battle-mech (both with 1/6 probability)
  • according to 8-th edition - to have a chance to punch through even the armour of Leman Russ battle tank or Tau Empire's Hammerhead gunship

Fluff-wise, well, lasgun shots are generally described as having penetration roughly equivalent to modern 7,62mm AK-47 bullets. That said - lasgun beams on standard power setting would not penetrate Space Marine's power armour's rigid (armoured ceramite) bits (however the impacts against Chaos space marines' power armour are known to score deep groves in ceramite plates) and would only scratch the paint on terminator armour, but it could reliably punch throught flak armour (or its equivalents), provided the shots connect with the target not at a bad angle or are not from very far away, and if shot withing 100 meters of target have a decent chance of punching through even carapace armour. --Terran Ghost (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  • One more thing worth noting.

Quote: "A Bolter's bolts, on the other hand, penetrate the exterior and then explode inside the target"
a bolter round is basically 19.05mm (.75 caliber) mass-reactive shell with armour-piercing tip, that is accelerated up to 1000 m/sec once the rocket motor of the shell burns through. Essentially, that means bolter rounds is roughly on par with real life 20mm autocannon shells in terms of penetration. And that was for the "what were AP5 weapons meant to be capable of" (by comparison, .50 BMG equivalent was rated only AP6). That's why the lasgun, whose shots are meant to be on par with AK-47's bullets in terms of penetration was rated only AP-
Things get even interesting now, since both lasgun's and bolter's shots are now rated AP0 --Terran Ghost (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

    • Quote: "and that's not counting the fact that even carapace armour could be rather reliably pierced by lasgun's beams, abeit this would generally require a guardsman to close to about 100 meters distance to his target as opposed to lasgun's 400-500 meters effective range against infantry, donning only light flak vests and regular steel helmets" may be needing an explanation - this part came from Gaunt's ghosts novel series, where Guard-issue lasguns were effectively used at 500 meters distance against infantry, donning steel helmets and heavy-duty greatcoats, but carapace armored infantry was "within range" when they close to 100 meters. --Terran Ghost (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Small comment but the section about anti-air capabilities reminds me of Call of Duty Black Ops III's Directed Energy Air Defense (DEAD) system which does exactly that. In-universe, high-powered mechanized infantry and ground machines saw a huge increased in use after DEAD systems started chewing up drones and air support like nobody's business. --Super12345 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Las AA[edit]

A way in which lascannons and flyers could exist in the same universe is if the las weapons have somewhat a limited range. This is kind of consistent with rules and fluff. How this is justified is another matter entirely. The "mechanicus cannot make proper optics" argument is stupid. But there might be something more to the las weapons. I mean, we know that lasers are heavily influenced by smoke, fog etc. Lasers in 40k seem not to be though. Maybe there's something in 40k laser technology that "clears a path" for the las beam, but this effect has somewhat a limited range. If a lascannon has, say, 5 km range, it's not the total flyers kill machine anymore. It still makes sense for interceptors and AA missiles to exist. But it does nothing to justify AA autocannons, lol. This is just an idea anyway Phas (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

About the Lascannons here[edit]

I'm toying with the idea of moving everything starting from the Corve Las-Pulser down to the Arachnus Storm Cannon to the Lascannon page since they're, well, cannons. And should we incorporate the Multilaser page to the Lascannon too while we're at it? That page isn't as big as the Laspistol's to warrant separation, no?

And speaking of the Laspistol, how about moving the Hotshot Laspistol and the Blast Pistol over there too since they're both pistols in size? Might also include the Digital Laser too.

Thoughts?

I'm not really against it, but I don't think it's necessary since the Lascannon page only exists because of its size, same with Multilasers (which don't work like Lascannons) and Laspistols. -- Triacom (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with Triacom. The reason why the Laspistol, Multilaser and Lascannon has their own page is because they are fucking huge. So it is pointless to move the Corve Las-Pulser and Archnus Storm Cannon when the Lasgun already links the page to both Lascannon and Laspistol respectively. Furthermore, if you realize, there is some dubious fluff disputes between the Hellpistol and Hotshot Laspistol (Or the Hellweapon=/=Hotshot weapon in general); the Hotshot Laspistol already links to the Hellpistol's sub-category in the Hellgun page, so it would be extremely inconvenient if you move the Hotshot Laspistol to the Laspistol page as you would now have to click through two different pages if you want to get into the Hellpistol section specifically. Derpysaurus

About the Laser Destroyers[edit]

So I looked up about this a bit more, and it seems that there are two variants of the Laser Destroyer Array. The first one is the common one like on the Rapier and on the Spartan. The second one is one with an additional rule on the Deimos Vindicator. This is not a topic I want to discuss.

The topic I want to discuss is the Laser Destroyer of the Destroyer Tank Hunter. It is a single cannon, which does not fit to the whole thing. I looked it up a bit more and it seems the weapon is called "Heavy Laser Destroyer," which seems to suggest that the weapon is a one big cannon using some system that gives it the power of four lascannons. I looked up further and guess the probable full name I found:

Heavy Laser Destroyer Array

Now this could be a typo on their part since I only found it on the list of its wargear, and its technical specification sheet omits the array part.

Thoughts?
I honestly don't know, my best guess is forgeworld fucked up and forgot they already called something else a laser destroyer. -- Triacom (talk)

That section[edit]

It ignores the most important points, is full of inconsistencies and must go. --95.28.167.165 10:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Your opinion is duly noted Phas (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, please read the Policy page, rule 2 recites "(...) removing or blanking pages and sections that you don't like. If you've got a problem, use the discussion page, not the "undo" link." 1d4chan:Policy Phas (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Nobody bothered to reinstate that section, until you, the author, showed up. That's pretty much reason enough. --95.28.167.165 11:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Please, grow up Phas (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Please provide more argument for it than "I want it to stay because I wrote it" --95.28.167.165 11:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with the anon here, the point about the small arms in general is good, but what does the detailed comparison between all of the other weapons add that isn't covered by their own pages? -- Triacom (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The rationale is that the main in-universe "feature" of the lasgun is to be crappy. Or at least it is considered as such by many. So it's very on topic to discuss exactly how crappy it is, compared to other weapons. It's like comparing the likelihood to explode of the plasma gun to other weapons that are not famous to be explodey but in reality, they might. Phas (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
But the utility of Lasguns and how they're actually good weapons is already covered better in other sections (such as "Why the Lasgun is still being used") so what does the comparison add besides bloat? -- Triacom (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The previous section demonstrates that the lasgun is a good weapon. This section aims to demonstrate that it is actually the best weapon between those available, for the intended role. Which is actually consistent with the fluff since in 10.000 years I'm not aware of someone actually trying to migrate from that. Phas (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, by the way. I'm not prejudicially against moving the section to a dedicated page. I was going to do it myself if the section kept growing. Phas (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
But that topic's already covered, what's the point in covering it again? -- Triacom (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a slightly different topic. It's like saying "This car is fast" and "This car is the fastest of all cars in the market". Plus comparing and analyzing stuff is fun. Phas (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Why would those need separate sections? In this case, it would be like having those two sections, but also covering both in the first so that the second has nothing to add to the topic. Comparing and analyzing things is fine, but not if it just bloats up the page. -- Triacom (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm with Triacom. The page is becoming ridiculously bloated as is. We already have sections on "Why Lasguns Suck" and "Why Lasguns Don't Suck" (on opposite sides of the page, so it's already broken the flow of text) along with a section for "Uses for the Lasgun" but with a separate section of how it can be used for Anti Aircraft which might be better suited to give an explanation into the benefits of light speed ammunition. The whole page needs a clean-up. Your list of comparisons might be relatively well thought out, but it just adds to the mess and might be better getting amalgamated into a different section such as "Why the Lasgun is still being used" and removing duplicated points as necessary. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I wrote the part about AA, someone else took parts of it and incorporated it into the "Why Lasguns Don't Suck". Same thing for ablative armor, armor penetration and anti laser coating etc. These section became bloated because people modified to add their point of view and I don't like to remove what other people write, so... mess. I think that "Why Lasguns Don't Suck" should be cleaned up (I will do that) and moved right after "Why Lasguns Suck". The part about AA needs to be cleaned up. The incriminated section could be digested and incorporated in "Why Lasguns Don't Suck" and optionally the bulk of it moved into a page dedicated to the comparison between lasguns and other weapons (because I still tink that it is a interesting topic). Is this a good plan? Phas (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
We really don't need another page on it, practically all of the comparisons can be summed up in a single sentence each. It's also fine to remove what other people write so long as it benefits the page, and cutting down repeated points certainly qualifies. There's also a big difference between analyzing two devices and just rambling about them, which is what constitutes most of the topics you've mentioned here. -- Triacom (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur with Triacom, this entire section feels unnecessary and redundant given that the page already talks about the current usage of the Lasgun. If you really want to keep that section, I advise to move it to a separate page to keep the bloatedness down. Derpysaurus (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
>that it is actually the best weapon between those available, for the intended role< Ignoring questions of logistics and manufacturing, AKA the real reason it's used, and filling section with derp and wishful thinking to prove one's personal opinion. --95.28.167.165 13:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, Clausewitz Phas (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
You both need to cool it. Anon, stop being obnoxious. Phas, name calling isn't helping the damn situation. I'm tempted to just take the entire section in question and throw it wherever it fits in the article just to clean it up and end this fucking edit war now. Don't doubt my capacity to do it: Either figure out what you're gonna do or I'll do it myself. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, "Clausewitz" was one of the most important and renowned writer about military stuff in the whole history of humanity. So this is the extent of my name-calling. On topic, I'm happy to edit, move and even delete whatever we decide it's best for the page. I don't want to "defend my stuff" because "I did write it". Phas (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't care. The sarcasm is incredibly obvious. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


New Changes[edit]

I did my best to fix the page. Let me know if there are any serious and actually fucking important things I can do to improve the quality of the page. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you removed any explanation of what it's actually like to be hit by one and you left alone the useless bloated comparison between it and every other weapon listed in that section? We've already gone over how it adds nothing, so I'm removing it and adding back in a much shorter version of what happens when you're hit by a lasgun. -- Triacom (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
My mistake, I went over the page before adding a bit of that back in and noticed we already have another mention of what happens when you get hit by one, so removing the longer explanation was a good edit. The comparison though has got to go unless somebody can offer something useful it adds to the article. -- Triacom (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I ported that because I thought it might (emphasis on that word) add a little context to the practicality of the lasgun and why It doesn't suck, though the entire section could easily be deleted and moved to other sections of the article. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for deletion of selected passages[edit]

This is from the "Why the Lasgun is still being used" section. I tried removing it and replacing it with a sentence or two of modified commentary, but someone saved it for some reason. So here we are.

I believe that these paragraphs should be removed because, when taken together as a whole article, they seem to add very little to value while adding tremendously to word count. Second, the topic itself veers WAY too far into the weeds from where the focus should be, which is the Lasgun itself. In my opinion, everything stated here could be summarized into 2-3 sentences at most (which I already did, prior to the revert) without going into the unnecessary, poorly constructed, and confusing complexity shown here.

Please share your opinion. --Cavgunner (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Five counter-arguments to the lasgun-power-pack-grenade come readily to mind, discounting most guardsmen not being aware of this particular tactic.

Firstly, the power pack's detonation timing is highly unpredictable, and as we all know, anything that endangers an imperial infantryman will absolutely not be considered only the most fanatical, stupid, or just plain reckless Guardsmen would be willing to use it regularly.

Secondly, while a lasgun is pretty inexpensive in comparison to, say, a bolter, its power-packs are not as cheap to produce (they make up for it by being so easily recharged.) And only veteran soldiers tend to carry more than a small handful of packs; packs which said veterans probably looted off other guardsmen who didn't get to be veterans.

Thirdly, the blast yield from a power pack is never described as being particularly strong. In the aforementioned example, the soldier managed to open a dreadnought's faceplate just enough for the local flora to kill it, which sounds commensurate to a glancing hit, estimating the explosion closer to that of a Krak grenade (S6) or maybe a little stronger. While still powerful when compared to regular old frag grenades, this is nothing like the famous melta bomb. Because surely the faceplate of a dreadnought is fragile. Like the viewports of a Baneblade (which tanked a Krak missile in a novel). Easily killed Space Marine heroes are all the rage in the Imperium. Also said dreadnought had been blinded by some space marines that were mentioned much earlier in the story, which one would think would damage the visor.

A weapon, no matter how shitty, is still a soldier's baby. A soldier without his main weapon is generally a dead man, commissar or no, and the only time you would be forced to use your own, custom, probably personalized rifle if you live long enough to know this tactic, is in case of a true emergency or imminent death. The same case that the first case of this ever being recorded happened. Which means only use this tactic when fighting any playable faction. Especially Necrons since it isn't like your lasgun will matter then anyway.

Finally, in the instance where a Guardsman survives using his weapon and its magazine in such a reckless manner, he must then face the wrath of his superiors (If he survives the incident); the sheer number of Munitorum violations involved in using a lasgun and its ammo as a makeshift bomb are staggering (and while most alone would probably result in perfectly survivable corporal punishment, such as say being repeatedly rifle-stocked in the balls four dozen times while hanging upside down, all added up it's more pragmatic to just make the punishment execution to save some time.) Unless he manages to secure a new weapon beforehand of course. Well, not having a weapon is punished by execution (in case your lack of a gun is due to throwing it away to flee or something).

-- Agree. It seems too much importance to some episode that happens on some obscure book. Phas (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

-- Especially as the most important bit from the story keeps going missing, that being, that the dreadnought was already mauled with its faceplate broken open to blind it. Cracking the armor in that state is a bit less impressive. (talk) 1:10 EST Aug 12 2020

Any further comments? If not, I'll be editing the article as proposed. Cavgunner (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)