Lasgun Extravaganza!

LordofEndTimes wrote:I don't have to win a discussion. This thread is a good place to start when you seek to change aspects of the game that you dislike. I really don't care about winning- how could you win a discussion about a fictional world that is set nowhere else in ones individual mind? Sounds like an impossible and rather naive idea
This is a good place for inspiration. Your opinion is as good and as valid as mine. (as long as the arguments fits- which yours do.)

Regading the USMC manual and wether or not that can be used to argue for or against the fact that a Lasgun is capable of Suppressive Fire, only one thing can be said: USMC manual is not the RAW. In the RAW, the Lasgun is incapable of Suppressive Fire because of its lack of a Full Auto ROF.

Tis... and thanks for being another who realizes that.

Rules wise, yes they aren't capable of suppressive fire but common sense wise... any amount of projectiles, energy streams, what have you... is enough to make your enemy hide behind something. Unless they are insane, possessed or fearless etc etc...

Hell yeah, any kind of streams.
This one time, at a house party? I came out of one of the two toilet cubicles (place was a rotten, scummy, ex-office block that'd been a punk/junkie dive for 30 years)
- and this guy was totally trying to piss on me. Full bore.
You bet your sweet monkey ass I took cover.

Wolfblade wrote:I'd like to disagree with one of our most holy manuals...

I as using it to illustrate my point. That suppression fire does not require masses of firepower (when leap-froggin').

I pointed it out so that if anyone want to house rule a Lasgun the ability to suppress they can do so and it does not strain the suspension of disbelief. This allows a GM to deal with a player concerns (possible ignorance of the facts) that a Lasgun, on semi-auto, could suppress and is backed up by reality.

On the other hand you can use it as RAW. Nothing wrong in that either.

I pointed it out, not because I wanted to force anything onto anyone, but to provide options.

Philip

The fact that a lasgun cannot be used to suppress in the RAW is hardly the fault of the rules for the lasgun, but the fault of the rules for suppression, which are both broken and unrealistic. Broken in that only particular weapons can suppress (and suppress damn well too!), and unrealistic in that you have to take a specific, deliberate action to suppress, whereas in reality, any volume of fire would cause suppression to a degree regardless of firing mode and regardless of whether the firer shoots with intent to suppress or kill.

Now here is a thought that just creeped into my head.
MECHANICALLY, supressive fire only happens when a character chooses the full action suppressive fire, and only when he or she or it is wielding a firearm with the full auto trait.
However, if the whole acolyte retinue is shooting down a street, I would bet very few of their foes, regardless of how many shots are coming out of the retinue's arsenal, they are going to bunker down and take careful shots, not run at them pell mell.

So they don't exactly pin an enemy, they just make them not have as many as options as before. The Real Time Strategy game Company of Heroes by Relic has a perfect example of Supressive fire. A rifleman squad and a volksgrenadiers squad at vanilla with no upgrades will no supress either squad, but if the volks upgrade and take MP40s or the rifle squad take the BAR, they both can supress each other, but it takes a while. A deployed .30 cal or MG42 will bring a squad to pinned status fast, within 10 seconds of being shot at. But even so, the AI in the infantry fighting system in the game has the squad members use cover, and when they get shot at, they fall back a few meters to behind a barrel, or a burning wreck or a small wall, or a shrub, or lacking any cover, go prone. Make the smallest target possible. That's how I would assume the PLAYERS and the NPCs would act when being shot at, hug cover so you don't get a bullet in the butt.

So regardless of the fact that the lasgun can't perform the Supressive Fire action, it can defenitly(sp?) supress an individual. Heck a volg Mercy Killer can supress people, if your the only one with a gun.

What about making Semi-Auto capable of the suppression action albiet with a lesser WP penalty to their pinning test? It'll hopefully keep their heads down, its just not as intimidating as a hail of fire.

maybe at a semi auto attack, it is a standard WP test? I'll test that at my next game.

How about houseruling another kind of suppression, completely separate from the suppression action?

Single-shot attacks cause 1 point of suppression, bursts cause 2 points and autofire causes 3 points. If somebody gets shot at by multiple attacks causing 5 or more points of suppression, they've got to take a pinning test. Which gets a bit harder, the more "bonus suppression" is caused by excess points.

Just a quick thought. This way you could have "intended suppression" (by the attack action) as well as "incidental suppression" caused by enough normal attacks.

It probably complicates things a bit too much when it comes to calculations, but ... well, it would be kinda realistic.

As for the whole suppression controversy, there's already a thread going on about that, so how about keeping this one focused on the lasgun?

Philip S wrote:It's not the laser knocking back the target, but the rapidly expanding ball of plasma produced by the hit. This small explosion what is cause the knock back, not the beam of light (hence no knock-back if insulated with ceramite armours!)

Ok, maybe not physically impossible, but physically unlikely. Since the net momentum is zero before the las blast hits the target, the net momentum will also have to be zero afterwards. If the guy acquires a certain amount of momentum that knocks him back, the air in front of him will have to acquire an equal amount of momentum and be slung in the opposite direction. The weight of the amount of air affected by it would be a very, very, very small fraction of the weight of the guy; so to compensate, the air would have to be accelerated to an extremely high velocity since momentum=mass*velocity. However, kinetic energy = (1/2)*mass*velocity^2, so the air would get a very, very disproportionate share of the energy involved in the blast compared to the energy going to push the guy back. And as the majority of the energy of the las shot would dissipate as thermal energy into the body of the guy, my gut feeling is that for a las hit to cause any knockback relevant in game terms, it would have to have such an amount of energy that the guy would be brutally overkilled and knockback effects be pretty irrelevant.

Graspar wrote:No, full auto overcharged lasgun would still not be superior to the autogun. Ammo selector triples the ammo and manstoppers add +3 pen. A harder hitting weapon with more ammo.

According to the letter of the rules, the fire selector only allows for clips of different ammo to be used, not several clips of the same ammo. Making a case based on realism and plausibility for why it would be possible to put in several magazines of the same type would be highly hypocritical, as the weapon upgrade itself flies in the face of realism in so many ways.

The fire selector and manstopper ammunition are utterly broken anyway and shouldn't be considered for the lasgun debate. The basic lasgun should be compared to the basic autogun, and if broken upgrades break the balance, it is those upgrades that need fixing, not the lasgun. If one part of the game is overpowered, you nerf that. You don't fix it by bringing up the rest of the universe to the same power level.

I've always viewed a lasgun's 'recoil' as the expanding air around the barrel, rather than causing a 'kick' causing the front of the lasgun to jerk about, causing an inaccuracy.

Also, how about giving the lascarbine s/2/6 but keeping the lasgun as it is: to give the guns a real difference!

Konrad von Richtmark wrote:According to the letter of the rules, the fire selector only allows for clips of different ammo to be used, not several clips of the same ammo. Making a case based on realism and plausibility for why it would be possible to put in several magazines of the same type would be highly hypocritical, as the weapon upgrade itself flies in the face of realism in so many ways.

Nowhere in that description does it specifically state that different ammo must be used in each, merely that it is a convenience for weapons which have multiple types available.

Konrad von Richtmark wrote:The fire selector and manstopper ammunition are utterly broken anyway and shouldn't be considered for the lasgun debate. The basic lasgun should be compared to the basic autogun, and if broken upgrades break the balance, it is those upgrades that need fixing, not the lasgun. If one part of the game is overpowered, you nerf that. You don't fix it by bringing up the rest of the universe to the same power level.

Upgrades and tweaks are always just gravy on the mashed potatoes of win.

-=Brother Praetus=-
"Wisdom is the beginning of fear."

@col hukenbein

That'd give them a real difference, but giving the carbine full auto without giving it to the full-length lasgun is rather arbitrary. A full-length gun is bigger, giving it more space for a more advanced firing mechanism, as well as has simply more mass to dissipate heat along. There is no rational reason for why a carbine would be able to put out a higher rate of fire than a full-length gun. Carbines aren't made for killing power, but for lightness and manageability.

For a recent discussion on how to make las carbines worth it in a realistic way, check this recent thread.

Brother Praetus wrote:Nowhere in that description does it specifically state that different ammo must be used in each, merely that it is a convenience for weapons which have multiple types available.

Direct quote:

FIRE SELECTOR

For weapons that can use differing ammunition rounds, a shot selector can be fitted for ease of switching from one type to another. A weapon with a fire selector can have up to three different clips added. At the start of the shooter's Turn, he can use his fire selector to choose which clip he wishes to draw ammo from that round.

Brother Praetus wrote:Upgrades and tweaks are always just gravy on the mashed potatoes of win.

You like upgrades that are obviously broken to the point of being obvious choices? Well then, how would you like an upgrade making all your shots into MP Lascannon shots? Or a device making you instantly accomplish any mission you're on, costing 10 thrones and being of common availability? If you're a guy who gets power kicks out of blasting away enemies by making use of broken rules, good for you, but then I guess you wouldn't have much to say on a discussion on game balance anyway, so kindly leave this thread to those who actually want to discuss the matter.

One could easily argue that it just means 3 seperate clips of ammo (any type of ammo), and that if it had specifically intended to be different ammo types it would've said "A weapon with a fire selector can have up to three different clips (of different ammo types) added." or something similar.

However I agree with the upgrade being stupidly broken and partly responsible for the dominance of autoguns.

I liked Inquisitors' method of dealing with lasguns. Mars Pattern, Necromundan Pattern and Triplex Pattern.

Mars: Standard, but better range and accuracy, although nothing on the potential in the Long Las.

Necromundan: More shots per turn. Although not quite as good as an autogun.

Triplex: Could increase damage, but burned more charge, or fire normally.

All within same cost and availability, but different enough to warrant thought over which model you'd need.
They'd need work, and I'm not confident enough in myself to try, but that basic idea would work nicely.

An aside. I always had a stash of Lasguns in Necromunda, just because they were cheap, easy to get and easy to keep in ammo. My Delaques were never short of weapons. Good days. (Especially when the kid playing with Orloks placed them all in sight of my gang, and I had initiative on turn one. Practically a one turn victory. Best 2 on 2 game ever.)

Galaga wrote:One could easily argue that it just means 3 seperate clips of ammo (any type of ammo), and that if it had specifically intended to be different ammo types it would've said "A weapon with a fire selector can have up to three different clips (of different ammo types) added." or something similar.

That's actually a fallacy. Whenever there is an apparently ambiguous piece of ruletext that can either be interpreted as X or Y, the argument "If it had meant X, it would have said xxx rather than xyz" often comes up. It is a fallacy because it can be used equally well both ways.

Galaga wrote:However I agree with the upgrade being stupidly broken and partly responsible for the dominance of autoguns.

Good that you agree. I'm just picking a nit. Those who abuse the rules deserve to have some rules-lawyering thrown back at them.

Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

Galaga wrote:One could easily argue that it just means 3 seperate clips of ammo (any type of ammo), and that if it had specifically intended to be different ammo types it would've said "A weapon with a fire selector can have up to three different clips (of different ammo types) added." or something similar.

That's actually a fallacy. Whenever there is an apparently ambiguous piece of ruletext that can either be interpreted as X or Y, the argument "If it had meant X, it would have said xxx rather than xyz" often comes up. It is a fallacy because it can be used equally well both ways.

Galaga wrote:However I agree with the upgrade being stupidly broken and partly responsible for the dominance of autoguns.

Good that you agree. I'm just picking a nit. Those who abuse the rules deserve to have some rules-lawyering thrown back at them.

Thats not even the slightest bit ambiguous. While the text might be slightly open to interpretation anyone with half a brain can see that if a weapon can have 30 manstoppers, 30 dum dums and 30 vanilla bullets it can have 90 of any kind, there's no other possibility.
What kind of GM has to resort to "because i said so" interpretations of the rules to control his players?

Anyway, even without ammo selector the autogun whops the lasgun hands down, both as is and in every suggested fix. Manstoppers alone make up for anything suggested here.

Lasguns are hideous as is, the only thing they have going for them is ammo, this in a game where you get 100 bullets for the price of recaf.

Then truly it is the manstoppers that should be adjusted I guess.

Ok, sure. IF we remove or otherwise downplay ammo selector and manstoppers the only problem left is full auto.
But there we are, fixing every single aspect of the autogun because nobody goes for the lasgun. Why not fix the lasgun instead?

Konrad von Richtmark wrote:If the guy acquires a certain amount of momentum that knocks him back, the air in front of him will have to acquire an equal amount of momentum and be slung in the opposite direction.

I'm talking about an explosion. Are you suggesting explosion can not move things?

I was thinking more of the ultraviolet type of lasers as these do not dump heat in the same way as an infra-red laser, instead they produce plasma at the target point. This plasma leads to an explosion.

I very small scale version is used in surgery, if does not cauterise the wound like an infra-red laser (which are also used in surgery).

So: some lasers produce plasma, this plasma makes and explosion, and the explosion knocks the person back (The laser beam is not what is knocking the person back. It's the effect on a given type of target, and the knock back effect would not be produce with some materials (i.e. ceramics and hence 'ceramite'))

Philip

Yes, explosions can move things, but what I'm saying is, that you'd probably need a las weapon in the size class of a man-portable lascannon to cause a plasma explosion significant enough to knock the guy back.

Graspar wrote:Thats not even the slightest bit ambiguous. While the text might be slightly open to interpretation anyone with half a brain can see that if a weapon can have 30 manstoppers, 30 dum dums and 30 vanilla bullets it can have 90 of any kind, there's no other possibility.

Well, anyone with half a brain and at least elementary knowledge of how automatic weapons work would know that the fire selector as described in the RAW simply could not exist, so invoking realism is pretty hypocritical. Either you go by what the rules literally say, or by what is realistic, and neither would allow for several magazines of the same type.

Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

Graspar wrote:Thats not even the slightest bit ambiguous. While the text might be slightly open to interpretation anyone with half a brain can see that if a weapon can have 30 manstoppers, 30 dum dums and 30 vanilla bullets it can have 90 of any kind, there's no other possibility.

Well, anyone with half a brain and at least elementary knowledge of how automatic weapons work would know that the fire selector as described in the RAW simply could not exist, so invoking realism is pretty hypocritical. Either you go by what the rules literally say, or by what is realistic, and neither would allow for several magazines of the same type.

I still want to know what a fire selector for a stub revolver looks like.