impractical weapons, gadgets, ect in gaming.

your thread is lame

>>45609814
A sentry buster? You mean that mine looking thing on legs? Well I guess it would be best for taking out tanks and buildings, but hard to make and not very subtle...I mean look at that thing! You can see it coming from a mile away and it has no camo. So it would likely be destroyed by enemy soldiers before it reaches its target. Even if it did have camo that thing has glowing bits and is likely remote controlled. You would need packs of these things but that would be very very expensive...

>>45609814
Here OP, I made this for you.

>>45609814
Better off making this thread in >>>/k/ or >>>/v/ OP.

>>45609814
>weapons
>>>/k/
>improbable
>>>/sci/
>gaming
>>>/v/

>>45610450
Yeah, god forbid we have a thread that isn't about consumer gadget shit

File: Snazzguns.jpg (128KB, 807x543px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 807x543px

WH40K is the king of insanely impractical designs, I'd like to see anyone try to practically explain how Ork tech can function at all realistically.

>>45610555
it just werkz

>>45610389
Incredibly small scale nuclear fusion is standard in the fallout universe. So i would argue that is totally practical.

>>45610579
In the real world? Nope.avi.

>>45610555
To humans they would be far to heavy and would chew through ammo even if you had it mounted. They can't work at all to humans, but to orks...WAAAGH DIZ ZOGGIN WERK!

>>45609814
pretty much any game that protrays a futuristic battle field that isn't storms of multi-thousand dollar guided missiles everywhere.

File: tmp_1762-Rx-78-2-329257676.jpg (211KB, 428x650px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 428x650px

I'm curious about this, would it work?

>>45610555
Having multiple barrels is actually quite useful, as to accommodate multiple magazines loaded with specialty ammo, all ready to be fired in an instant

>>45611871
Indeed, but ork weapons tend to focus on firing fast and loud. Realistically you would chew through ammo fast, and you don't have WAAAGH that says you don't need ammo.

>>45611600
With today's tech likely not. It would be going to the battle field like a drunk man on rollerskates on a newly waxed floor. I imagine not very well...so no. But future tech might work, how the shield it is wielding would only be able to protect half of his face, its legs would be vulnerable and if it covers that it's chest and face would be vulnerable. And the fact it would likely hold it sides judging from the pic that's also a tad bit useless.

>>45611946
The shield is mostly for protecting the cockpit anyway, which is in that blue part in the stomach

>>45609814
>in gaming
>>>/v/
technology isn't about gaming you stupid fuck

>>45612142
That won't matter if it's legs get blown off by enemy fire. Then you can't move, even if it has jet packs you can't land anymore.