So, any guesses how many posts this is going to stay on-topic for?
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
I doubt it would ever be highly effective infantry weapon compared with the FC phaser rifles - too big, too complicated, too small a magazine capacity, and the integrated transporter would probably be even more vulnerable to interference/jamming than the usual types. As a weapon developed specifically for assassinations, on the other hand, it would be very good indeed. I bet Section 31 loved it.Tyyr wrote:You've got a highly effective weapon that could conceivably allow a defensive force to huddle in their walls and never expose themselves in any way yet still lay waste to their attackers like no one's business... so obviously Starfleet tosses it out.
You're assuming that said chuck of tritanium wouldn't be an effective block itself. Even starship transporters can be jammed by everything from EM fields to funny rock, and the micro-transporter built into the weapon would inevitably be far weaker and more susceptible to jamming. I can't see any weapon reliant on transporters to operate to be anywhere near reliable enough to be a standard-issue infantry weapon.Tyyr wrote:You're talking about a weapon that would let you stand on one side of a 2 meter thick chunk of tritanium...The only real defense against it would be a transporter jammer.
If it's being used routinely on the battlefield I'd consider it standard issue, be it as assault rifle or sniper rifle.Tyyr wrote:I'm not assuming the thing be standard issue
It was an example, although given that this is Starfleet, what are the odds? They've been known to surround the computer cores of science vessels with transporter-proof materials.I'd hope the people designing the fortification are smart enough to not make it out of something your primary weapon can't shoot through.