Warp-field swords and vibro swords

[imurphy943]

Both weapons deal the same damage and use the same power source, but the warp-field sword weighs more, consumes more power, and appears less frequently. The warp-field sword also says that it treats any armor as 2 AC worse, while the vibro sword says it gets +2 to hit. Does this give the warp-field sword some advantage over the vibro sword, or is it just objectively a worse weapon?

[Vargr1105]

There is no reason why the Ancients shouldn't have objectively worse weapons stat-wise as part of their armories. They had a functioning economy at the time; the warp-field sword might have been cheaper than a vibro-sword, the same way a .32 special revolver is cheaper than a .45 ACP automatic handgun.

Or maybe the warp-field sword was a truly inferior weapon to the vibro-sword and was being phased-out at the time; which would account for it being less frequently encountered post-collapse.

[Malcadon]

I just rule that warp-field weapons ignore all protection of 3 or less, so only super metals and force-fields can block them.

[bighara]

There is no reason why the Ancients shouldn't have objectively worse weapons stat-wise as part of their armories. They had a functioning economy at the time; the warp-field sword might have been cheaper than a vibro-sword, the same way a .32 special revolver is cheaper than a .45 ACP automatic handgun.

Or maybe the warp-field sword was a truly inferior weapon to the vibro-sword and was being phased-out at the time; which would account for it being less frequently encountered post-collapse.

+1

[Malcadon]

Or maybe the warp-field sword was a truly inferior weapon to the vibro-sword and was being phased-out at the time; which would account for it being less frequently encountered post-collapse.

The funny thing is that a vibro weapon is just a fine-tooth chainsaw, while warp-field weapon is supposed to be like a lightsaber.That would be like conventional firearms being considered superior to a hightech blaster.