Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Im debating this guy about warhammer 40k stompin starwars and I used the Warhammer Lexcinum as a source and he basically said well its inaccurate and such so I was wondering if perhaps someone knew of an official source for all of it. I have my books and Codiecs but maybe a site or if anyone has a site with certain weapons specs like rate of fire of weapons that be great to

Well, the BL books give you stats which you can use to calculate weapon yields.

Troulbe is you have Adamantium, which has no "strength" or "toughness" ever given, just "hardest substance" which is useless. So you already cannot determine the effect of SW weapons on the hulls.

Secodnly the weapon yields given, and the shield outputs, require that something 0.1% of the solar mass (largest BFG ship) outputs more than 1 solar mass energy output, using EXACTLY the same energy source (plasma fusion) - which is clearly wrong.

Essentially BL makes it up, so using them as weapon sources will get you nowhere. They even admit that nothing in BL can be absolutely "true", as it is always coloured by the protagonists view of events - in essence.

If you simply use scale as the common factor, then Imperium has a massive advantage versus Star Wars, either Imperials or New Republic. Hell, both of them stuck together would likely get roflstomped.

A Star Destroyer is 1600 meters long. That barely qualifies as a Destroyer in 40k naval displacements. 40k Battleships seem to be about 15-20x the displacement of a Star Destroyer...and it seems that 40k Imperium and Star Wars Empire/New Republic have roughly similar fleet dispositions, Imperium stuff is just 15-20x larger.

Imperium doesn't seem to have much in the way of super-class ships like SSDs or Eclipse/Eclipse II stuff, but these are ships of legend in the SW canon and 2-3 "normal" Imperium capital class vessels seem to be a close match.

Check out http://www.merzo.net/ for size comparisons.

Lexicanum is a terrible source. Basically take your favourite movie or television show and dial up its wiki: you'll notice that what's written on that wiki will bear only passing resemblance to the movie/show you're familiar with, curiously denatured of nuance and meaning.

The best thing to do is to read the source material printed by GW. There's a lot of it, but I'm assuming you actually enjoy 40k and would like to know more about it and the perspective on it. Scribd.com is your friend...

You could probably assume 40k las weapons have a similar strength compared to the SW blasters. If you were feeling generous and didn't believe that storm trooper armor was totally useless against what appeared to be the most common weapons maybe equate the SW blasters to imperial hellguns?

40k torpedoes would definitely help them the imperium win. They are the size of Leia's ship in New Hope and according to BFG stuff ignore shields.

Yet physics makes the torpedoes improbable, both in yield and in supposed size.

And IoM only ignores physics in certain specific ways. IT still uses Fusion as a power source, vastly inferior to M/AM.

I have to admit that physics doesn't seem to be a powerful force in either universe. For example light sabers should technically extend forever, the lack of a focusing device on the deathstar mega laser, the force being cause by bacteria colonies (I think that's what they said in Phantom Menance) compared to hand held microwave guns (meltas), weapons sheathed in fields that disintegrate things but not themselves, hand held weapons that can tear holes in reality.

btw didn't there used to be a shrugging orcmoticon?

EmpBobo wrote:For example light sabers should technically extend forever...

I should be hanging my head in shame for remembering this.

There was an old background book printed many moons ago which addressed this issue by saying that the LS extended a gravitational field which bent the 'light' back on itself, which was then reabsorbed by its power pack, so a lightsaber was in effect a hollow tube. This meant that it should never need recharging unless it was used for continous cutting and why in some books the length of the blade could be adjusted by changing the 'gravity' point. (Which was also explained as changing the focusing point of the crystals as well)

Yes I know that that explanation does nothing to address the issue of the weight of the weapon, energy source or anything else that doesn't hold up to rational thought, but I'd thought I would just throw it in.

Cheers

Andrew

It does sound like a neat concept. I vaguely remember the idea of changing the focus point of the crystal but guess I didn't read that other book.

EmpBobo wrote:You could probably assume 40k las weapons have a similar strength compared to the SW blasters.

SW blasters can't disembody limbs, decapitate someone, or blast holes through people.

True but the more I play guard the less I think of a lasgun as a gun and more of it as maybe a medium sized maglite.

That's because the game does not match the fluff.

I know, was just trying to insert some humor with a sleep deprived brain.

Melissia wrote:

EmpBobo wrote:You could probably assume 40k las weapons have a similar strength compared to the SW blasters.

SW blasters can't disembody limbs, decapitate someone, or blast holes through people.

Blaster would probably be equiv to a lasgun, although much more miniaturized due to arguably better tech.

More accurately, the fluff does not match the game.

The fluff has concerns above and beyond the game, and those concerns are not strictly representative. That's why the common name for the background source material is 'fluff', because it's there to decorate the game rather than to provide a historically accurate accounting of the elements used in the fluff. It conveys 'colour' to the game rules much like paint provides colour to a miniature, rather than fixing a set of properties relative to a universe for purposes of simulation.

Take so-called "Movie Marines", for example. In a movie, or indeed any story, the protagonist has properties that cannot be conveyed in the way that a game element's characteristics and rules convey information about that element's location in the game. Giving them characteristic bonuses changes how they work in the game, but doesn't represent how they would behave to move the story forward, and make the action both believable and exciting.

Roleplaying games try to hybridize the elements of story-telling with those of games, but tend to fail when they try to be representative games rather than authorial games. They fail because authorial games are normative, and hence are about negotiating what should happen, and representative games are simulations of what could happen.

Not all games are representative games either, and Warhammer 40k is most definately not a representative game despite being dressed up as one. One could, for example, play it with a series of marked cylinders on an abstracted board. It's not like playing a wargame about the Battle of Waterloo because the shape of the game itself does not reflect any state of affairs beyond itself. Acknowledging this, the authors have wisely instituted many rules which function count-intuitively in representative terms, Assault Grenades being a notable example.

Warhammer 40k is a strategy game, which is to say it is a game about strategies rather than a game of representation such as a simulation, or a story. Attempting to make inferences about the states of the fictional universe welded to it are doomed to failure both from a rules standpoint and a fluff standpoint, since neither are representative.

Not much to debate, really. Star Wars has FTL travel that lets you traverse the galaxy in a matter of days or weeks - and near-instant communications between far-flung starsystems. That right there is such a massive advantage that you need go no further. It doesn't matter if there's ships that outgun a Star Destroyer if they can't go anywhere fast enough to do anything useful, presuming they've heard about being needed somewhere in the first place.

Spetulhu wrote:Not much to debate, really. Star Wars has FTL travel that lets you traverse the galaxy in a matter of days or weeks - and near-instant communications between far-flung starsystems. That right there is such a massive advantage that you need go no further. It doesn't matter if there's ships that outgun a Star Destroyer if they can't go anywhere fast enough to do anything useful, presuming they've heard about being needed somewhere in the first place.

Irrelevant, the Imperium still owns them through sheer weight of numbers. Once their home system is discovered and a crusade is called its pretty much the final curtain for the Empire/Alliance or whoever.

Actually the Imperium has Battle Barges and Apocalypse class Battle Ships those things vary in size from each other. The Undying spirit was bigger than a freaking super star destroyer.

I'd imagine the first battle not going well for the empire.

In general, vs debates either pit two universes of completely different scale against each other (like 40k vs Babylon 5, a completely one-sided fight), or hinge on what factors you decide to consider and how you decide their technologies overlap. For example, people comparing Star Wars vs anything else usually treat the entire Galactic Republic or Empire as one focused political system, when in the stories the Republic lacked any ability to focus power and the Empire needed large portions of it's fleet to prevent systems from rebelling. Calculating specific weapon strengths depends a lot on what data you accept, and often requires treating 'neat image' as 'scientifically precise depiction of what happened'; a good example is that most estimates of SW ship weapons and shields are based on the one scene in Empire where a turbolaser destroys an asteroid.

If you like the process of reading various books and pulling bits of data, then go for it. If you want a serious debate where someone settles on a factual 'winner', don't hold your breath. There isn't a single 100% accurate web site on this sort of thing, you just read all of the source material you can find and jump in.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AndrewC wrote:There was an old background book printed many moons ago which addressed this issue by saying that the LS extended a gravitational field which bent the 'light' back on itself, which was then reabsorbed by its power pack, so a lightsaber was in effect a hollow tube. This meant that it should never need recharging unless it was used for continous cutting and why in some books the length of the blade could be adjusted by changing the 'gravity' point. (Which was also explained as changing the focusing point of the crystals as well)

Yeah, attempts to explain 'magic' weapons tend to cause more problems than they solve. A gravity generator that can bend light back on itself like that would be a much more destructive weapon than any kind of remotely realistic man-portable laser and causes all kinds of physics questions if you look at it closely.

Let me add vision to your debate.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, the BL books give you stats which you can use to calculate weapon yields.

Troulbe is you have Adamantium, which has no "strength" or "toughness" ever given, just "hardest substance" which is useless. So you already cannot determine the effect of SW weapons on the hulls.

Secodnly the weapon yields given, and the shield outputs, require that something 0.1% of the solar mass (largest BFG ship) outputs more than 1 solar mass energy output, using EXACTLY the same energy source (plasma fusion) - which is clearly wrong.

Essentially BL makes it up, so using them as weapon sources will get you nowhere. They even admit that nothing in BL can be absolutely "true", as it is always coloured by the protagonists view of events - in essence.

It's the 41st millennium, and it's clearly fiction, so why couldn't it be some sort of advanced super plasma reactor thing that contains it all in a small space or something?

How about this?

SW was a long time ago, 40k is in the far future. Odds are 40k is more advanced and the winner, no?

Trying to win against Starwars fanboys is an uphill battle esp. since they use the force to dodge / deflect everything.
40k gives you boltguns
Jar Jar gives you blue balls

odds are even the gayest 40k character you can think of has a better weapon than the "lightsabers are invincible" world of starwars

surprisingly I agree with that. Especially with bad writers like C.S goto and give us multilazors!

Star Trek fanboys can be worse.

But all in all, the Imperium can swamp one location with ships, tanks, and firepower, and will probably crush SW on land. However, SW has better FTL travel and communication, and if SW decides to go on the offensive, they could probably strike swifter than the Imperium can respond. It's really not something to debate, and it all depends on the situation.

Whose attacking? Does the Astronomicon work in the Star Wars galaxy? What is the objective of each faction? What other drains on their resources are? There are far too many questions to be answered before you can give an answer.

ChrisWWII wrote:Star Trek fanboys can be worse.

But all in all, the Imperium can swamp one location with ships, tanks, and firepower, and will probably crush SW on land. However, SW has better FTL travel and communication, and if SW decides to go on the offensive, they could probably strike swifter than the Imperium can respond. It's really not something to debate, and it all depends on the situation.

Whose attacking? Does the Astronomicon work in the Star Wars galaxy? What is the objective of each faction? What other drains on their resources are? There are far too many questions to be answered before you can give an answer.

Would James T. Kirk fall to slaaneesh?

40k wins every time.

/thread

Why the feth do these keep popping up??!?

40k= MAIDEN
Star wars= Crosby Stills & Nash

40k= Dethklok
SW= Spongebob

Samus_aran115 wrote:40k wins every time.

/thread

Why the feth do these keep popping up??!?

40k= MAIDEN
Star wars= Crosby Stills & Nash

40k= Dethklok
SW= Spongebob

Yeah they keep poping up everywhere nowadays.

One word: FETHING DEATH STAR.

Oh, thats 3!