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.

Nurglitch wrote: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.

Similar is true with starwars miniature game in the movei luke runs through a hallway full of cloens and comes out unscathed but in the game he would eb shot down on the spot in the movie jedis block waves apon waves of laser while in the game they would be shot down and so on and so forth.

Also the imperium would win because they have more planets if i recall right and hey blow up planets for lunch while in star wars they have only done it once and that was a HUGE deal.

Only problem is, in the scenario we;re working with, the Galaxy Gun doesn't exist yet, and even if it did, it's kinda stuck around Byss. It's described as immobile, so yes it could be effective, but it's not a 'I win' button.

ChrisWWII wrote:Only problem is, in the scenario we;re working with, the Galaxy Gun doesn't exist yet, and even if it did, it's kinda stuck around Byss. It's described as immobile, so yes it could be effective, but it's not a 'I win' button.

Not sure where you read the 'Immobile' bit, I see it having a hyperdrive and sublight thrusters which would allow it to move. And what exactly is the timeline we're working with? If possible, could it be detailed in either BBY or ABY years? With comparison to the 40K timeline to, which I think is current story time yeah?

I think we're dealing with GE, before... erm.. before the new republic? When the rebels are still fighting the empire, that timeline.

yeah, the GE at it's height of power. sometime between New Hope and Return of the Jedi.

the rules naturally are

if there is a Deathstar there is only one at a time.

no Suncrusher or any other "God" weapons(all of which are incredibly stupid) as they didn't exist yet. BTW: the suncrusher is 100% impossable as you can't get Resinance inside a star and Gravity would heavily off set any vibrations that might shake a star apart.


Most of these "God" weapons are so far fetched that they don't even fit within the, very loose, boundries of Sci-fi. Halo rings are silly(how do you differentiate between Sentient and Non-sentient vertabrates at distances of Millions of Light years? seriously?) World Eaters are better, but they still push the boundries.

the Death Stars themselves are pretty far fetched too. but even assuming they actually work they still lose. they might destroy a few IoM battleships, but the large numbers of Appoc and Emperor class cruisers just cripple the Deathstar eventually. assuming the IoM doesn't just send assassins onto the DS to plant bombs or otherwise cripple it before they attack and capture it.


Very few of the IoM's weaponry can fit into the "God" weapon catagories. the most powerful thing the IoM has is the Nova Cannon(which is just a, very, large atomicly based bomb) and Exterminatus just involves killing all life with a Genetically Engineered Virus and(optionally) bombarding the hell out of the planets surface igniting the organic gasses that the virus leaves in it's wake. the Firestorm then burns most of the Atmosphere away. the fluff does take into account that this doesn't work on certain planets(odd Atmospheric composition) and that it takes hours or even days to get the bombs dropped properly and the virus takes many hours to take effect(depending on atmospheric variables)

Grey Templar wrote:
the Death Stars themselves are pretty far fetched too. but even assuming they actually work they still lose. they might destroy a few IoM battleships, but the large numbers of Appoc and Emperor class cruisers just cripple the Deathstar eventually. assuming the IoM doesn't just send assassins onto the DS to plant bombs or otherwise cripple it before they attack and capture it.

I read this too quickly and in the incorrect order. I thought you said it might take a few IoM battleships to destroy it, even with the large number of Appoc and Emperor class cruisers.

After reading it again however I still see a few things that bothers me. SSD are maybe a little less than twice the size of an IoM capital ship, and when a SSD crashed into the 2nd deathstar, it didn't really do much. I agree that a large number of those cruisers could cripple it eventually, but it would take some time.

GT - actually the second bomb was Plutonium based. Hydrogen based FUSION bombs werent around until after WWII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

They ran out of enriched uranium, but plutonium is a better fuel anyway...

Scale: they have said events could have happened but be exaggerations - hence saying about the size disparities. IT is not JUST that the event may not have happened, but it may have happened very differently to that which was portrayed.

Energy source: fusion is the most efficient and powerful non-im destroying matter fuel possible, as it exploits the different in binding energies between differing elements. Fission is orders of magnitudes less than that. You therefore have an upper bound when using physcial fuels - Fusion > anything other than Matter/Antimatter.

If your upper bound cannot produce the energy requirements listed in the books, then perhaps, just perhaps, those figures are "made up gak" by people who have little understanding of physics -they just write what is cool.

Again, not saying it could never happen, jus tthtat, KNOWING they can make stuff up to be cool AND knowing that the physics means their figures are, optimistically, entire orders of magnitude off SHOULD mean you temper your physics calculations.

Im not saying 610GTonnes is unlikely - given the USSR detonated a designed as 100MT bomb (i think the actual yield was much lower, about 60MT, but thats from memory) then yes, 610GTonne for fusion weapons is possible. The pwoer that the void shields and lances suppsoedly take - that is where the power generation of 1SM vs physical size of 0.1%SM comes into play. WHen your power source can be no better than fusion, yet you are producing the same energy as the most efficient fusion reactor we can think off, then you have issues with your maths!

Ivan - it was in the 40kvsST thread. Go look for it yourself - given you dismiss it anyway it doesnt matter to me what you think about BL and their policy, but the fact of the matter is that nothing in BL novels can be considered to have a full "truth" value. THats it - just that you temper your shouting of "facts!!!!" with the realisation that your basis for calculation is prone to an unknown degree of error.

Or you could blindly keep on parroting that it is canon, yada, nothing can be wrong, yada. But that doesnt make for meaningful or intelligent debate, especially when trying to form a basis for comparison between two universes. Mkay?

And matter compression? What does that have to do with generating energy? You just end up with, if you have enough mass / enough pressure, neutronium. Fairly useless as a fuel source.

Fusion is about releasing binding energy, and is the most efficient (by definition) non-annihilation of matter, fuel based energy possible*. AM/M is oc higher, as it releases all the energy locked up in the matter, but the Imperium does not use M/AM reactors. SO you are left with an upper bound on total energy production that is possible using a fuel-based source, aka Fusion. And you have figures from a known untrustworthy source (they even said they are!) which mean this yield is impossible given the size of the ships AND assumnig the ships are 100% reactor.

All this should mean you temper your "numbers!!!" cries. If you were being a rational debater you would, anyway. Recognising bias and error is fairly fundamental.

Note I say all this as a FAR bigger 40k than SW fan - i love both, but i love the *universe* of 40k more. Everyone being a bad guy is quite appealing.

It isnt "matter lightening" it is inertia suppression. Which may or may not be the same as AG (depending on which theories of matter, strings and Higgs you subscribe to) but which both universes have.

*zero point, or vacuum energy, is higher still, but I dont consider that "fuel based" - when the fabric of space time is your energy source the concept of "fuel" breaks down....

blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:

I read this too quickly and in the incorrect order. I thought you said it might take a few IoM battleships to destroy it, even with the large number of Appoc and Emperor class cruisers.

After reading it again however I still see a few things that bothers me. SSD are maybe a little less than twice the size of an IoM capital ship, and when a SSD crashed into the 2nd deathstar, it didn't really do much. I agree that a large number of those cruisers could cripple it eventually, but it would take some time.

It didn't do much? Not on the surface, maybe, but as I remember from the RotJ novelization, it did a lot of damage internally, weakening the superstructure of the Death Star a lot. And that's not withstanding that any Imperial Navy battlefleet that takes on the death star will probably have tens, if not dozens of battleships, not to mention all their supporting craft, Space Marine ships, etc. etc.

Nos-Yeah, Tsar Bomba was meant to be 100MT, but they decided to remove the U-235 casing from the secondary at the last minute to try and limit fall out, cutting the yield in half. That and 100MT would have vaporized the Tu-95 carrying the goddamn thing.....

Even without BL I have othersources that prove gigaton+ firepower.
BFG states that Battleship can wipe all life on planet in matter of hours using prow mounted armageddon weapons and Dominator's cannon.
Also provide link for that thread it's kinda hard to find it.

IvanTH - i have no intention of doing so, as you will just hand wave it away and, frankly, other people accept its existence anyway. You can probably google it if you want.

"Prove" is such a strong word. "extrapolate from sources where the author doesnt have any clue on real physics" would be slightly closer.

Back to people who debate...yes Chris, apparently they didnt want to irradiate TOO much of the North. DIdnt the TU also contain quite a chunk of the monitoring equipment for the test? Vaporising your monitoring plane would have made little sense, even in the CCCP!

"Wanted: pilot to be vapori^H^H^H^H^H gloriously commemorate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H rewarded with extra potato"

@Nosferatu
What about firepower feats outside BL,will you dismiss them too?

Ivan - refer to explanation above.

Given BL and BFG et all broadly agree on power levels, if you were, oooh, I dont know - being consistent you would realise a flaw in one probably indicates a flaw in the other.

Stop using words like "prove" when the figures, which are mere extrapolations from a company with a known inability to understand physics, are suspect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ivan - refer to explanation above.

Given BL and BFG et all broadly agree on power levels, if you were, oooh, I dont know - being consistent you would realise a flaw in one probably indicates a flaw in the other.

Stop using words like "prove" when the figures, which are mere extrapolations from a company with a known inability to understand physics, are suspect.

One thing,40k is highly inconsistent and at the end it all boils down to personal prefernce.
And what would be your calcs.

blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
the Death Stars themselves are pretty far fetched too. but even assuming they actually work they still lose. they might destroy a few IoM battleships, but the large numbers of Appoc and Emperor class cruisers just cripple the Deathstar eventually. assuming the IoM doesn't just send assassins onto the DS to plant bombs or otherwise cripple it before they attack and capture it.

I read this too quickly and in the incorrect order. I thought you said it might take a few IoM battleships to destroy it, even with the large number of Appoc and Emperor class cruisers.

After reading it again however I still see a few things that bothers me. SSD are maybe a little less than twice the size of an IoM capital ship, and when a SSD crashed into the 2nd deathstar, it didn't really do much. I agree that a large number of those cruisers could cripple it eventually, but it would take some time.

It took fleets of Imperium ships days to attack the World Engine and they couldn't defeat it until a Battle barge crashed into it (sound familiar) and entire chapter went around blowing shield nacelles until a hole in the shields was large enough for the Imperium fleet to do real damage.

Sound familiar?
Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?
Now add a GE fleet backing up the deathstar and IOM systems are in deep doo doo, especially if they start hitting the major forge worlds.

Well, they'd have to sacrifice alot to take it down, but the IoM COULD take down the Death Star, even if attacked. Don't forget, in our scenario the |Rebellion still exists within the SW galaxy, so the DS may not even make it to the front lines.

ChrisWWII wrote:Well, they'd have to sacrifice alot to take it down, but the IoM COULD take down the Death Star, even if attacked. Don't forget, in our scenario the |Rebellion still exists within the SW galaxy, so the DS may not even make it to the front lines.

Rebellion wouldn't mean anything. It didn't in the actual timeline, but dictatorships love wars. They can focus the populace on stopping the bad guy. In this instance they have an excellent bad guy.

That's true, so they could limit popular support for the Rebel Alliance, but there is still the possibility that they could take down the DSII in orbit over Endor before it's sent to fight the Imperium.

In fact it might be easier, since the fleet defending its construction site might be smaller with the war effort on.

IMO, 40k uses flamer weapons, ergo they have "a way" to deal with orks.. SW does not, ergo 40k wins... SW would be crushed by a single Hive Fleet, a fleet of Roks, and probably the IoM by themselves as a whole.

If one of the hive fleets showed up, the SW folks would be royally screwed, since the HFs have "innumerable" bodies to throw up as living shields, as well as bombs and 'torpedoes'... The Orks, are, well.. the Orks, and they are just spoiling for a fight. Which brings up an interesting thought... what would an Ork, Looted star destroyer look like, or a Looted AT-AT??

Frazzled wrote:
It took fleets of Imperium ships days to attack the World Engine and they couldn't defeat it until a Battle barge crashed into it (sound familiar) and entire chapter went around blowing shield nacelles until a hole in the shields was large enough for the Imperium fleet to do real damage.

Sound familiar?
Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?
Now add a GE fleet backing up the deathstar and IOM systems are in deep doo doo, especially if they start hitting the major forge worlds.

Would a fleet of destroyers (as in, Imperium destroyer-class vessels, as analogues for Star Destroyers) really make any difference in a clash between an IoM fleet versus the Death Star? Sounds more like the picket lines engage each other and it's capital ships vs Death Star. Unless GE has a definitive method to keep Space Marines from ever boarding, IoM eventually crushes it.

And the necron world engine is grossly technologically superior to IoM tech, so for analogue purposes seems more like an 'elite' Deathstar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:what would an Ork, Looted star destroyer look like, or a Looted AT-AT??

Like a crappy, red star destroyer or At-At?

Would a fleet of destroyers (as in, Imperium destroyer-class vessels, as analogues for Star Destroyers) really make any difference in a clash between an IoM fleet versus the Death Star? Sounds more like the picket lines engage each other and it's capital ships vs Death Star. Unless GE has a definitive method to keep Space Marines from ever boarding, IoM eventually crushes it.

***Shields block teleporting.

And the necron world engine is grossly technologically superior to IoM tech, so for analogue purposes seems more like an 'elite' Deathstar.

***Prove it.

Frazzled wrote:

Would a fleet of destroyers (as in, Imperium destroyer-class vessels, as analogues for Star Destroyers) really make any difference in a clash between an IoM fleet versus the Death Star? Sounds more like the picket lines engage each other and it's capital ships vs Death Star. Unless GE has a definitive method to keep Space Marines from ever boarding, IoM eventually crushes it.

***Shields block teleporting.

And the necron world engine is grossly technologically superior to IoM tech, so for analogue purposes seems more like an 'elite' Deathstar.

***Prove it.

Slight Correction: Void Shields block IoM Teliportation tech because both utilize the Warp to Teliport/create the energy field. the shield causes interferance. Star Wars shields create energy fields, but do not use the Warp to do so. the IoM Teliporters would pass right through SW shields.


World Engine is roughly equivilant to Deathstar. both could destroy planets, Both were massive.

anecdotal evidence that WE is better then DS: the Necrons have had since the dawn if time to perfect their Technology, the Deathstar was concieved in the span of 30 years, build and, more importantly, destroyed twice. the World Engine was destroyed in a direct assault, the Rebel alliance had to use Trickery and a major flaw in the Deathstars design to destroy it.

Slight Correction: Void Shields block IoM Teliportation tech because both utilize the Warp to Teliport/create the energy field. the shield causes interferance. Star Wars shields create energy fields, but do not use the Warp to do so. the IoM Teliporters would pass right through SW shields.
*** where are you getting the information that void shields are wapr based? Note. Tau, Eldar, and Necron fields also stop them.

anecdotal evidence that WE is better then DS: the Necrons have had since the dawn if time to perfect their Technology, the Deathstar was concieved in the span of 30 years, build and, more importantly, destroyed twice. the World Engine was destroyed in a direct assault, the Rebel alliance had to use Trickery and a major flaw in the Deathstars design to destroy it.
****Um no. They existed in the past-yes. They went into hibernation. Effectively time and development stopped once that occurred.
The timeline on SW is much more ambiguous and thheir tech relies on multiple races.

Frazzled wrote:

And the necron world engine is grossly technologically superior to IoM tech, so for analogue purposes seems more like an 'elite' Deathstar.

***Prove it.

The necrons themselves are grossly technologically superior to IoM or GE tech. GE does not have organic, self-healing robot metal. GE certainly doesn't have inorganic star gods and GE standard-issue weaponry is not capable of peeling apart adamantine at the atomic level. GE can't teleport and GE rely on fuel or power cells instead of remote location energy projection for locomotive power.

If the most basic Necrontyr tech is far superior to GE tech, then why wouldn't the most elaborate Necrontyr tech also be far superior to GE tech?

In other words, prove it's not.

sourclams wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

And the necron world engine is grossly technologically superior to IoM tech, so for analogue purposes seems more like an 'elite' Deathstar.

***Prove it.

The necrons themselves are grossly technologically superior to IoM or GE tech. GE does not have organic, self-healing robot metal. GE certainly doesn't have inorganic star gods and GE standard-issue weaponry is not capable of peeling apart adamantine at the atomic level. GE can't teleport and GE rely on fuel or power cells instead of remote location energy projection for locomotive power.

If the most basic Necrontyr tech is far superior to GE tech, then why wouldn't the most elaborate Necrontyr tech also be far superior to GE tech?

In other words, prove it's not.

Points well made sir! I concede the issue.

As big a Starwars fan I am, 40k would win this handsdown tied behind their head.

Sure Starwars has some plus's which would make them a fearsome opponent.
-Boba Fett
-A large amount of Super Weapons such as Two Death Stars, The Galaxy Gun, Suncrusher etc, etc. At different time periods of course but Im really not sure how this supposed battle would happen since Star Wars is somehwere from the past and 40k is in the far flung future.
-Jedi, skilled warriors trained in the Force, Sith, relentless warriors trained in the Dark Side.
-The Yuzhan Vong are a pretty fearsome race, kind've like really violent sadisitic Eldar/Tyranids travelling on living planets and growing everything from their weapons to their ships.
-Anzati, I think even a Space Marine would have a little trouble taking down a group of Anzati.
-Chiss would also be an issue, they take your technology and rapidly reproduce it better and more efficient.
If the Imperium were to fight them they would not only be up against the Chiss battle fleet but reproduced Chiss esque Imperium craft which hit harder, move faster and can manouver better.

But of course 40k has all of this going on for them...

-Space Marines supposably cant lose "YAWN"
-Just about every race has a fail safe to make them indestructable.
-Have you seen Stormtroopers shooting

These things alone will make 40k win, that and all the other crazy advantages they have.

AndrewC wrote:We have the same problem with some of the 40K tech. Power reactors seem to be referred to as plasma/fusion interchangeable in some sources and not referred to at all in others. So people revert to what is understandable (me) and use plasma/fusion/fission as a benchmark.

No they don't. They're referred to as plasma rectors except for what, one offhand comment from a non-technical character in one book? Fusion power doesn't provide enough energy to move warships from most SF (including all of the ones under discussion) without invoking an outside-of-physics drive, much less operate weapons and shields. Attempting to use it as a limit is just absurd.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AndrewC wrote:No, not "you" in particular, "you" as in one side of a discussion. There was a previous thread in which weapons yield was a major factor to the discussion.

I'm positing in this thread, not the previous thread. You're apparently trying to continue an argument that you had with other people in another thread with me here, which is just silly. Your comments simply don't make any sense at all as a reply to what I've posted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Energy source: fusion is the most efficient and powerful non-im destroying matter fuel possible, as it exploits the different in binding energies between differing elements. Fission is orders of magnitudes less than that. You therefore have an upper bound when using physcial fuels - Fusion > anything other than Matter/Antimatter.

Fusion can't produce enough energy to give ships the accelerations shown in SW/ST/40k, much less the weapons and shields. If you limit energy levels to fusion plant outputs, you can't get across a solar system in hours or days, it takes weeks or months, and you can't move in an arbitrary direction the way the ships are shown to, you have to follow planned orbits.

Also FYI fission is only a single order of magnitude below fusion, not 'orders of magnitude' less.

WHen your power source can be no better than fusion,

Then you can't even move ships like the Iom, Star Wars, or Star Trek have without going completely outisde of known physics for your drive, so you're throwing out all of the space travel described in any of the universes, which seems to make any conversation about it pointless. When you're limiting ships to the point that they can't even move like they're shown to do, you're not setting a reasonable upper bound at all.

And 40k ships don't use fusion reactors anyway.

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

Even though I am on the 40k side in all of this, starwars did take place a long time ago no? but we typing on our computers right now are not more advanced than starwars.

But it is in a galaxy far away with humanity and other humanoids developing and coming to power long before us but at the same rate.

Kogwar wrote:But it is in a galaxy far away with humanity and other humanoids developing and coming to power long before us but at the same rate.

Since Tyranids are believed to be from outside our own galaxy, perhaps somewhere between "long long ago" and "the dark future of the 41st Millenium" the Tyranids came along and simply Ate star wars?

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Kogwar wrote:But it is in a galaxy far away with humanity and other humanoids developing and coming to power long before us but at the same rate.

Since Tyranids are believed to be from outside our own galaxy, perhaps somewhere between "long long ago" and "the dark future of the 41st Millenium" the Tyranids came along and simply Ate star wars?