Space Marines vs Galactic Empire

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.

**Peregrine**

Wyzilla wrote:
It doesn't matter how ridiculous it is- your opinion on its ridiculous nature is irrelevant, canon's canon. If author X declares something has X Biiggatons in a novel, it has X amount of biggatons. That's the end of it, because the author has the final say on their material, or at least until enough time has passed that it becomes public property and death of the author takes actual effect, although even then the legitimacy of people's opinions concerning what the author penned are debatable.

It's canon, but it's nonsense. And it can't be used in a discussion like this because there's nothing to compare to. What does "THE BATTALSHIPS MAXIMAM SPEED IS ERWOIJ$WJU$#)(U$#)(UT()$#TJ)$#T$#OGFBIO$#OI$JGOI$EGJ" even mean? How does that translate into acceleration, typical combat speed, etc? What can we actually get from this canon quote besides "the author doesn't understand how space works"?

**Martel732**

You guys have picked two of the fictional universes that make the least sense *of all time*.

**AndrewC**

Wyzilla wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
asorel wrote:
Still ignoring the part about your own hypocrisy, I see.

I am rejecting a canon number because it is incoherent nonsense. It's like claiming "the battleship's guns have a firepower of 9999999 meters per square volt", it doesn't matter if the words are canon or not because the meaning of those words is so obviously not a reasonable thing to say.

It doesn't matter how ridiculous it is- your opinion on its ridiculous nature is irrelevant, canon's canon. If author X declares something has X Biiggatons in a novel, it has X amount of biggatons. That's the end of it, because the author has the final say on their material, or at least until enough time has passed that it becomes public property and death of the author takes actual effect, although even then the legitimacy of people's opinions concerning what the author penned are debatable. What's debatable if people's own calculations made entirely separate of the official material turn out nonsensical (like "vaporization" calcs) or if there's a canon policy that renders something invalid- for example under the old canon policy of Star Wars (movies > tv show > comics, books, and videogames) and a book like the ICS AOTC mentions 200 gigatons, which conflicts directly with the visuals of the movies (because there are no gigatons to be seen outside of the Death Star). Although that's an old, ooolllld matter with the retcon basically resetting the clock when it comes to figuring out just how big the booms are in Star Wars to the 1990's and early 00's.

Okay Wyzilla, if canon is canon, how do you reconcile GWs official stance that everything is canon, but one third is true, one third is lies and the last third is exaggeration. Which means that two thirds of your facts are in-fact wrong when arguing for the GW universe.

Cheers

Andrew

**Happyjew**

Wyzilla, here's the problem.

If the author uses a nonexistent unit of measurement (such as Lasguns firing 19 megathules of energy), while meaningless to us, it is a quantifiable thing.

On the other hand, if the author uses units that are in use today (for example, saying a light bulb emits 22 ohms), it is assumed they are talking about real life fe measurements at which point the information should be ignored because it is meaninglessm

**Ashiraya**

I dunno, blasters seem fairly weak to me. Lasgun-level maybe. Certainly not a boltgun.

**Grey Templar**

yeah, its not even that it was a glancing blow. He directly hit her shoulder.

I will ignore the almost 1 second reaction time that Leia took to realize she was injured.

**Martel732**

As I said, WW II infantry is way more dangerous than these assclowns.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Don't a lot of the 40k canon space battle take place at stupidly short range (I recall the World Eaters having space ship grapples or something ridiculous) ?

Yeah, a bit.
Its a bit more reasonable in BFG though, iirc.
I recall there being a little passage that even though they are close on the table, the models are actually very far apart.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ashiraya wrote:

I dunno, blasters seem fairly weak to me. Lasgun-level maybe. Certainly not a boltgun.

That stormtrooper is clearly using an aimbot

**Grey Templar**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Don't a lot of the 40k canon space battle take place at stupidly short range (I recall the World Eaters having space ship grapples or something ridiculous) ?

Yeah, a bit.
Its a bit more reasonable in BFG though, iirc.
I recall there being a little passage that even though they are close on the table, the models are actually very far apart.

Well yeah. The actual model doesn't have any rules significance. All measurements are made to the stem of the flying base, which represents the immediate area around the ship itself.

**Mr Morden**

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Don't a lot of the 40k canon space battle take place at stupidly short range (I recall the World Eaters having space ship grapples or something ridiculous) ?

Angron's flagship has them - and yep they are awesome

Tyranids use them a lot and pump termagaunts and worse organisms into your ship whilst attached.

**Spetulhu**

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, WW II infantry is way more dangerous than these assclowns.

Which universe did you talk about? The one where only the elite of the elite use specialized melee weapons or the one where even the basest mooks not only have a combat knife but will probably be thrown into close combat? ;-)

**Wyzilla**

AndrewC wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
asorel wrote:
Still ignoring the part about your own hypocrisy, I see.

I am rejecting a canon number because it is incoherent nonsense. It's like claiming "the battleship's guns have a firepower of 9999999 meters per square volt", it doesn't matter if the words are canon or not because the meaning of those words is so obviously not a reasonable thing to say.

It doesn't matter how ridiculous it is- your opinion on its ridiculous nature is irrelevant, canon's canon. If author X declares something has X Biiggatons in a novel, it has X amount of biggatons. That's the end of it, because the author has the final say on their material, or at least until enough time has passed that it becomes public property and death of the author takes actual effect, although even then the legitimacy of people's opinions concerning what the author penned are debatable. What's debatable if people's own calculations made entirely separate of the official material turn out nonsensical (like "vaporization" calcs) or if there's a canon policy that renders something invalid- for example under the old canon policy of Star Wars (movies > tv show > comics, books, and videogames) and a book like the ICS AOTC mentions 200 gigatons, which conflicts directly with the visuals of the movies (because there are no gigatons to be seen outside of the Death Star). Although that's an old, ooolllld matter with the retcon basically resetting the clock when it comes to figuring out just how big the booms are in Star Wars to the 1990's and early 00's.

Okay Wyzilla, if canon is canon, how do you reconcile GWs official stance that everything is canon, but one third is true, one third is lies and the last third is exaggeration. Which means that two thirds of your facts are in-fact wrong when arguing for the GW universe.

Cheers

Andrew

No it isn't. GW doesn't even have a policy to speak of, and there's no "muh thirds" at all mentioned, anything may be true or false, and that's the end of it. And there's a conflicting statement from one of the chief editors that the "everything is full of lies" is of itself misinterpreted.

Not that it matters, because you experience with fiction must be incredibly limited if you even think internal consistency exists in anything fictional. Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, Lord of the Rings, just to name the big names have absolutely zero consistency in any regard to events within them, and some can't even decide what timeline they're on (coughdoctorwhocough).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:
Wyzilla, here's the problem.

If the author uses a nonexistent unit of measurement (such as Lasguns firing 19 megathules of energy), while meaningless to us, it is a quantifiable thing.

On the other hand, if the author uses units that are in use today (for example, saying a light bulb emits 22 ohms), it is assumed they are talking about real life fe measurements at which point the information should be ignored because it is meaninglessm

Wat. We have no reason to ignore the author if he or she specifically mentions a modern unit of measurement, because they clearly are quantifying that event in literal definitions.

**keezus**

Wyzilla wrote:
Wat. We have no reason to ignore the author if he or she specifically mentions a modern unit of measurement, because they clearly are quantifying that event in literal definitions.

You do if it is contradicted by another modern unit of measurement in a different publication.

Let's cut straight to the chase. Every 40k vs "other" always devolves back down to the "petaton yield" weapons needed for surface scouring exterminatus. You'll have those that hinge their entire argument on the raw damage calcs needed to remove entire continents, and pack that into a battlecruiser, and you'll have those that argue that exterminatus as a feat is unreliable as it's usually described by some onlooker with some degree of hyperbole.

Personally, I think that there is absolutely no question that 40k capital ship weaponry is more powerful than Star Wars capital ship weaponry. I don't think that it's more than 10x more powerful however. I base this rationalization on the fact that IIRC, torps are rated at 600gt in BFG (meaning that having 100x terra and petaton weapons is idiotic, if they are 1000's of times more powerful than your torps) and more tellingly, Space Orks are known to use unshielded asteroids (which we can calculate energy needed to destroy), and as these are not an insignifcant threat to the Imperium we can only conclude that the petaton-terraton power calcs are totally out to lunch.

In conclusion: I would think that factions with FTL travel, able to bring sizable numbers of capital ships to bear with weapons in the 10x to 100x gigaton range should be able to put up some sort of fight, although IMO, I think logistics and supply lines are going to be the difference between winning and losing for both sides - and in with this in mind, the Empire has the more reliable system.

**Happyjew**

Wyzilla wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Wyzilla, here's the problem.

If the author uses a nonexistent unit of measurement (such as Lasguns firing 19 megathules of energy), while meaningless to us, it is a quantifiable thing.

On the other hand, if the author uses units that are in use today (for example, saying a light bulb emits 22 ohms), it is assumed they are talking about real life fe measurements at which point the information should be ignored because it is meaninglessm

Wat. We have no reason to ignore the author if he or she specifically mentions a modern unit of measurement, because they clearly are quantifying that event in literal definitions.

I didn't say to ignore the author because they mentioned a modern unit of measurement. I said to ignore the author if the usage of the measurement makes no sense - such as using ohms (a measurement of resistance) instead of watts (a measurement of power).

If I told you that a car had a top speed of 22 megajoules, how would you react?

**MeanAss_Demasoni**

Dreadnought vs AT Walker

**AndrewC**

Wyzilla wrote:
No it isn't. GW doesn't even have a policy to speak of, and there's no "muh thirds" at all mentioned, anything may be true or false, and that's the end of it. And there's a conflicting statement from one of the chief editors that the "everything is full of lies" is of itself misinterpreted.

Not that it matters, because you experience with fiction must be incredibly limited if you even think internal consistency exists in anything fictional. Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, Lord of the Rings, just to name the big names have absolutely zero consistency in any regard to events within them, and some can't even decide what timeline they're on (coughdoctorwhocough).

However those themes are subject to another conversation and I'd address those in the same way. However, as to cannon....

Re Canon, GW and BL.

Marc Gascoigne of the Black Library;

Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And for me, that's the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note that answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you.

This is about the closest GW/BL comes to a canon policy.

Cheers

Andrew

Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:

Personally, I think that there is absolutely no question that 40k capital ship weaponry is more powerful than Star Wars capital ship weaponry. I don't think that it's more than 10x more powerful however. I base this rationalization on the fact that IIRC, torps are rated at 600gt in BFG (meaning that having 100x terra and petaton weapons is idiotic, if they are 1000's of times more powerful than your torps) and more tellingly, Space Orks are known to use unshielded asteroids (which we can calculate energy needed to destroy), and as these are not an insignifcant threat to the Imperium we can only conclude that the petaton-terraton power calcs are totally out to lunch.

The only direct quote for weapon yields was from 1st edition Space Hulk. It was for an exterminates level weapon, which was a mirv and each warhead had a 6 GT yield.

Cheers

Andrew

**thegreatchimp**

MeanAss_Demasoni wrote:
Dreadnought vs AT Walker

Depends on the situation.
-At long range the AT-AT hammers it with heavy firepower while only taking some minor damage because of its heavier armour.
-At short range the dreadnought gets past its field of fire, the AT-AT can't maneuver to get a bead on it, The dreadnought smashes its legs with fist attacks or pours firepower into weaker underside, destroying it with ease.

**Grey Templar**

thegreatchimp wrote:

-At long range the AT-AT hammers it with heavy firepower while only taking some minor damage because of its heavier armour.

Assuming of course there is nothing to provide cover to the Dreadnought. If the battlefield is anything besides completely flat the AT-AT always will lose.

**Happyjew**

Oh, I thought he was asking about the AT-ST, in which case it's more like asking about a dreadnought vs an IG Scout Sentinel.

**thegreatchimp**

Grey Templar wrote:

Assuming of course there is nothing to provide cover to the Dreadnought. If the battlefield is anything besides completely flat the AT-AT always will lose.

At long range my money would be on the AT-AT, unless their was a serious amount of cover for the dread to close the distance with. Those walkers can pump out a good rate of powerful shots and imperial gunners are no slouches -they didn't attend the same school of gunnery as the stormtroopers it would seem!

**asorel**

thegreatchimp wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Assuming of course there is nothing to provide cover to the Dreadnought. If the battlefield is anything besides completely flat the AT-AT always will lose.

At long range my money would be on the AT-AT, unless their was a serious amount of cover for the dread to close the distance with. Those walkers can pump out a good rate of powerful shots and imperial gunners are no slouches -they didn't attend the same school of gunnery as the stormtroopers it would seem!

Except its only guns are on the head, and those walkers turn like glaciers. If the dreadnought has any sort of cover, it can circle around the back of the AT-AT, then plink away at the side and rear armor without being disturbed.

**Bobthehero**

Eh, there's a scene during Hoth battle where an AT-AT managed to track and shoot a snowspeeder out of the air with not much issues. And its not like Dreadnaught are speedsters, either.

**asorel**

Bobthehero wrote:
Eh, there's a scene during Hoth battle where an AT-AT managed to track and shoot a snowspeeder out of the air with not much issues. And its not like Dreadnaught are speedsters, either.

I stand corrected then. It's been a while since I last watched Empire. However, can you recall if it was just the neck moving, or was the transport as a whole rotating?
As for Dreadnoughts, they walk at least as fast as infantry, and can pivot 180° on the spot to meet oncoming opponents charging into combat. Yes, I know I'm using game mechanics in a fluff discussion, but I think these are enough to show that dreadnoughts are at least somewhat nimble.

**Bobthehero**

Neck moving, still, trying to dance around the AT-AT is suicide if you try to do so while its facing you.

**asorel**

Bobthehero wrote:
Neck moving, still, trying to dance around the AT-AT is suicide if you try to do so while its facing you.

No more suicidal than standing still in front of it, I'd wager. As stated before, the outcome of this fight is reliant almost entirely on the presence of cover and engagement range. If the Dreadnought can reliably avoid fire long enough to get out of the neck's arc (which I'd estimate is 45 degrees each way), the AT-AT is finished. If the dread is on an open plane, or far enough away that it would take more than one or two solid hits from the AT-AT before completing the maneuver, the dreadnought is finished. The dreadnought has better accuracy, and the AT-AT better armored, but the encounter is so binary neither of these factors come into play.

**Psienesis**

AT-AT has a D-Strength Stomp.

Spoiler:

**thegreatchimp**

asorel wrote:

Except its only guns are on the head, and those walkers turn like glaciers. If the dreadnought has any sort of cover, it can circle around the back of the AT-AT, then plink away at the side and rear armor without being disturbed.

If the dread had a pretty continuous row of buildings, high walls, trees or other serious cover then it could do that. Otherwise the AT-AT just holds fire until then and then lets rip once it becomes visible. Also worth considering is AT-AT's have a surprisingly high end speed (60kph) so if I was being outmaneuvered I'd put her into full speed reverse to keep thedistance open, all the time blasting away.

**Mr Morden**

There are rules for Star Wars conventional forces in 40k

Not GW but a former GW employee

I would have thought that the AT-AT would be matched against a Stompa, Imperial Knight, the new Tau giant suit - sorry "creature" ? Maybe a Warhound Titan........... Don't ATAT's have some sort of shields?

**Grey Templar**

Nope, no shielding on AT-ATs. They just have relatively thick armor, for Star Wars anyway.

Their design is completely impractical. They're slow, cannot turn even remotely fast, their cockpit is completely exposed, and their weaponry can only fire forward.

Even the worst maneuverability numbers for 40k Titans are far superior to an AT-AT. They can at least turn quickly and have weapons that can fire in every direction.

**Martel732**

Everything in Star Wars, much like 40K is design to look cool and not for practicality. It's cool to shoot hypen lasers, even though a sub machine gun is better firepower. It's cool to dress your mook in white armor, even though that armor does nothing, even against primitives the size of human children. Trying to analyze such a genre in good faith is impossible. It's whatever the author of that particular story says it is. This is why something like Bablylon 5 is consistent: one main author.