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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Damn - forgot the sensors.

Just because they state something happens at 2AU does not mean it was receieved immediately. FOr example we have radar that can detect objects at 2 AU away, and any report we gave would "look" exactly the same as that report.

Until you find something indicating this real space sensing is faster than light (apart from psyker noting the entry of a fleet - and chaos fleets "look" substantially different when they enter - a lack of geller fields meaning the rift distortion is less, for a start ) you are assumed to have c-class sensors.

Why are sensors assumed to be light-speed? My assumption would be exactly the opposite; I would assume that all highly advanced space-faring empires with FTL travel capacity also have FTL sensor capacity.

Also, no, I don't think any report we gave from radar would look like that report. For one thing, the level of detail is, IMO, too high to be dependent on the kind of detection equipment we have now.

For another thing, instantaneous sensors are actually required for effective space combat on the scale BFG and BL novels show.

A light-speed return on an object two AUs away would be subject to a delay of 499 seconds. In those 499 seconds, the ships that were detected, moving at .75 c, will move 0.74 AUs, or more than a third of the distance between the two fleets. They'll be sending off more returns as they close in, which returns will almost certainly overlap with each other and give the impression that the attacking vessels are moving at an unpredictable but much faster speed. See the problem?

Also, if Imperial ships were equipped only with light-speed sensors, they could never bring their weapons to bear.
Remember, Imperial ships engage at ranges up to 120,000 km, which is nearly half a light-second, and occasionally up to 200,000 km, which is almost a whole light-second. If equipped with light-speed sensors, they cannot actually ever target an enemy ship, because they are never seeing where it is, only where it was a second ago. With ships moving at .75 c, that's not good enough.

The Imperium HAS to have FTL sensors, because they fight at such ranges and such speed that it's flatly impossible without them. If the Imperium didn't have light-speed sensors, Chaos tactics would be easy. Accelerate to something close to light-speed, blow past the Imperial fleet too fast for them to engage you, nuke planet. Rinse, repeat.

But they don't do that, and the only thing that could stop it is sensors that are good enough and ships that are fast enough to intercept in force and accurately shoot down enemy ships unless they turn to engage.

Bezerker - for two reasons:

1) Their mode of FTL travel isnt actually "FTL"per se - they drop into another dimension where either the distance map to our universe is ssmaller OR intrinsic velocity is much higher, therefore dont find a way around the "c" speed limit of our universe

2) Their modes of communication are not FTL - as again they exploit the Warp*

While trek ships also fall foul of (1), in that they cheat by compressing space/time and not by moving any faster, they DO have FTL comms and DO have FTL sensors - subspace, which is ddescribed as a dimension of normal space.

You dont think our radar equipment, which can spot and accurately plot the course of a supersonic missile (see type-45 destroyers) in time to intercept it (over horizon time means <10 seconds warning) would struggle to accurately plot the speed and course of a 10km ship radiating MASSIVE amounts of energy? Really?

Instantaneous sensors are NOT required for that level of space conflict - have a look at the Praxis novels for some very good examples of space battels with many ships all conducted using light speed sensors, all using current physics - you have many ways to gain data.

You have already quoted that the ranges are up to 100k km effective - or a 1/3rd of a second light delay. You can easily compensate for this, mainly because *gasp* the ships do not have Interia supression meaning they cannot change their relative positions with ease - their absolute veloicities are known. SO you do what is shown in BFG - you bracket the ships possible flight cone with ordnance. This is backed up in the fluff - why do you think broadsides are so popular a tactic?

Your "problem" is false - the doppler effect tells you how fast the ships are moving, you can plot their course quite easily....

And finally: because the assumption is the simplest, using Occams razor. They have no written method of FTL sensors (find fluff *stating* otherwise) therefore they do not.

*Brotherhood of Snake and other novels where they mention "emergency" signals which are sent out when no astropath is present - they are described as taking years to get to nearby systems. So, thatd be radio then, good old plain radio...if they had sensors (which you can necessarily modulate to communicate with, this is a byproduct of the tech) that operated at FTL speeds without the aid of a Apath dont you think they would be in use?

@andrewC the same 64 mton torps usually dont kill bird of presy ships the size of 40k bombers. it usually takes 2 torps to kill a bird of prey with 3 or 4 for a galaxy sized ship.
Now a escort destroyer or frigate is signifactly larger then either a bird of prey or a galaxy class. a cruiser is 3-5km long being composed of that same admantite weighing millions of tons to billions of tons. These same cruisers have survived taking 40k torps exploding inside them and still kept fighting but are gutted by a 64 megaton blast that cant even destroy a vird of prey?

As for Cannon Gw offical wording on cannon is anything and everything writen in the fluff context is cannon period nothing has ever been or will be retcon. As 40k galaxy is a big place and differrent discriptions of event may come from different observers.

Thus all 12 of the GEOM V Horus throw down descriptions are equally valid. The Horus heresay black library books gaunt ghosts etc are as valid as the fluff snipets from rt tim to 2nd, 3rd, 4th or the current 5th.

@ Nosferatu1001
Your stating that a torp is 690 gton of damage means abosolutly nothing, Your stating 300km range of a torp means nothing, Your assumptions about what 40k does and does not have means nothing in this debate beyond it being your own assumption.

In the same Instance I can say a space marine can fly from one end of the galaxy to the next in the blink of an eye can survive a trip through an event horizon and his farts blow up stars. That does not make it accurate.

You need to post proof dialog/clips etc that show thye have 690 gton torps, that they have such ranges, that they fight at warp speed. From the battles we have seen they do not fight at warp speed I can post a dozen clips showing that. the trek Cannon manual states yeilds of 64 megaton. you have to disprove that.

For the 40k quote I have show proof of the ftl sensors just because you do not beleive they exist again means nothing with out the proof see above showing that those are wrong.

Other wise your aregument are your oppinion and not fact and in truth mean nothing when it comes to the burden of proof thats required in this type of debate.

C'mon guys... the IoM defense seems to rest upon:

1. IoM weapons are stupendously powerful. There are lots of them. UFP weapons are irrelavent to the discussion since...

2. IoM ships have magic shields with unknown absorptive properties which may, or may not stop projectiles as they are known to both admit AND repel projectiles and fighers. I also have magic armor of unknown defensive properties which may, or may not compose up to 10% of the ship's volume.

3. The UFP may not use any abilities that weren't shown in the show. And by that, I mean if it wasn't shown in ToS, TNG or DS9, it can't be used as VOY's figures are "clearly skewed un unrealistic". Technical manuals and paperback fiction are considered non-canon. Adapting new solutions through synthesis of canon technolgy is inadmissable. Expansion of existing solutions is disallowed due to "logistical issues". Superweapons / devices present in canon are inadmissable due to treaty requirements or the "one-off" aspect of the device. The IoM on the other hand, is assumed to have no logistical problems and can easily mobilize and combine system level fleets, are considered to have reliable FTL and communications, infinite supply train, and manpower who's singularity of purpose is unfettered by politics, religions dogma, bureaucracy or infighting. In-game materials for IoM are not considered canon due to "simplification" of power levels - and are as such inadmissable. Figures from the accompanying paperback fiction are considered the most hyperbole-free and accurate.

While the UFP may have never stood a chance, the playing field appears ridiculously slanted.

keessuz show the proof to support the assumption thats how debates work. I can post several quotes showing 40k durability and firepower. Ive show quotes for everything else including firepower.

so far the only thing we have for trek is alot os I thinks with no evidence to support the i thinks. show the visual evidence or dialog that over rules the TNG, D9 and Voyager manuels that stae 64 megatons.

xiophen42 wrote:@andrewC the same 64 mton torps usually dont kill bird of presy ships the size of 40k bombers. it usually takes 2 torps to kill a bird of prey with 3 or 4 for a galaxy sized ship.
Now a escort destroyer or frigate is signifactly larger then either a bird of prey or a galaxy class. a cruiser is 3-5km long being composed of that same admantite weighing millions of tons to billions of tons. These same cruisers have survived taking 40k torps exploding inside them and still kept fighting but are gutted by a 64 megaton blast that cant even destroy a vird of prey?

As for Cannon Gw offical wording on cannon is anything and everything writen in the fluff context is cannon period nothing has ever been or will be retcon. As 40k galaxy is a big place and differrent discriptions of event may come from different observers.

Thus all 12 of the GEOM V Horus throw down descriptions are equally valid. The Horus heresay black library books gaunt ghosts etc are as valid as the fluff snipets from rt tim to 2nd, 3rd, 4th or the current 5th.

@ Nosferatu1001
Your stating that a torp is 690 gton of damage means abosolutly nothing, Your stating 300km range of a torp means nothing, Your assumptions about what 40k does and does not have means nothing in this debate beyond it being your own assumption.

In the same Instance I can say a space marine can fly from one end of the galaxy to the next in the blink of an eye can survive a trip through an event horizon and his farts blow up stars. That does not make it accurate.

You need to post proof dialog/clips etc that show thye have 690 gton torps, that they have such ranges, that they fight at warp speed. From the battles we have seen they do not fight at warp speed I can post a dozen clips showing that. the trek Cannon manual states yeilds of 64 megaton. you have to disprove that.

For the 40k quote I have show proof of the ftl sensors just because you do not beleive they exist again means nothing with out the proof see above showing that those are wrong.

Other wise your aregument are your oppinion and not fact and in truth mean nothing when it comes to the burden of proof thats required in this type of debate.

Hmmm...

A 64MT blast within an enclosed environment, with no entrance or exit holes will be concentrated along the axis of least resistance, in this case internal bulkheads. All the blast will be concentrated in this manner whereas anything penetrating the hull will have a handy blowout valve back through the hull. As an aside, there is no offical statement that a Class 6 Photon Torp has a yield of 64mt, that is an extrapolation from outside canon.

Could you provide a link to official GW canon policy? As for nothing ever being retconned, I wouldn't be surprised because it was never accepted as being official in the first place. And timelines have been retconned numerous times so far, a search of this forum would show some of the headscratching over the recent IG book.

Cheers

Andrew

xiophen42 wrote:keessuz show the proof to support the assumption thats how debates work. I can post several quotes showing 40k durability and firepower. Ive show quotes for everything else including firepower.

Oh - That's not the issue. The main issue is which materials one chooses to alow as admissable. In my opinion, between the rulebooks, comics and novel series, great liberties have been taken by the writers in terms of firepower, durability and size of the Imperium's equipment.

Example: The fiction indicates that a Thunderbolt can sustain multiple lascannon HITS without being destroyed. On the other hand, as an AV10 flier with no structure points, it would be lucky to survive more than one. It also begs the question why the Imperium would use AUTOCANNONS on their main AA tanks when LASCANNONS are so ineffective.

Example: A single lance strike is considered have "continent destroying power". By continent destroying, does that mean "vaporizing x tons of rock" or does it mean "render uninhabitable"? What size continent? Let's not even talk about the puny blast that counts as a lance strike in the 40k game. Even the "apocalypse" lance strike is positievely puny in comparison to what everyone is considering canon. This also causes problems as a lot of 40k durability is back-calculated from how many attacks the defender can sustain.

Example: Imperial capital ships seem to slide around the 5-15km range for length. Its possible that they are detailing different classes, but this is a noted problem.

I would like to see the durability of Adamantium and Void Shields quantified however. Most arguements for the former end with "It's really dense and thick." where as the arguements for the latter usually doesn't go beyond "but it can't get past the void shields".

Nosferatu: At my last check, I think GW's canon policy is that anything they or one of their affiliates (e.g. Forge World, Black Library) publishes counts as canon.

Additionally, you can not simply disregard the opinion of Paramount when it comes to canon either. The parent organization is the organization that decides what is truly part of their universe, and what is not. If you ignore the standard canon practices, the very definition of what is Star Trek, and what is not is lost. Since none of us would likely be able to agree on a canon policy that is fair, we must instead rely on what Paramount's policy is when it comes to canon. If we can not all agree to one standard canon policy for both universes, there is no point to this debate.

And even if you do not support the canon policy, you have to view it from a completely in universe perspective. You can not say the writers did something for dramatic tension because as far as the people within that universe are concerned, there ARE no writers. There is only them, their beliefs and an enemy trying to destroy everything they cherish. I doubt they would sacrifice tactical efficiency for dramatic tension.

Finally, your point that the maneuverability of Star Trek ships is what causes fleet engagements to occur at such close ranges? I point out nearly every single fleet battle that occurs in DS9. Even when the Dominion and Cardassian ships are practically standing still in their formation, Federation vessels close in to near point blank ranger before opening fire. If the problem with firing from extreme range in ST fleet combat is the maneuverability of your opponent, why did the Federation not fire at the massed Dominion and Cardassian ships from far away? Why did the fleet in First Contact not fire on the Borg cube from a distance away? A Borg cube isn't exactly a very manuverable or difficult target, but Starfleet closed to point blank before firing nonetheless. This implies that they simply can not engage in combat for some reason at long range, and will be forced to close to ~5 km before opening fire.

Edit: keezus, i do believe GW has stated that the rules for 40k have been modified so that all the game's factions are roughly equal. In essence, the rules aren't canon, but all the fluff is.

keezus wrote:

xiophen42 wrote:keessuz show the proof to support the assumption thats how debates work. I can post several quotes showing 40k durability and firepower. Ive show quotes for everything else including firepower.

Oh - That's not the issue. The main issue is which materials one chooses to alow as admissable. In my opinion, between the rulebooks, comics and novel series, great liberties have been taken by the writers in terms of firepower, durability and size of the Imperium's equipment.

Example: The fiction indicates that a Thunderbolt can sustain multiple lascannon HITS without being destroyed. On the other hand, as an AV10 flier with no structure points, it would be lucky to survive more than one. It also begs the question why the Imperium would use AUTOCANNONS on their main AA tanks when LASCANNONS are so ineffective.

Example: A single lance strike is considered have "continent destroying power". By continent destroying, does that mean "vaporizing x tons of rock" or does it mean "render uninhabitable"? What size continent? Let's not even talk about the puny blast that counts as a lance strike in the 40k game. Even the "apocalypse" lance strike is positievely puny in comparison to what everyone is considering canon. This also causes problems as a lot of 40k durability is back-calculated from how many attacks the defender can sustain.

Example: Imperial capital ships seem to slide around the 5-15km range for length. Its possible that they are detailing different classes, but this is a noted problem.

I would like to see the durability of Adamantium and Void Shields quantified however. Most arguements for the former end with "It's really dense and thick." where as the arguements for the latter usually doesn't go beyond "but it can't get past the void shields".

for these its best to note use direct rules quotes as the games rules are desinged to be fair for everyone. Normally rfluff pieces from any of the above that you meantioned is fine. which I why my quotes only referenced direct material from a book or a fluff piece from a rule book. As far as it goes again Gw states any and all of the fluff details *not rules* are cannon Rules ie the av 10 does not really work as its written to make game fair when in truth thunderbolt is much more demonstratable.

As far as the quotes go BL books normally give good descriptions. a given example from Executioner Hour we have the bombarment cannon being escribed as shooting magma bombs at 14 the speed of light. when you cross reference that the magma bombs barrel is 50m in hieght provided from Warriors of Ultimar you can extrabilate the power of the direct impact from the magma bomb which then describes its raidial blast radius as destroying several chaos raiders wighing the the 100,00 of thousands of tons.

Or the description of the Caves of Ice bomardment where we know that the ice is 4Km in depenth and they have to punch through 4 km of bedrock then destroy a cron base. and that the wepaons used can destroy a continnet but more inportantly wipe out all life from the planet for generations. that can be equated. Ill post links to a site where someone broke down alot of 40k material to get power levels.

And of course we have the perverbial space hulk quote with the 610 gton torp. You can extrapolate alot from the quote as torps are considered some of the weaker weaopons and the armor survives imopacts with multiple torps from fluff description of battles.

from that we get an idea of armor strength as well as sheild strength so on and so forth. For trek their cannon is any of their technical manuals and thier tv shows and movies. the Eu from what i understand is not cannon.

Andrew C: I understand and all the problem being as I meantioned we have visual evidence that trekships can survive normal torps hit un shielded. I'll dig up the quote detailing the example where we have the 40k torp exploding inside the armor belt and still fighting. I agree with you that a hell of an explosion done inside an enclosed space.

Ill try to find the quote for the cannon policy again when Im home not at work.

You should indeed use BFG rules and fluff withint the BFG game codex as a start. BFG rules aren't nearly as mamby pamby as 40K.

Else you have to throw out the TV series portion s that are wanky, like all battles occurring in a bathtub sized space, which is done for visual effect.

keezus wrote:C'mon guys... the IoM defense seems to rest upon:

1. IoM weapons are stupendously powerful. There are lots of them. UFP weapons are irrelavent to the discussion since...

2. IoM ships have magic shields with unknown absorptive properties which may, or may not stop projectiles as they are known to both admit AND repel projectiles and fighers. I also have magic armor of unknown defensive properties which may, or may not compose up to 10% of the ship's volume.

3. The UFP may not use any abilities that weren't shown in the show. And by that, I mean if it wasn't shown in ToS, TNG or DS9, it can't be used as VOY's figures are "clearly skewed un unrealistic". Technical manuals and paperback fiction are considered non-canon. Adapting new solutions through synthesis of canon technolgy is inadmissable. Expansion of existing solutions is disallowed due to "logistical issues". Superweapons / devices present in canon are inadmissable due to treaty requirements or the "one-off" aspect of the device. The IoM on the other hand, is assumed to have no logistical problems and can easily mobilize and combine system level fleets, are considered to have reliable FTL and communications, infinite supply train, and manpower who's singularity of purpose is unfettered by politics, religions dogma, bureaucracy or infighting. In-game materials for IoM are not considered canon due to "simplification" of power levels - and are as such inadmissable. Figures from the accompanying paperback fiction are considered the most hyperbole-free and accurate.

While the UFP may have never stood a chance, the playing field appears ridiculously slanted.

Q... F... T... !!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xiophen42 wrote:keessuz show the proof to support the assumption that's how debates work. I can post several quotes showing 40k durability and firepower. Ive show quotes for everything else including firepower.

so far the only thing we have for IoM is a lot of I thinks with no evidence to support the i thinks.

Fixed that for you buddy

And the thread degenerates into more "LALALALAL FTL LALALALAL FTL YOU CANT TOUCH ME LALALALALA". Several orders of magnitude more ships, resources and manpower trump this little limerick, so you can raise the flag all you want but no one cares.

Havoc13 wrote:

keezus wrote:C'mon guys... the IoM defense seems to rest upon:

1. IoM weapons are stupendously powerful. There are lots of them. UFP weapons are irrelavent to the discussion since...

2. IoM ships have magic shields with unknown absorptive properties which may, or may not stop projectiles as they are known to both admit AND repel projectiles and fighers. I also have magic armor of unknown defensive properties which may, or may not compose up to 10% of the ship's volume.

3. The UFP may not use any abilities that weren't shown in the show. And by that, I mean if it wasn't shown in ToS, TNG or DS9, it can't be used as VOY's figures are "clearly skewed un unrealistic". Technical manuals and paperback fiction are considered non-canon. Adapting new solutions through synthesis of canon technolgy is inadmissable. Expansion of existing solutions is disallowed due to "logistical issues". Superweapons / devices present in canon are inadmissable due to treaty requirements or the "one-off" aspect of the device. The IoM on the other hand, is assumed to have no logistical problems and can easily mobilize and combine system level fleets, are considered to have reliable FTL and communications, infinite supply train, and manpower who's singularity of purpose is unfettered by politics, religions dogma, bureaucracy or infighting. In-game materials for IoM are not considered canon due to "simplification" of power levels - and are as such inadmissable. Figures from the accompanying paperback fiction are considered the most hyperbole-free and accurate.

While the UFP may have never stood a chance, the playing field appears ridiculously slanted.

Q... F... T... !!!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

xiophen42 wrote:keessuz show the proof to support the assumption that's how debates work. I can post several quotes showing 40k durability and firepower. Ive show quotes for everything else including firepower.

so far the only thing we have for IoM is a lot of I thinks with no evidence to support the i thinks.

Fixed that for you buddy

This would have been so funny and so work if it had been true dude. Go read my posts you will see a wealth of quotes that actually display detailed infromation about all the subjects thats been discussed so far. How about you try again and actually contribute something to the conversation instead of being a troll.

Again for the Trek stuff Im more then willing to discuss improvements if you can provide some proof to support your assumptions. other wise dont make my space marine fart in your direction I wouldn't want to destroy the sun.

Havoc13 wrote:

keezus wrote:C'mon guys... the IoM defense seems to rest upon:

1. IoM weapons are stupendously powerful. There are lots of them. UFP weapons are irrelavent to the discussion since...

2. IoM ships have magic shields with unknown absorptive properties which may, or may not stop projectiles as they are known to both admit AND repel projectiles and fighers. I also have magic armor of unknown defensive properties which may, or may not compose up to 10% of the ship's volume.

3. The UFP may not use any abilities that weren't shown in the show. And by that, I mean if it wasn't shown in ToS, TNG or DS9, it can't be used as VOY's figures are "clearly skewed un unrealistic". Technical manuals and paperback fiction are considered non-canon. Adapting new solutions through synthesis of canon technolgy is inadmissable. Expansion of existing solutions is disallowed due to "logistical issues". Superweapons / devices present in canon are inadmissable due to treaty requirements or the "one-off" aspect of the device. The IoM on the other hand, is assumed to have no logistical problems and can easily mobilize and combine system level fleets, are considered to have reliable FTL and communications, infinite supply train, and manpower who's singularity of purpose is unfettered by politics, religions dogma, bureaucracy or infighting. In-game materials for IoM are not considered canon due to "simplification" of power levels - and are as such inadmissable. Figures from the accompanying paperback fiction are considered the most hyperbole-free and accurate.

While the UFP may have never stood a chance, the playing field appears ridiculously slanted.

Q... F... T... !!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xiophen42 wrote:keessuz show the proof to support the assumption that's how debates work. I can post several quotes showing 40k durability and firepower. Ive show quotes for everything else including firepower.

so far the only thing we have for IoM is a lot of I thinks with no evidence to support the i thinks.

Fixed that for you buddy

In both threads you have been aggresive and demeaning without providing proof of your own.

Klawz wrote:


Fixed that for you buddy

In both threads you have been aggresive and demeaning without providing proof of your own.

Havoc13 wrote:

Klawz wrote:
In both threads you have been aggresive and demeaning without providing proof of your own.

Incorrect, but you can believe what you want.

Did you read the thing I quoted? I have yet to see you provide any proof for what you say.

You know, I just re-read the OP, and much to my chagrin (and equal amount of amusement), I've realized the last 16 pages are all off-topic drivel.

ChrisWWII wrote:
What I was more interested in is discussion over how the Imperium would react to finding their ancient brethren. Right now, I'm thinking the fact that the Feds concert with filthy Xenos would be enough reason for the Imps to declare them heretics and purge the entire organization in the name of the God-Emperor, but of course....I could be wrong. What does dakka think?

And also, I can't resist asking this.....I almost think it's a tradition for people writing 40k crossover fanfic, but.....which Trek characters have the potential to be the God-Emperor of Mankind Himself?

I think whether the Imperium falls back on the whole "EXTERMINATE THE XENOS" mode would depend on the pragmatism of the ship captain in charge, as well as the size of the Imperial fleet that got warp-shot into the past, and the size of the Federation fleet they encounter. They could well mistake the sleek Federation ships for some Eldar nonsense and just open fire. Of course, if it's a typical Trek encounter with just one Federation ship, the conversation would go something like the brief exchange you posted a little while ago.

"IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND SUBMIT TO THE LIGHT OF THE EMPEROR!"
"Emperor? You must be mistaken, this is the USS Enterprise of the ..."
"FIRE ALL LANCE BATTERIES! PURGE THE HERETIC, THE XENOS, AND THE MUTANT!"
"*blargh*"

In case of just one or two Imperial ships coming across said Federation vessel, and they are damaged by the trip, they may well play along until they can enact repairs and gauge the enemy's strengths and weaknesses.

As for who would be God Emperor, I'm not sure. Wesley? If I had to pick one of the captains, it'd be Picard, the consummate officer. Q would make a good Cegorach.

This is still going on? Wow.

xiophen42 wrote:And of course we have the perverbial space hulk quote with the 610 gton torp. You can extrapolate alot from the quote as torps are considered some of the weaker weaopons and the armor survives imopacts with multiple torps from fluff description of battles.

Therein lies my main contention that there is not enough information to quantify how durable IoM armour is. What is multiple torpedoes? What is "survives"?

There's a Chinese proverb where in an arms merchant is trying to sell weapons. He first touts his spear as the best spear there is, capable of piercing any armor. When there are no buyers, he turns around and touts his shield as being inpenetrable. A shrewd customer suggests using his spear on his shield to verify the claims. The issue I'm having with all the IoM explanations is that they try to suck and blow at the same time.

Let's talk the IoM torpedoes as a measure of IoM armor for a moment here:

Here's undisputed information regarding IoM torpedoes.

1. The yield values of IoM torpedoes are huge. These yield values are imprecisely calculated from observing their effects. I say imprecisely since the descriptions of their effects are imprecise themselves, and there is a bit of variability in their yields. The fact that they can mount differing warheads also complicates the issue - regardless, the effects are enormous. There is no arguement of that.
2. It is known that torpedoes are fired in broadsides numbering in the 100s and capital ships carry ludicrous numbers (possibly greater than 10's of 1000s) of torpedoes in reserve.

As you stated, it is known that IoM ships can be hit by "multiple" (more than 1?) torpedoes and "survive". Considering that IoM ships can take damage from lances and also survive (albiet with damage) this would suggest that torpedoes, which are many magnitudes weaker should be able to barely scratch the paint on an IoM ship. Unfortunately, it is also known that IoM ships can eventually be destroyed by sustained torpedo attack. There is of course, no definitive description as to what kind of damage is caused, nor is there any indication as to what stages the ship goes through transitioning from "minimal damage" to "destroyed" by cumulative torpedo damage. The armor cant' be so good as to only resist lance damage only to be "destroyed" by cumulative hits from weapons magnitudes (1000's of times) weaker.

The armour can only be "awesome" or "not as awesome as thought". There's the arguement that maybe it was a lucky hit in an unarmored quarter from a torpedo that sunk the ship - however, if you stick with the "awesome" armor arguement and you consider that in WW2, the Bismark had her upper works completely annihilated but was not in danger of sinking - I doubt the destruction of all unarmored surface areas of the ship shouldn't be enough to completely destroy her.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Omegus wrote:
"IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND SUBMIT TO THE LIGHT OF THE EMPEROR!"
"Emperor? You must be mistaken, this is the USS Enterprise of the ..."
"FIRE ALL LANCE BATTERIES! PURGE THE HERETIC, THE XENOS, AND THE MUTANT!"
"*blargh*"

I suspect that there'd be an immediate erruption of confusion on the bridge of the IoM ship once the occupants of the smaller ship were identified as human. The ecclesiarchy would want to convert them to the Imperial cult, the Naval commander would be non-commital, the Fleet Comissar would probably want to annihilate them, the Fleet Fabricator would want to commune with the human ship's machine spirit and search for STCs, and the Inquisition would want to question them and check them for the taint of Chaos. In the mean time, the UFP would be eating static and scanning their enormous ship.

Eventually, the circus on the bridge of the IoM ship would decide that they would demand that said human ship surrender and submit to the will of the Emperor and prepare to be boarded. The UFP would reply "No thank you!" and a red alert and shields up. If the blueshirt did his job, they'd be running for the hills as soon as sensors detected weapons charging.

I don't think there would be so much confusion, since not all of those people would be on the ship. An Inquisitor? Certainly not, because his decision would be the only one that matters; he would either be the fire and brimstone type that immediately annihilates the vessel, or he'd be the communicative Eisenhorn-type and would probably have a pleasant chat with Picard.

Fleet Fabricator? You mean Adeptus Mechanicus? They would not be on the same ship as an Inquisitor, and would have final authority on the ship. The Federation ships look nothing remotely like anything STC, so they would see it as heretical alien tech and issue the order to destroy.

There may be a preacher on board to tend to the faith of the crew, but he would not be part of the command structure.

So it would come down to Naval Commander and Fleet Commissar. A "meh" vote and a "killblarghyblargh!" = "killblarghyblargh!"

Omegus wrote:And the thread degenerates into more "LALALALAL FTL LALALALAL FTL YOU CANT TOUCH ME LALALALALA". Several orders of magnitude more ships, resources and manpower trump this little limerick, so you can raise the flag all you want but no one cares.

While in the broadest sense of the word that observation may be true, some of us are trying to find a common ground on which we can agree the rules of the game.

Cheers

Andrew

Omegus: Thank you very much. I originally tried to keep things on what I was interested in.....but I gave up on doing that after a while. I'm gonna be starting to post in Dakka Fiction soon.......hopefully I don't fail completely.

Frazzled: I'll agree to that. I actually haven't read the BFG rulebook, but from what I've heard it seems to be reasonable, and of course the fluff in the codexes is the best 1st source.

Keezus: I acknowledge that is a major weakness, but I think the point everyone has is that the lower limit for Imperial firepower and armor is still far above the amount necessary to annihilate the Starfleet.

Were talking about an imperial ship right?
Because i think the Federation ship would be confused as well.

ChrisWWII wrote:Keezus: I acknowledge that is a major weakness, but I think the point everyone has is that the lower limit for Imperial firepower and armor is still far above the amount necessary to annihilate the Starfleet.

Nobody is arguing that the firepower and armor is far above...

However without a proper frame of reference, no arguements can be made. In my mind, just saying "it's better" doesn't cut it, since it implies that the IoM higher level can never be surpassed by any means at the UFP's disposal. If that's the case, there's no point in debating, considering that the one side is already firmly entrenched in the mindset IoM can not be beat.

It's like everyone agreeing that Chuck Norris is the baddest man alive. Nobody disputes that his beard is harder than granite (but how much harder) and his roundhouse kick can reverse the orbit of a planet (but by how many degrees?). Pointing out that he roundhouse kicks his own face instead of shaving only indicates that his beard (and not his face) has less durability than his kicking power - which doesn't help at all. Without being able to quanitfy Chuck's statistics (impossible, I know), how can we determine how many Captain Americas it would take to match him in a fight?

You forget Bruce Lee beat Chuck norris.
So we are the end of this debate good! CLOSE THIS THREAD PLEASE!

keezus wrote: If that's the case, there's no point in debating, considering that the one side is already firmly entrenched in the mindset IoM can not be beat.

Haha, and then there's one guy firmly entrenched in the mindset that FTL = autowin.

"Firepower and armor is far above" is a minor part of it when you consider the difference in size and resources. It's like Argentina trying to take on 1970's Soviet Russia (and no SC jokes!).

And Chuck's beard isn't tough because it's made of granite, it's tough because his chin is another fist.

Then came bruce lee.

Ultimate Showdown of the Ultimate Destiny. 40k Edition.

ChrisWWII wrote:Ultimate Showdown of the Ultimate Destiny. 40k Edition.

xiophen42 wrote:@ Nosferatu1001
Your stating that a torp is 690 gton of damage means abosolutly nothing, Your stating 300km range of a torp means nothing, Your assumptions about what 40k does and does not have means nothing in this debate beyond it being your own assumption.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Do what you have been asked, politely, to do.

1) Go to the previous pages
2) Find the links and quotes that have been provided, many, many times, by myself and others
3) Read them

If you dont do that then you are simply a troll.

I'll give you a hint for the hard-of-reading: memory alpha and memory beta links. ANd quotes. Many of them. I will NOT repeat the same links just because you are too lazy or inconsiderate to spend the 5 minutes necessary to scan through the thread and find them, as that is doing your work for you.

xiophen42 wrote:In the same Instance I can say a space marine can fly from one end of the galaxy to the next in the blink of an eye can survive a trip through an event horizon and his farts blow up stars. That does not make it accurate.

No, it doesnt - except I (and many others, including a mod or 2) did provide proof, and did provide links. Your continued evasion on this matter isnt exactly convincing me you have read and understood anything.

[I also like how you have yet to acknowledge your maths errors, well done on that one!]

xiophen42 wrote:You need to post proof dialog/clips etc that show thye have 690 gton torps, that they have such ranges, that they fight at warp speed. From the battles we have seen they do not fight at warp speed I can post a dozen clips showing that. the trek Cannon manual states yeilds of 64 megaton. you have to disprove that.

SIgh. Your entire post was a waste of bytes wasnt it.

I cant be bothered to have you post yet another "show proof!!!!!" waste of space, so how about:

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Photon_torpedo

memory alpha, for the 90th time, because one poster couldnt be bothered to read the thread wrote:
A class-6 warhead in this type of torpedo had the explosive yield of 200 isotons. These torpedoes had an effective range of approximately 8 million kilometers

A class-10 torpedo could be armed with an even more powerful high yield warhead

Starfleet Technical manual, TNG wrote:Starfleet began developing two types of photon torpedoes starting in 2215, with the primary difficulty being the design of the warhead. The first type had the deuterium and antideuterium reactants driven together like in an implosion design nuclear weapon. This torpedo had a maximum range of 750,000 kilometers, as this was the stability limit of the containment field design. It had a low rate of annihilation, and was adequate as a defensive weapon only. The second type, which became operational in 2271 had the reactants mixed together in thousands of small magnetic packets. This increased the rate of annihilation. This type had an effective tactical range from fifteen kilometers to 3.5 million kilometers. (pg. 128, 130)

Woops! Guess you were wrong there!

showing the STANDARD PHSYICS calculation is 64MTons wrote:
By using standard physics calculations, a payload of 1.5 kilograms equals to about 64 megatons.

The second type, at maximum yield, achieves the level of destructive force of an antimatter pod rupture. Antimatter is stored as liquid or slush on starships. (pg. 69) Density of mere liquid antideuterium is around 160 kilograms per cubic meter. According to this comparison the high annihilation rate energy release would be comparable to about 690 gigatons. For the sake of plausibility the affected blast area at these intensities might be extremely small. Visual effects on-screen would seem to confirm this.

So the 64MTon yield you were talking about is only the "what we think would happen" yield, not the yield as stated.

xiophen42 wrote:For the 40k quote I have show proof of the ftl sensors just because you do not beleive they exist again means nothing with out the proof see above showing that those are wrong.

No, you havent, and I explained why (and how) this works - you have not shown sufficient proof to show an FTL capability, as I have shown how even our current tech would produce the same effects. In other words your "proof" is not persuasive - it is too full of "I assume this states this, so I will conclude as such" when the actual text does not support that assumption.

xiophen42 wrote:Other wise your aregument are your oppinion and not fact and in truth mean nothing when it comes to the burden of proof thats required in this type of debate.

Done and done, about 15 times before as well. Hopefully you can now take SOME initiative and, I dont know, actually read the rest of the thread?

Also your "proof" is laughable - you have NO comparators in your assumptions on armour and shields, no quantifiers on "damage" and "survives" as has been pointed out, and your "proof" of FTL comms ignores that the simpler argument also fits the situation precisely.

Omegus - I have NOT said "FTL is the win!" as it actually requires a combination of a number of factors, but FTL superiority (in terms of engaging objects from FTL into real space, not absolute speed before that tired chestnut appears again) is a key component of that.

Just the same as your IoM argument comes down to assumptions on Adamantium (you have no comparator to the real world re hardness/damage resistance/density), Void Shelds and their abilty to randomly stop what ever you decide tehy can stop (even though the fluff on void shields and how they operate is so inconsistent) and the fact that the IoM is apparently able to suddenly perfectly coordinate attacks over galactic quadrant distances, ignoring entirely the known variabilty and instability of the Warp and difficulties communicating reliably and with precision.

ChrisWWII - sorry but no, we can disregard the paramount position as they license books to use the franchise. Also they are not the creator, just a mere holder.

So by licensing the books they give tacit approval to the storylines - for example we know they maintain main-time-line control, so do exercise some control over story arcs. By simple extrapolation anything they permit they have agreed to and is de facto canon.

I have yet to see a GW "policy" on canon - if you could provide a link that would be useful? I know MANY people do not consider BL books as canon yet somehow in this thread they are? Why isnt BFG the only source of canon, given GW are a miniature company first and foremost?