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.

I was reading my Wolves 'dex this morning, and I noticed that it doesn't just claim that Fenris is dangerous, but that it is in the top three dangerous worlds in the Imperium.
I think one of the others is Catachan, but do we have any solid answer as to what the other two contenders are?

Doesn't make sense I have seen death worlds that were really dangerous. Does it not count them?

EDIT FOUND THIS"

Ok 3 most deadly that are inhabited by humanity.

"A planet of fire and ice, dominated by extremes of climate, Fenris is listed in the Apocrypha of Skaros as one of the three most deadly and turbulent worlds inhabited by humanity in the Milky Way Galaxy."

Karrik is supposed to be high up. They have a list of death worlds:

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Death_World

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Categoryeath_World

 Mythra wrote:


http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Categoryeath_World

Appropriate.

Karrik seems to have nothing going for it, so I'm willing to bet that it's up there.

What about Gas giants? These are planets with winds up to 2000 Mph. These are planets with liquids under so much pressure that they ACT AS A METAL. There are Storms there so massive that it's larger than Terra itself. Compared to the likes of Jupiter or Saturn Fenris is a veritable paradise world.

Unless we are talking about the worst of the worst when it comes to technically habitable terrestrial worlds. Then yes, I would think Fenris would rank up there though I think Catachan is worse.

Krieg. An irradiated, isotope soaked wasteland that will kill anyone who walks upon it's surface without suitable protection. Can't get deadlier than that - just one minor fault with the protective kit, or rip in material of your protective clothing, and you're dead. The planet makes Sarin look like a flu vaccination.

Have to say krieg, one mistake in your NBC gear and your dead.

Yeah, these world have to be inhabitable, even if only slightly.
Otherwise you could have every uninhabitable world in the universen, and that just not as much fun

Any active or at the brink to be active tomb world.

Not saying they are the deadliest, but I think the Flesh Tearers live on a relatively nasty planet, I think they have dinosaurs on it?

The planet the Raptors company were trapped on also.

Oh, daemon worlds.

 Small, Far Away wrote:
Yeah, these world have to be inhabitable, even if only slightly.
Otherwise you could have every uninhabitable world in the universen, and that just not as much fun

Whilst the surface of Krieg is certainly not habitable, the ecosystem having been wiped out during the 500 year civil war, the populace live beneath the surface in subterranean cities and complexes. The surface of Krieg is used for training Death Korps regiments*, especially when regiments are completing their training and engage in live-fire exercises and mock battles amongst the blasted ruins of what were once the proud towns, cities and hives of Krieg. The planets surface is a metaphor for the worst battlefields of the Great War, in terms of conditions - often in 'No Mans Land' amidst the shell craters and mud, would be the sparse remains of villages or buildings, blasted apart by artillery and pock-marked by bullets. The radiated surface of Krieg represents the chemical weapons used during the Great War, the first time purpose-engineered chemical weapons were used in modern warfare.

*By decree of the High Lords of Terra, Krieg can request anything it needs to continue churning out it's famed regiments of the Death Korps.

The Fenris fluff, much like most of the SW fluff is dumb. A planet in a highly elipitical orbit would not sustain much life.

The planet would be frozen when far from the sun. When it comes in the ice would start to melt, but by the time it reached it's closest to the sun, the ice would not have yet completely melted, not until it past the sun and was heading out would the full thawing effect take place and by then the light from the sun would not be strong enough to grow much algea or plankton. The planet wouldnt freeze solid until it was rather far from the sun.

Water takes a long time to heat up and a long time to cool.

A planet with less water would have more violent tempurature extremes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Small, Far Away wrote:
I was reading my Wolves 'dex this morning, and I noticed that it doesn't just claim that Fenris is dangerous, but that it is in the top three dangerous worlds in the Imperium.
I think one of the others is Catachan, but do we have any solid answer as to what the other two contenders are?

I suppose it is best to consider worlds that are naturally inhabitable. Not those that are so choked with pollution and or nuclear waste that nothing can live on them without technology.

Catachan and Fenris might be the most deadly planets that if they were uninhabbited and had no buildings on, some colonists might say "yeah lets give it a shot"

If Krieg or Mars or whatever didnt have any people on it, didnt have any buildings or technology, and didnt have any minerals inside it, humans would just not bother trying to live on it.

Yeah, I think that Fenris ranks up there because the Apocrypha of Skaros is using 'inhabited' to mean "habitable by humans without dedicated life support gear". That's not to cast any aspersions on Fenrisians for being insanely tough.

It's just that given the right life support systems, humans could live in places that are totally 'uninhabitable' by humans otherwise, like planets with no atmosphere, poisonous or radioactive atmospheres, etc. There's clearly tons of planets deadlier than Fenris (say, planets very near their star), but those planets don't fit the 'habitable' label in the way they are using it.

My own personal, idosyncratic way of thinking of it is:

1)If you dropped one of my neighbors on this planet right now, would they immediately start to die? If not, it's habitable.

2)How quickly would they die horribly from something (not starving or being too cold)? Least amount time is the winner.

I could see some poor normal human stepping out on Fenris, shivering and clutching their arms. Then I could see some huge icebeast eat them.

Torvendis. It got angry and ate itself.

I vote dinosaurs. 'cause dinosaurs.

Deadlier are the planets with dinosaurs with lasers.

Cacthan and Fenris is certanliy the most know death worlds, but I suppose any death world or world like Krieg will in the end prove to be just as deadly as the two mentioned.

I would hazard Catachan, Fenris, Cadia.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
I would hazard Catachan, Fenris, Cadia.

Cadia as far as I know isn't a death world that is inheriantly dangerous. it's just dangerous because of it's neighbors

Catachan is generally touted as the purest Death World in the Imperium. A planet where every plant and animal is seeking to kill you in some kind of horrible fashion. This is all just a naturally occurring course of evolution on the planet. Krieg might be deadly but that was man made. A planet that is in the midst of a Tyranid or Chaos invasion is a horrible place to be but that's outside forces. Catachan is nature left to run wild.