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.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Last time this came up, no one was able to actually tell what GW publications say they're FUSION BASED. None of the BFG books do, nor any 40k books, or any RPG books. I think someone found a mention of a non-technical character in a BL book using the word fusion in relation to one, but that's just a case of a non-technical character using a technical word loosely. The thought process seems to be 'plasma is used in fusion reactors, therefore plasma reactors must be fusion reactors, but plasma reactors don't act like fusion reactors, therefore GW screwed up the terminology!' which is circular reasoning.

-sigh-

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Navy wrote:Reference: Ironclad
Ironclads, much like their contemporary Imperial Navy counterparts, the battleships, are vast 8-kilometre-long vessels which lack the void shielding of their battleship counterparts in favour of meters of adamantium plate armour. These warships, built before the advent of void-screen technology, have since been phased out of production by the Imperium, for the main part, to be replaced by more modern designs. However, those remaining in service have been recommissioned for a variety of purposes; various pattern ironclads may be retrofitted with gargantuan, ship-, station- and even planet-killer cannon running the entire length of the ship's keel, linked directly to the stern fusion reactors; others may simply be braced and reinforced for the purpose of ramming into - and through - enemy vessels.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Navy wrote:Torpedoes are long-range missiles carried by many Imperial Navy vessels. From ~60 feet (on destroyers) to ~200 feet (on cruisers) to ~300 feet (on battleships) in length, these weapons are powered by a fusion-based plasma reactor which also doubles as its warhead.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Navy wrote:Propulsion systems
Every Imperial starship is equipped with a fusion-based plasma drive for normal propulsion through the depths of space. Running up to a third of the ship's length, the aft section is a mass of drive tubes, engine compartments and plasma reactors.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Navy wrote:Sources:
Abnett, Dan (2005). Double Eagle. Nottingham: Black Library. ISBN 1-84416-090-4.
Rennie, Gordon (2001). Execution Hour. Nottingham: Black Library. ISBN 1-84154-142-7.
Chambers, Andy. Battlefleet Gothic Rulebook (PDF). Games Workshop. Retrieved on 2006-03-01.
Chambers, Andy; Johnson, Jervis, and Thorpe, Gav (2000). Warhammer 40,000 Codex: Armageddon, 1st Edition, Nottingham: Games Workshop. ISBN 1-84154-045-5.

keezus wrote:-sigh- http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Navy

*sigh* indeed, since I asked for GW sources, not 'some guy on the internet thinks'. A wiki is just user edited content, it's a nice guide to find things and often can provide correct information, but it's not a reliable source, and a wiki reference is essentially worthless for determining a question of specific wording, which is what this is. Last time this came up I dug through all of the BFG PDFs and couldn't find a single reference to the power plants as being fusion. A direct quote from a GW source would work, but a wiki page that lists multiple GW sources, at least one of which doesn't back your point, simply doesn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AndrewC wrote:It's not quite circular, but it is a better baseline than the "it works because we said so". There is no other description to go by, which causes a lot of the problems. You suggest that the generators hold open a conduit to the warp to access energy, but there is nothing there to support that assumption. It's not called a warp reactor is it?

No, 'they're fusion' it's a worse baseline than 'they do something that's not fusion', because it's obviously wrong and not actually supported by anything GW wrote. My suggestion comes from simply combining what GW has written (which provides the power levels) with real physics (you can't get that much energy from any real fuel), and concluding that the drive must be getting energy from some other source. "The warp" is simply a guess based on the fact that a lot of unexplained things in 40k tie back to the warp, and you seem to have missed that I simply listed that as one possibility.

I really don't get the mindset that leads people here to insist 'those must be fusion engines even though we've demonstrated that they can't possibly be fusion engines'. If fusion engines can't possibly have the characteristics described, doesn't that lead to the conclusion that they're not fusion, much the same way that if someone says they have a dog but describe an elephant, you conclude that they have an elephant and not a dog?

Why does everybody write so much? I lack the attention span and fluff know how to write anywere the same amount as you guys

Ledabot wrote:Why does everybody write so much? I lack the attention span and fluff know how to write anywere the same amount as you guys

it's just a bunch of guys waving their E-peens about how much they know about the fluff.

shrike wrote:
Tau- C'mon. Of course.

No the tau can't even leave their empire as they DON'T HAVE WARP CAPABILITIES!
Their ships = fail.

But Yes I agree Reapers would pwn the Imperium

All this tech argument misses the point (again) that NO sci fi which is cool can be utterly plausible. As such the rule of cool is the ultimate decider. Star Trek cannot win vs the IoM by this logic as Star Trek involves spandex clothing and Deep Space 9. Star Wars galaxy stands a chance BEFORE the horrible prequels, but is put out of the running ENTIRELY by Binks. Halo combined-forces Covenant/human armada has a great chance at inflicting some damage... although it's a bit too popular with XboX kids and l337 multiplayer pwn-snobs to crack the 'purity' of TTG elitism. Sci-fi franchises which exist only in books (the Culture, the Polity, the Lensmen etc) are intellectually on the high ground, but where's the neat artwork and 3-d gibs?
The ultimate horror from GW's perspective is some kind of expanded Warmachine universe, in which numbers of dreadnaughts and warjacks are pretty much equal. Discuss.

Halo forces? Really no...
As the Imperium of man has Warp Drives and lance weaponary which make the Mac cannons look like las guns.

Halo loses by virtue that the main character falls in love with a virtual women.


it's not REAL Chief, It's NOT real.

Grey Templar wrote:Halo loses by virtue that the main character falls in love with a virtual women.


it's not REAL Chief, It's NOT real.

lol so true.

Imperium wins on a logical scale, seeing as most forces that are referenced in this thread are being with supernatural abilities beyond conception.

Squats would win. there's a REASON why they were written out. Too much of a threat, and boy have they got a grudge!!

if anyone could stop the IOM it would be the IOM, a chaos deamon prince turns up and they all run over to it and fight for Chaos instead.

Warhammer 40K looses to Tenga Toppa Gurren Lagann, you just cant compete with throwing GALAXIES as shurikan.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

keezus wrote:-sigh- http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Navy

*sigh* indeed, since I asked for GW sources, not 'some guy on the internet thinks'. A wiki is just user edited content, it's a nice guide to find things and often can provide correct information, but it's not a reliable source, and a wiki reference is essentially worthless for determining a question of specific wording, which is what this is. Last time this came up I dug through all of the BFG PDFs and couldn't find a single reference to the power plants as being fusion. A direct quote from a GW source would work, but a wiki page that lists multiple GW sources, at least one of which doesn't back your point, simply doesn't.

The only mention of reactors or propulsion systems in the BFG .pdfs describes them as "hyper plasmatic reactors", "plasma reactors", or simply "reactors". The word "fusion" does not appear at all in any of the documents.

Well, this thread deserves it!

Anyway if one Empire were to beat the IOM with minimal losses it would be the UUEL (United Universes Enforcement League). Well it would be more of a curb stomp really.

Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.