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.
As for star wars, i think any imperial force lead by grand admiral thrawn would kick the empire's ass consistently. He would work out their psychology, see it's glaring weaknesses and tie them in knots.
Ad for predators, i think the deadliest enemy a predator could face in 40k would be spacewolves. Predators are used to two kinds of enemies. Predatory animals and intelligent, technology using people.
Spacewolves are one of the few forces that likely combine the deadliest aspects of both pretty perfectly.
Honestly, i think "the thing" from "Who goes there?" and the John Carpenter movie would be the end of the imperium. Maybe orks, and eldar too, plus the tau. Now the nids, I dunno there...
You think genestealers are bad? Ha! Wait'll you have your precious spess muhreens turned into Things and your hiveworld citizens are being converted in huge numbers within a few hours. Oh and they can shapechange, parts of them can survive if blown apart, etc.
Matt Swain wrote: Honestly, i think "the thing" from "Who goes there?" and the John Carpenter movie would be the end of the imperium. Maybe orks, and eldar too, plus the tau. Now the nids, I dunno there...
You think genestealers are bad? Ha! Wait'll you have your precious spess muhreens turned into Things and your hiveworld citizens are being converted in huge numbers within a few hours. Oh and they can shapechange, parts of them can survive if blown apart, etc.
The Imperium already has a protocol they are ready to meet out for even lesser infestations: Exterminatus. Hard to survive when you're sensitive to heat the surface is turned in to lava. And even Astartes would be executed on suspicion of taint for leaving the planet.
The thing turns people into itself while maintaining their image and personality perfectly, and all it takes is about an hour alone with someone, plus the thing is highly intelligent. It was building some sort of flying saucer out of junk it scavenged from the camp. It might take over a planet without the imperium even khowing it was taken over, slip a few of itselves onto every ship that come by, spread to a dozen worlds without a whiff of problem.
Now sure, there are issues: Can a thing become a navigator? Can a thing function as a navigator if it takes one over? Plus i suppose some industrial accident might expose a thing, like a guy gets blown to bits in an accident and the pieces start running around to escape. But on the whole I'm not sure the imperium could stop the thing taking over, it's too adaptable and intelligent. I don;t know if a psyker could spot one i admit.
Damn good points. If people are modified to accept implants maybe it could copy their biomods to accept implants. Would it copy a black carapace or interface with it?
The thing had a starship, one assumes it has a lot of technical knowledge.
I really don't think they'd have much chance in the star trek universe. Even TOS.
Watch this video:
Now they had antimatter mortar rounds badically the size of baseballs and a man familkiar with them was concerned that they'd be firing one at a target 'only" 1200 yards away. That's 3,600 feet.
For you metric types that's a about 100 meters over a kilometer.
Now, seriously, first off if they can stabilize anti matter enough to use it in mortar rounds ready to go at a moment's notice and if a weapon like that is possibly dangerous to the firer at 1200 yards/1100meters, imagine what it's going to be like on a 40k tabletop.
"Feth your invulnerable save, you're dead!"
That baseball sized warhead must have had a yield of 1 kilton or two.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/13 02:41:42
Insectum7 wrote: Pfft, Space Marines would just storm the Death Star. I've seen how those storm troopers fight.
Seeing Terminators fight their way through the Death Star would be sick. Bring along a Librarian to counter Force shenennigans and it's on.
How would they reach it? Warp travel is so much slower than hyperspace travel so there's a good chance they can't even reach the system that contains the DS. On top of that drop pods and boarding torpedoes are slower and less maneuverable than a Star Wars fighter making any such attack a suicide run at best. Vader's last-minute fighter screen would have cleaned up any such attack and even if it didn't I'm not sure how the Marines could even board.
Teleport.
They've never explained the range on mobile teleporters in 40k. I know some teleporters, or 'tellyportas', can have interstellar range. Also apparently ork tellyporta teknolgy is supposed to be more powerful than imperial terleport tech.
Canadian 5th wrote: 1) What was the warhead in it?
2) What fired it?
3) Did the warhead detonate properly?
4) You don't know and thus can't disprove any examples of higher firepower by cherrypicking examples of lower firepower.
1) According to Saxton something with the explosive force of a modest nuclear weapon.
2) Four seperate LAATs in two different scenes. Figures taken from Saxtons calculations for the LAATs weapons.
3) Detonations apeared consistent across all four visible impacts.
4) Video provided gives (to my knowledge) all examples of this weapon in all official films released up to the point that Saxton calculated his figures.
The point being that this scene is the only primary source. Saxton watched this and said 'boom, nuclear firepower baby', hence my original suggestion that his work be taken with a deathstar sized pinch of salt.
Direct from the book "100-kiloton explosion...". Incredible Cross Sections, AOTC, by Curtis Saxton, 2002, ISBN-10 : 0751337447
And with that I duck out of the thread. Once around the pitch chasing the goalposts was quite enough.
If you're talking about 100 kiloton weapons it helps to remember that the hiroshima bomb was only ~15 kilotons.
I don't think that the size means a damn thing in fleet battles between 40k ships and ships in star wars to be honest.
Imagine a WW1 or even a ww2 batttleship against a modern destroyer. Hell, make it the musashi or yamato, the biggest battleships ever built.
Sure the musashi may outweight rh modern derstroyer by a factor of several times, maybe over 10 times.
The musashi had cannons with unguided shells and a range of like 24 miles.
The modern destroyer has missiles with a range of maybe a hundred miles or so, plus likely a UAV or two for over the horizon reconnaissance and targeting.
Result, the musashi eats antishipping missiles and dies before the destroyer is even in range of its guns.
Ok,l this is an image of how imperial warships load torpedoes.
Yep, masses of slave laborers pulling on chains. What if that area gets a hull hit and decompresses? Slaves all die, no way to load torpedoes.
Here's another image of imperial ships inner workings.
Huge machines powered by masses of slaves essentially on a massive treadmill, powering it kinda like masses of gerbils on one huge gerbil wheel.
Honestly the star wars ships are, i hate to say, far more realistic and plausible than imperial ships. You using massed human slave muscle power for main systems? How much food does it take to keep a slave alive and strong enough to work? All that food storage and whatever recycling is space not going to more powerful, effective systems. How much food do thousands of slaves eat a day? How much air has to be regenerated for that large a crew? What happens if you get multiple hull breaches and your loincloth wearing slaves all suffocate?
Honestly, 40k ships are even more implausible than star wars ships that at least use advanced technology, not scrolls, chanting servitors, masses of slaves pulling chains and walking on treadmills, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/18 21:08:27
Matt Swain wrote: I don't think that the size means a damn thing in fleet battles between 40k ships and ships in star wars to be honest.
Imagine a WW1 or even a ww2 batttleship against a modern destroyer. Hell, make it the musashi or yamato, the biggest battleships ever built.
Sure the musashi may outweight rh modern derstroyer by a factor of several times, maybe over 10 times.
The musashi had cannons with unguided shells and a range of like 24 miles.
The modern destroyer has missiles with a range of maybe a hundred miles or so, plus likely a UAV or two for over the horizon reconnaissance and targeting.
Result, the musashi eats antishipping missiles and dies before the destroyer is even in range of its guns.
Save for the fact that 40k and Star Wars ships fight along similar lines of engagement, both mirror Dreadnought era combat with a dash of WW2 fighter usage, but with a primary focus on the ships themselves depending on which one you are reading about. As opposed to a WW2 Fast Battleship against Kirov for instance.
Weight class matters when they engage in similar fashions.
Even "engaging in similar fashion" isn't enough to use tonnage when the technology could be vastly different. All it would take is something so simple as one factions shields not working against another factions projectiles, and tonnage basically disappears as a factor. It's rather a fruitless exercise really, because details around interactability of some of the major technologies are are unknown.
I just like the idea of Terminators mowing down Storm Troopers and eating their brains, and how being members of the Disney franchise, SW characters would be utterly appalled at the level of gore that Space Marines are comfortable with. A Chainsword is the glorious antithesis of "an elegant weapon for a more civilized age."
I agree with you on the Terminator part, but I don't understand why that point about shields is relevant. Both sides use plasma weapons. Star Weapons as described as plasma weapons or pulse weapons by 40k standards on that note . Or we could just assert that shield works against each other. Otherwise discussion becomes pointless. Which is something I never got about these debates. Why bother saying nope your weapons don't work or Culture smash or whatever. No debate, no fun.
The two settings being comparable and having a discussion regarding their strengths and weaknesses relative to each other is what this debate should be about, not biggatons or whatever.
handwaving their tech simply being incompatible leaves little room for discussion, as does silly outliers like 10 light minute range because unless I'm wrong are either side of this current debate ever depicted engaging at such range?
Right, but there might be something as simple as the amount of energy used/spent and possibly being an order of magnatude off. The point is that tonnage is just not a very good metric.
Star Wars also has this problem where the primary sources (the movies) are themselves pretty inconsistent. 40K, despite being weirder, seems to be more consistent in it's primary source of content, which is the game/codexes. In SW you have goofy things like space "bombers" that "drop" bombs in 0g ffs. Or the super-duper-ultra Death-planet-Star thing that shoots lasers as multiple solar systems, but they're all visible from one of the planets or whatever the **** happened in The Force Awakens. Even with the Warp and Daemons 40K seems to handle it's own logic more consistently.
With you on the bomber 110%, friend. So much wrong with that i don't even know where to begin...
If you've having a huge load of bombs and a small ship why not make the bombs on the front of the ship, have the ship basically accelerate it towards the target, the separate the bomb rack and have it basically fragment and scatted the bombs over the target?
Honestly, I'm with the people who say the sequels need to be buried in an unmarked grave at midnight on a new moon. I mean they need to be treated like movies that never happened. Kind of like how superman returns treated the last two superman movies before it.
See, the 40k universe only works because we accept the premise of 'forget the power of technology, the promise of science' because basically the warp has seeped into the material universe and royally kicked conventional reality, science, technology, etc to the curb. Utterly insane things work because the chaos gods and the warp like insanity and madness, so a fanatically insane power can win on the premise of faith and making people toil and suffer en masse because the powers of the warp gwt off on that and affect reality in its favor
Sure, star wars has the force, and in the ghawdawful last movie we saw one force user shut down an entire fleet of ships until he was killed by a woman with laser sword. Both have wild card plot device powers, the force or the warp, that make the universe work in ways that let one kid who'se never been in a fighter before succeed at blowing up a massive battlestation where experienced pilots failed and a bunch of guys screaming 'for da emprah!" can rush at an emplaced gunline with melee weapons and take it down, with massive casualties because the warp gets off on lots of dying and stuff.
In WW1 the french army had a ridiculous and idiotic concept called "elan", which more or less said that if a lot iof men died tryiong to do something, it gave the cause they died for a "moral force' that would give their side victory. I remember hearing about that on a historical show about WW1. The french military apparently believed that if enough people died for victory, some 'moral force' would energize the army and give it victory because of their sacrifice.
The french abandoned this after WW1 and it's clear failures therein.
Well, in 40k that kind of thing actually does work. So the 40k universe has premises that make it totally separate from other universes.
Really asking who would win between 40k and almost any other universe is like asking "who would win in a fight between a great white shark and a grizzly bear?" Well, if you drop the bear in the ocean, the shark wins. if you drop the shark in a forest the bear wins.
if you drop star wars ships in the 40k universe than yeah, they lose as 'the warp' infects their ships, turns their floor droids, astromech droids, etc, into psychotic murder machines, their minds get headfethed by chaos gods and daemons, hyperjumps let horrors of the warp into the ships, etc.
If you drop 40k ships in the star wars universe, they get used for target practice as there's no astronavicom to guide them, they have no astra telepathica to send them information, etc. Meanwhile tie fighters and xwings buzz around them, avoiding their huge guns easily while pecking them to death.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/03/18 21:51:07
Or 40k troops board an imperial ship and begin causing trouble, so thee captain orders the sections to turn up their artifical gravity several times.
Heavy combat droids with large accurate blaster weapons go rolling it and start shooting marines who are suddenly weighing several times their usual weight. bolters flare off their shields.
Honestly, I'm with the people who say the sequels need to be buried in an unmarked grave at midnight on a new moon. I mean they need to be treated like movies that never happened.
Sadly, yeah. I saw the first one, liked it alright but was wary of what it meant. Saw Rogue One and was bored, and didn't see any more SW in the theatre. Years later I watched the second of the trilogy sequels and gave up on it. Never saw the third. I feel bad for the parties involved.
For the rest of it, like the original trilogy, the weapons tech seems inconsistent and not vey impressive in comparison to 40K, It seems to primarily be "plasma bolt" focused and the engagement ranges don't appear to be very big. I find it hard to square the circle between the movies and what's in various "techincal manuals". SW is a movie setting built to tell the story of a particular set of characters and the setting takes a hefty back seat to the script. 40K on the other hand is built specifically as a setting for players to interact in, and seems to have a more stable foundation because of the intended method of engagement.
See, i believe that 40k and star wars share a common theme, in that most people are dead men walking and the story revolves around a few super characters.
the population of Alderaan? Exist to be killed to establish the evil of the empire and the danger. The majority of the pilots sent to fight the deathstar at yavin? Dead men flying. 5 worlds get wiped jsut for the plot to advance.
luke, leia, chewie, the droids are the only characters that matter and live.
40k's the same. Billions die, a few supercharacters become pivotal characters. Guilleman, Thrakka, Abbadon, Usakar Creed, Sly marbo, etc.
BTW you were right, the third one wasrancid!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/18 23:11:48
Honestly, I'm with the people who say the sequels need to be buried in an unmarked grave at midnight on a new moon. I mean they need to be treated like movies that never happened.
Sadly, yeah. I saw the first one, liked it alright but was wary of what it meant. Saw Rogue One and was bored, and didn't see any more SW in the theatre. Years later I watched the second of the trilogy sequels and gave up on it. Never saw the third. I feel bad for the parties involved.
For the rest of it, like the original trilogy, the weapons tech seems inconsistent and not vey impressive in comparison to 40K, It seems to primarily be "plasma bolt" focused and the engagement ranges don't appear to be very big. I find it hard to square the circle between the movies and what's in various "techincal manuals". SW is a movie setting built to tell the story of a particular set of characters and the setting takes a hefty back seat to the script. 40K on the other hand is built specifically as a setting for players to interact in, and seems to have a more stable foundation because of the intended method of engagement.
See, i believe that 40k and star wars share a common theme, in that most people are dead men walking and the story revolves around a few super characters.
the population of Alderaan? Exist to be killed to establish the evil of the empire and the danger. The majority of the pilots sent to fight the deathstar at yavin? Dead men flying. 5 worlds get wiped jsut for the plot to advance.
luke, leia, chewie, the droids are the only characters that matter and live.
40k's the same. Billions die, a few supercharacters become pivotal characters. Guilleman, Thrakka, Abbadon, Usakar Creed, Sly marbo, etc.
BTW you were right, the third one wasrancid!
I mean, the startrack redshirts would like a word with you regarding the dead man walking point. To where it's become a trope. Most scifi has a bit of an issue with that. "We want the universe to be super dangerous. But a handful of people can wander around a battlefield like it's a light summer rain."
Yeah, as i said, 40k and trek have immortal characters the story revolves around types. I think 40k overdoes it a bit more than most universes, practically to the level of "The general's coffee was two degrees centigrade below what he consider acceptable, execute the entire kitchen staff and their nearest kin!" or "Someone in the crowd as we marched into the city shouted "Feth the emperor!" so we summarily executed the entire population of 20 million to be sure we got the heretic."
You people who think temrinators will just casually stroll thru a star destroryer linke a walk in the park, what happens when the stormproopers bring out these guys?
You know, the guys with the big guns with large backpack power systems on them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/22 15:07:36
