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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes it does. If you are going too fast to change direction fast enough you cannot meaningfully contribute to a battle, or changing direction too quickly would cause your ship to tear itself in half. Alternately, maybe your ship can make a turn, but your crew would be killed by the deceleration/acceleration. So you have to go slower than the ship's maximum capabilities.

Sure, there will be some practical limits on how fast you'll want to be moving if you want to have an extended exchange of shots instead of a quick pass followed by a long period of maneuvering to set up the next pass. But it makes no sense to refer to that as a ship's maximum speed, since that implies an actual limit rather than a tactical choice to stay slow.

Most modern fighters can pull some insane speeds and turns, but their pilots would never survive what the plane could actually do.

Aircraft maneuvering and starship maneuvering have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Don't use this analogy.

I suppose. Unfortunately for Star Wars that goes to 40k as well.

{citation needed}

Film evidence shows that Star Wars ships are capable of at least roughly comparable firepower (and, implicitly, defense) along with vastly superior speed (both tactical and strategic). Maximum range is somewhat more ambiguous, but unlikely to be relevant given the decisive speed advantage of Star Wars ships. The two universes are certainly not in the same situation as the Culture vs. 40k.

If you have two ships and one is larger and has a bigger engine, it will be the faster ship.

Wrong again. Maximum speed in space is nonsense, and acceleration depends on engine size relative to total mass, not engine size alone.

Except I have already demonstrated that 40k ships have a speed advantage where it matters, in battle. Star Wars only has a nominal FTL advantage, but only if they are traveling to premapped Hyperspace coordinates, and there are literally areas where hyperspace doesn't exist and they cannot travel to. Thats why one portion of the Star Wars galaxy is totally uncharted, hyperspace doesn't go there. You literally cannot travel there. 40k ships can travel pretty much anywhere.

Hyperspace is sort of like traveling on a railroad. You can only go where there are rails. 40k is like traveling by horseback, its slower than a train but you are far less limited in where you can travel to.

Aircraft maneuvering and starship maneuvering have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Don't use this analogy.

G-forces still apply, and that is what the issue here is.

Wrong again. Maximum speed in space is nonsense, and acceleration depends on engine size relative to total mass, not engine size alone.

Fuel matters as well. You could have 90% of your mass be engine but you won't carry enough fuel to make it matter. Again, a larger ship can have a larger engine and more fuel. Not to mention you just have more space to put weaponry.

Given that Star Wars weaponry is, by its canon demonstrations of power, often weaker than many modern day weapons it is hugely outclassed by 40k. Blasters aren't any better at killing something than modern firearms, and roughly comparable to lasguns in terms of effectiveness.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except I have already demonstrated that 40k ships have a speed advantage where it matters, in battle.

Not really. http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Propulsion/Propulsion2.html

Star Wars only has a nominal FTL advantage

It's hardly "nominal". Star Wars ships can cross the galaxy in a matter of hours, days at most. 40k ships take months/years/centuries to do that, if they even arrive at all.

40k ships can travel pretty much anywhere.

As long as you have the Emperor shining a nice bright "you are here" sign for everyone. Take that away and you're stumbling around blindly in the dark, hoping not to get devoured by a literal demon from hell, and wondering why you're committing suicide like this. The reasonable thing to do, to allow the battle to actually happen, is to assume that both sides have their required navigational references available (at least until the Star Wars fleet kills the Emperor).

G-forces still apply, and that is what the issue here is.

They don't apply the same way. G-forces on a turning aircraft and a starship are completely different because they use completely different methods of turning. You can not make this analogy.

Fuel matters as well. You could have 90% of your mass be engine but you won't carry enough fuel to make it matter. Again, a larger ship can have a larger engine and more fuel. Not to mention you just have more space to put weaponry.

This is an engineering question, not an inherent law of physics. And it's really an engineering question for things like weapons. For example, if virtually any hit is a one-hit kill against any ship, no matter how large, then building really big ships is suicidally stupid and you want to build a swarm of smaller ships.

Plus, as I pointed out earlier, this "rule" is completely irrelevant when comparing ships from two different universes with two different levels of technology, strategic roles, etc.

Given that Star Wars weaponry is, by its canon demonstrations of power, often weaker than many modern day weapons it is hugely outclassed by 40k. Blasters aren't any better at killing something than modern firearms, and roughly comparable to lasguns in terms of effectiveness.

Fortunately blasters won't matter very much as the war will be over in a few days and fought entirely in space. The Empire is not going to fight a war of attrition over planets, it's going to use its superior strategic mobility to wipe out key targets and cripple the Imperium's ability to react. Any attempt to land ground troops can be stopped by a fleet of star destroyers jumping in from halfway across the galaxy in the time it takes the landing craft to get from their warp exit to planetary orbit. Meanwhile the Imperium's fleets can only watch helplessly as those star destroyers jump in, unload a salvo of extinction-level firepower onto a key planet, and jump out before the shells of any return fire can reach their targets.

Except those Star Destroyers have zero ability to use Hyperspace in the 40k galaxy because its unmapped and/or Hyperspace doesn't exist there(its not an alternate dimension like the warp and adjacent to all other dimensions)

Meanwhile, because the Warp is an alternate dimension, it exists in Star Wars as well. Thus it can be used to travel there.

Fortunately blasters won't matter very much as the war will be over in a few days and fought entirely in space. The Empire is not going to fight a war of attrition over planets, it's going to use its superior strategic mobility to wipe out key targets and cripple the Imperium's ability to react. Any attempt to land ground troops can be stopped by a fleet of star destroyers jumping in from halfway across the galaxy in the time it takes the landing craft to get from their warp exit to planetary orbit. Meanwhile the Imperium's fleets can only watch helplessly as those star destroyers jump in, unload a salvo of extinction-level firepower onto a key planet, and jump out before the shells of any return fire can reach their targets.

Except those Star Destroyers don't have extinction levels of firepower. They're barely stronger than WW2 battleships. Furthermore, the people of Star Wars are completely pathetic that an army of only a few million people is capable of holding the galaxy in the grip of fear. They'd simply have no stomach for real warfare that 40k would bring to them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except those Star Destroyers have zero ability to use Hyperspace in the 40k galaxy because its unmapped and/or Hyperspace doesn't exist there(its not an alternate dimension like the warp and adjacent to all other dimensions)

Meanwhile, because the Warp is an alternate dimension, it exists in Star Wars as well. Thus it can be used to travel there.

So you're going to assume that the warp exists but hyperspace doesn't? That's pretty blatantly dishonest in rigging the game in favor of 40k. Why even discuss the scenario if you're going to give special favors to one side?

And, again, 40k also has the "mapping" problem because they depend on the Emperor's magic "you are here" sign to navigate. Take that away (as you have to do if you're assuming that the other side has no navigational references in the new territory) and 40k is screwed.

Except those Star Destroyers don't have extinction levels of firepower. They're barely stronger than WW2 battleships.

Canon evidence from the films disagrees with you.

Furthermore, the people of Star Wars are completely pathetic that an army of only a few million people is capable of holding the galaxy in the grip of fear. They'd simply have no stomach for real warfare that 40k would bring to them.

40k won't bring them any real warfare because the "war" will be over before most of the population of the Star Wars galaxy is even aware that one is happening. As I said, strategic mobility wins this easily. And it's quite easy for a small force to hold a galaxy when the small force has a monopoly on civilization-destroying warships and is perfectly willing to use them to end any attempt at rebellion. One guard can hold off a prison full of inmates if the guard has a fortified tower, a machine gun with plenty of ammunition, and orders to shoot anyone who looks like they might be up to something.

So you're going to assume that the warp exists but hyperspace doesn't? That's pretty blatantly dishonest in rigging the game in favor of 40k. Why even discuss the scenario if you're going to give special favors to one side?

That is simply applying the rules of both methods of FTL.

Hyperspace is tangled up in knots, and took thousands and thousands of years, and billions of lives, to map out. and it does not extend beyond the star wars galaxy. Otherwise the people of Star Wars would have expanded to other galaxies by now.

The Warp is an infinite alternate parallel dimension. It is adjacent to every point in reality. Now your point about the Astronomicon is valid, however its not a big deal. The Warp is only difficult to navigate because of Chaos, but in this situation Chaos isn't part of the equation. Because if they are, then Star Wars has to deal with them too, and that is definitely not a fight they win.

Canon evidence from the films disagrees with you.

That is what shows they only have the firepower of WW2 battleships. They simply do not do anything remotely impressive, relative to other Sci-fi.

40k won't bring them any real warfare because the "war" will be over before most of the population of the Star Wars galaxy is even aware that one is happening. As I said, strategic mobility wins this easily. And it's quite easy for a small force to hold a galaxy when the small force has a monopoly on civilization-destroying warships and is perfectly willing to use them to end any attempt at rebellion. One guard can hold off a prison full of inmates if the guard has a fortified tower, a machine gun with plenty of ammunition, and orders to shoot anyone who looks like they might be up to something.

As shown above, Star Wars has no strategic mobility, and even then strategic mobility only means something if you actually have firepower of note, which Star Wars does not have.

 Grey Templar wrote:
and it does not extend beyond the star wars galaxy. Otherwise the people of Star Wars would have expanded to other galaxies by now.

The warp does not extend beyond the 40k galaxy. Otherwise the people of 40k would have expanded to other galaxies by now.

That is what shows they only have the firepower of WW2 battleships. They simply do not do anything remotely impressive, relative to other Sci-fi.

Canon evidence disagrees with you: http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/Asteroid.html

While being fun to argue, there is really no defining proof that any genre is superior than another. Each relies on its own set of rules and assumptions about space travel, energy weapons and shielding. They also have their own rules about what is possible and what's not when it comes to physics, metallurgy, and Engineering. They truly cant really be compared. Its all fanboy/fangirl preference.

 asorel wrote:


How so? Both are some sort of energy field and/or plasma shaped into blade form and used to cut things, the difference is that 40k power weapons have a physical blade inside. And there are examples of "energy-only" power weapons, such as the one Inquisitor Eisenhorn carried, though these excruciatingly rare archaeotech.

I'm not questioning the similarities in how they work. Just saying that in depictions on screen or on page, lighsabres are more effective. Which is not 100% conclusive of course, but I'll trust observation of something in action, far more than statements and figures which half the time don't add up and it seems the writer just pulled out of their a*s!!) In summary I'd say lightsabres are shown to be better at chopping things up than power swords or axes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
While being fun to argue, there is really no defining proof that any genre is superior than another. Each relies on its own set of rules and assumptions about space travel, energy weapons and shielding. They also have their own rules about what is possible and what's not when it comes to physics, metallurgy, and Engineering. They truly cant really be compared. Its all fanboy/fangirl preference.

Spot on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Star Destroyers...barely stronger than WW2 battleships.

Baha! Sorry [composes self]. How in the name of Xenu do you come to that conclusion?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that all Star Wars space battles occur within visual range of each other we thus know that Turbolasers have terrible ranges and/or Star Wars ships are incapable of targeting anything farther than a few hundred kilometers from themselves.

That's artistic licence and it's used In 99% of sci-fi space battles ships. The ships need to be shown within visual range of eachother, becasue if they were to be shown at their "proper" distance, they would either be invisible on the screen (boring), or the camera would have to alternate between shots of each (not ideal either).

 Wyzilla wrote:


"Messy results in the books" do not come anywhere close to being shot by megajoulse of energy. Messy results can happen merely from kilojoules, or are you unfamiliar with just what mere 7.62x39mm does to a human body? I'd post pictures, but then I'd get banned because of the excessive gore. Messily killing people does not mean we should ever jump to something as absurd as megajoule blasters (which never were valid mind you, because even prior to the Disney retcon, Movie Canon was the highest and superior to everything else).

2) No. You can stand next to a considerable local heat source and not spontaneously ignite. People using plasma cutters don't spontaneously ignite. The "recoil" is just a stunt effect so the FX crew knows to insert the "blaster shot" at a particular point. The megajoule of energy is contained thermal energy, not imparted kinetic energy.

People using plasma cutters are also not unleashing more energy than a Abrams tank right by their face. And blasters carry both kinetic and thermal energy, they are not pure energy weapons as they have visible kick.

Okay, I'll take another swing at this, but I know what the result will be. But, I'm stubborn. Maybe I have the relentless special rule.

I made the jump to a megajoule equivalent because of the amount of thermal energy needed to vaporize a hole in a "concrete" wall big enough to put your fist into. I estimated 1 kilogram. I estimated the walls in a star wars hanger or whatnot would be equivalent to concrete. Duracrete, plasteel, whatever it is they describe. In any event, even given estimations, there is a HUGE amount of energy required to vaporize something with a low specific heat.

Apply that energy to something with a high specific heat (such as a human torso), you would have catastophic effect. Yes, there are messy effects from being shot with a kilojoule of kinetic energy. So, one can infer that a megajoule *(of thermal energy in this case) would exceed a torso's ability to contain it. Like a piece of sodium metal allowed to react at the center of a bucket of water. The whole volume doesn't absorb the thermal energy liberated by the reaction; you get a "gas burst" effect.

So....to the blaster. That megajoule packet of energy is electromagnetically contained until it hits the target, at which time containment is violently lost. Regarding our plasma cutter example, it depends on how long you operate one. Yes, the output per second is measured in kilojoules. Say, a 7.62x39 round of energy per second. But, it's still a 45,000 degree jet, right next to your face. If you operate one for an hour (3600 seconds), you HAVE exposed your face to megajoules. Amazingly, nobody ignites, because air is a gakky conductor of heat.

To visit recoil one more time: a blaster (according to star wars) uses a little bit of high energy gas, converted to plasma and accelerated toward the target. Recoil is a function of momentum. Mass times velocity. The SW universe, the velocity of that little gas packet is slow. Slow enough to visually track. Movie analysis gives about 60 meters per second, but let's use 100 since it's a nice round number. Now, our little packet of tibanna gas. Not sure the mass per liter of tibanna gas, but tibanna can't be too massive, because the little 100 shot cartridge going in our blaster can't weigh that much. Half a pound sound reasonable? Thats 500 grams. So, each shot is 5 grams of gas, accelerated to a velocity of 100 mps. 5 grams is 75 grains. That's 2 each 22 rimfire bullets. 22 pistol recoil? Well, not quite. The blaster is one third the velocity. So, a blaster would have 2/3 the recoil (twice the mass, one third the velocity) of a 22 rimfire.

Anyways, that's what happens when we apply math to Star Wars. Next I can do 40K bolter math.

Considering both Universes have some kind of artificial gravity on their ships, we can also assume some kind of inertial dampers like they have on Star Trek. So the passengers would not be crushed by the fast changes in direction on their ships.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
That's artistic licence and it's used In 99% of sci-fi space battles ships. The ships need to be shown within visual range of eachother, becasue if they were to be shown at their "proper" distance, they would either be invisible on the screen (boring), or the camera would have to alternate between shots of each (not ideal either).

Except in the case of Star Wars its not artistic license.

2 Star Destroyers collide trying to chase the Millennium Falcon.

Lando orders the Alliance fleet to engage the opposing Star Destroyers at point blank range. We see a Star Destroyer and a Mon Cal Cruiser duking it out well within 100 meters of each other shortly afterwards.

Just as above, we see Federation and Republic cruisers in battle above Coruscant at similar ranges.

During the Battle of Endor, an A-wing crashes through the observation deck of a super star destroyer. Which then proceeds to crash into the Death Star mere seconds later. So not only are they at extremely close ranges to each other, apparently the bridges of Star Wars ships are extremely weak and can be broken into by a lightweight fighter, and in vulnerable positions on the ship's exterior instead of deep inside the vessel.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Canon evidence from the films disagrees with you.

That is what shows they only have the firepower of WW2 battleships. They simply do not do anything remotely impressive, relative to other Sci-fi.

Canon evidence from the films, combined with math, a single SD turbolaser battery has the energy to vaporize the mass of steel (50,000 tons) in a WW2 battleship in a couple of shots.

You can come up with silly stuff which points to design and engineering flaws, but on the other end, it takes a lot of energy to vaporize a 30 meter asteroid. When pointing out capital ships broadsiding each other with main batteries with that much energy, it demonstrates the effeciency of deflectors at dissipating the energy back into space (and how fast a ship would be destroyed after its shielding fell).

 Grey Templar wrote:

2 Star Destroyers collide trying to chase the Millennium Falcon.

That was pretty bad for a professional military, "You had one job Steve!"

First, the two Imp Stars did not collide. They almost did, but there was no collision.

Second, in their defence, Han did pull off some maneuvers.

 Happyjew wrote:
First, the two Imp Stars did not collide. They almost did, but there was no collision.

Second, in their defence, Han did pull off some maneuvers.

They most certainly did collide. You can hear the scraping of their hulls, and the crew are thrown to the ground.

On the topic of hyperspace in 40k, I would like to point out a rule from Codex: Necrons, possessed by their Deathmark Assassins:

Hunters from Hyperspace.

Hyperspace certainly exists in 40K.

I guarantee its not the same hyperspace.

Citation required.

You need to prove its the same first.

Given that Deathmarks emerge from this "Hyperspace" on a planets surface, while Star Wars Hyperspace is disrupted by gravity wells, I think its very safe to say they are not the same. You cannot enter Hyperspace in Star Wars too close to a large gravity source.

Because of your relative mass in a starship. The mass of a Deathmark Assassin is comparatively insignificant. As we saw in the prequel trilogy, you can drop out of hyperspace in near-orbit, provided the vessel is small enough.

Necron Hyperspace acts more like a folded reality than a halfway dimension.

 Psienesis wrote:
Because of your relative mass in a starship. The mass of a Deathmark Assassin is comparatively insignificant. As we saw in the prequel trilogy, you can drop out of hyperspace in near-orbit, provided the vessel is small enough.

Its not the mass of the ship that is the issue, its the mass of the object you are dropping out near. You certainly could never drop out on the planets surface, even with a human sized object.

Again, you need to prove they are the same thing and not merely two things having an identical name.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Because of your relative mass in a starship. The mass of a Deathmark Assassin is comparatively insignificant. As we saw in the prequel trilogy, you can drop out of hyperspace in near-orbit, provided the vessel is small enough.

Its not the mass of the ship that is the issue, its the mass of the object you are dropping out near. You certainly could never drop out on the planets surface, even with a human sized object.

Again, you need to prove they are the same thing and not merely two things having an identical name.

Anakin and Obi-Wan drop out of hyperspace above a planet several times in Eps 2 and 3. The mass-shadow of the planets in question are obviously not so dangerous as to prevent close-range drops. We also see, in several places in SW, ships drop out of hyperspace within 25km of the surface of various planets. The drives, by default, have safety settings to prevent this, but these can be overridden by pilots (which is how Han Solo makes the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs, he's overriding the safety settings of his hyperdrive to make jumps near black holes, which have significantly higher gravity-shadows than any planet.).

Necron Hyperspace acts more like a folded reality than a halfway dimension.

Which is a semantics argument, really.

 Happyjew wrote:
First, the two Imp Stars did not collide. They almost did, but there was no collision.

Second, in their defence, Han did pull off some maneuvers.

Granted, those were some sweet maneuvers, better than his “I know a few maneuvers” veering slightly to the left in the first movie.

Whether they collided or just got rocked by the jolt from avoiding the collision, why does the Imperial Navy have their ships so close to each other? They should have some kind of standard distance they maintain at all times. Rookie stuff isn't it?

 MeanAss_Demasoni wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
First, the two Imp Stars did not collide. They almost did, but there was no collision.

Second, in their defence, Han did pull off some maneuvers.

Granted, those were some sweet maneuvers, better than his “I know a few maneuvers” veering slightly to the left in the first movie.

Whether they collided or just got rocked by the jolt from avoiding the collision, why does the Imperial Navy have their ships so close to each other? They should have some kind of standard distance they maintain at all times. Rookie stuff isn't it?

Not necessarily, by maneuvering that close to each other, you can get overlapping fields of fire, which would help when you are trying to hit a much smaller, much faster, much more maneuverable ship.

 Happyjew wrote:

 MeanAss_Demasoni wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
First, the two Imp Stars did not collide. They almost did, but there was no collision.

Second, in their defence, Han did pull off some maneuvers.

Granted, those were some sweet maneuvers, better than his “I know a few maneuvers” veering slightly to the left in the first movie.

Whether they collided or just got rocked by the jolt from avoiding the collision, why does the Imperial Navy have their ships so close to each other? They should have some kind of standard distance they maintain at all times. Rookie stuff isn't it?

Not necessarily, by maneuvering that close to each other, you can get overlapping fields of fire, which would help when you are trying to hit a much smaller, much faster, much more maneuverable ship.

I think it makes it easier for the smaller ship to weave between them and make them risk shooting or colliding with each other. They could still have a crossfire at a safer distance.

Yeah. Being close is just too risky as your ally blocks more of the potential field of fire.

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) ?

jwr wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


"Messy results in the books" do not come anywhere close to being shot by megajoulse of energy. Messy results can happen merely from kilojoules, or are you unfamiliar with just what mere 7.62x39mm does to a human body? I'd post pictures, but then I'd get banned because of the excessive gore. Messily killing people does not mean we should ever jump to something as absurd as megajoule blasters (which never were valid mind you, because even prior to the Disney retcon, Movie Canon was the highest and superior to everything else).

2) No. You can stand next to a considerable local heat source and not spontaneously ignite. People using plasma cutters don't spontaneously ignite. The "recoil" is just a stunt effect so the FX crew knows to insert the "blaster shot" at a particular point. The megajoule of energy is contained thermal energy, not imparted kinetic energy.

People using plasma cutters are also not unleashing more energy than a Abrams tank right by their face. And blasters carry both kinetic and thermal energy, they are not pure energy weapons as they have visible kick.

Okay, I'll take another swing at this, but I know what the result will be. But, I'm stubborn. Maybe I have the relentless special rule.

I made the jump to a megajoule equivalent because of the amount of thermal energy needed to vaporize a hole in a "concrete" wall big enough to put your fist into. I estimated 1 kilogram. I estimated the walls in a star wars hanger or whatnot would be equivalent to concrete. Duracrete, plasteel, whatever it is they describe. In any event, even given estimations, there is a HUGE amount of energy required to vaporize something with a low specific heat.

Apply that energy to something with a high specific heat (such as a human torso), you would have catastophic effect. Yes, there are messy effects from being shot with a kilojoule of kinetic energy. So, one can infer that a megajoule *(of thermal energy in this case) would exceed a torso's ability to contain it. Like a piece of sodium metal allowed to react at the center of a bucket of water. The whole volume doesn't absorb the thermal energy liberated by the reaction; you get a "gas burst" effect.

So....to the blaster. That megajoule packet of energy is electromagnetically contained until it hits the target, at which time containment is violently lost. Regarding our plasma cutter example, it depends on how long you operate one. Yes, the output per second is measured in kilojoules. Say, a 7.62x39 round of energy per second. But, it's still a 45,000 degree jet, right next to your face. If you operate one for an hour (3600 seconds), you HAVE exposed your face to megajoules. Amazingly, nobody ignites, because air is a gakky conductor of heat.

To visit recoil one more time: a blaster (according to star wars) uses a little bit of high energy gas, converted to plasma and accelerated toward the target. Recoil is a function of momentum. Mass times velocity. The SW universe, the velocity of that little gas packet is slow. Slow enough to visually track. Movie analysis gives about 60 meters per second, but let's use 100 since it's a nice round number. Now, our little packet of tibanna gas. Not sure the mass per liter of tibanna gas, but tibanna can't be too massive, because the little 100 shot cartridge going in our blaster can't weigh that much. Half a pound sound reasonable? Thats 500 grams. So, each shot is 5 grams of gas, accelerated to a velocity of 100 mps. 5 grams is 75 grains. That's 2 each 22 rimfire bullets. 22 pistol recoil? Well, not quite. The blaster is one third the velocity. So, a blaster would have 2/3 the recoil (twice the mass, one third the velocity) of a 22 rimfire.

Anyways, that's what happens when we apply math to Star Wars. Next I can do 40K bolter math.

And where the hell are you getting "vaporization" from? Nothing is vaporized in the shootout in Docking Bay 94- we see chunks of the sandy stone flying out from the strikes of Han's blaster. There's absolutely no vaporization going on here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Necron Hyperspace acts more like a folded reality than a halfway dimension.

Also it's unusable unless you like getting eaten by Daemons. The Necrons have largely abandoned it because its containment was breached.