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.

 EnTyme wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
I saw the film. I reject it in its entirety. It's not Star Wars, and its not what Star Wars fans are taking about when they say 'Star Wars'.

Disliking a movie doesn't make it non-canon.

And it was more Star Wars-y than the prequels.

 EnTyme wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
I saw the film. I reject it in its entirety. It's not Star Wars, and its not what Star Wars fans are taking about when they say 'Star Wars'.

Disliking a movie doesn't make it non-canon.

That's assuming one accepts the notion of "canon". To me, there's only two Aliens films until Blomkamp's comes out. I don't care what you are FOX says about the matter.

Martel732 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
I saw the film. I reject it in its entirety. It's not Star Wars, and its not what Star Wars fans are taking about when they say 'Star Wars'.

Disliking a movie doesn't make it non-canon.

That's assuming one accepts the notion of "canon". To me, there's only two Aliens films until Blomkamp's comes out. I don't care what you are FOX says about the matter.

Alien 3 was a good film. As good as Alien or Aliens? No but I think it is good enough to be included.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
I saw the film. I reject it in its entirety. It's not Star Wars, and its not what Star Wars fans are taking about when they say 'Star Wars'.

Disliking a movie doesn't make it non-canon.

That's assuming one accepts the notion of "canon". To me, there's only two Aliens films until Blomkamp's comes out. I don't care what you are FOX says about the matter.

Alien 3 was a good film. As good as Alien or Aliens? No but I think it is good enough to be included.

Given that Newt's coming back in the Blomkamp flim, I think they disagree.

Martel732 wrote:


Given that Newt's coming back in the Blomkamp flim, I think they disagree.

Meh, just taking it into an alternate universe.

I can see why though. Newt was a good character, Hicks too. I think they should have died on screen but I don't think that misstep harms Alien 3 as a whole too much.

 =Angel= wrote:
They are genuinely worried about the growing support for the rebellion. They know the fleet is not enough to maintain control.
After Yavin we see the Rebs being mercilessly hunted across the galaxy, we don't see what surely must be a time of great instability. Planets uprising against their appointed governors in support of the rebs, being brutally suppressed, garrissons being overrun.

To your first point regarding the Empire worried about growing support for the rebellion - they are worried about the rebels the same way that the United States is worried about ISIL. The Rebellion can't fight the Empire on even footing - however, as insignificant as their war potential is, the Empire can not allow having them run around unchecked encouraging dissent and conducting terrorist raids against government installations. Planets are not routinely in the habit of uprising against the Empire. Even Alderaan, which is as anti-Empire as it comes, was not suffering blockades or targeted by military action for its insurgent viewpoints. In fact, its summary execution by Death Star was made all the more potent by this fact that the Empire used this as a demonstration that it NOW VIEWS political opposition in the same bucket as open rebellion. (Keep in mind, this was shortly after the Emperor gave the Senate the proverbial middle finger and sent all the senators home.)

The Rebels only assaulted Death Star II because they thought they were getting the drop on the Empire. The Emperor baited them to commit their entire fleet by being on the seemingly undefended Death Star when in fact, a sizable ISD fleet was hiding, sensor masked by Endor's shadow. Despite the loss of the Executor, the Imperial fleet had more than enough firepower to finish the rebellion, however this did not occur due to the near simultaneous loss of the Emperor, Darth Vader -and- Admiral Piett. Depsite winning a huge victory, the Rebel forces had lost a significant portion of their -TOTAL- war material, where as, considering war material only, and aside from Death Star II, the Empire's ISD losses were overall % wise of fleet strength - inconsequential. Had there been a clear line of succession in the Empire, the Rebels would have been in a terrible situation, despite killing the Emperor. On top of that, The Force Awakens shows that the New Republic has but a fraction of the strength of the Republic, considering that IT ALSO LACKS THE MILITARY STRENGTH to confidently declare open war vs. (let alone defeat) the First Order (suggesting that the First Order controls somewhat more manpower/materiel) and has to rely on the Resistance. This suggests that the Imperial losses at Endor weren't crippling at all, as there is enough ships left over for those NOT JOINING the new Republic to form a force of equivalent, or more power than the Republic.

Star Wars canon is also decidedly BIASED in its depiction of the Empire. All (now non-canon EU) describe the day to day life in the Empire as fairly ORDERLY. While the Imperial Navy is used to put down rebellions, they are also there to enforce rule of law, keep the public peace (be it pirates, underworld organizations etc). The Imperial Navy is also a meritocracy, whereby the poor can attain educations and reach higher stations in life.

 =Angel= wrote:
The Battle of Endor saw the Empire lose an SSD, possibly some ISDs, a super weapon and both of their sith. The EU details the fracturing of the Empire in the aftermath (and tons of dark Jedi coming out of the woodwork) which is what can reasonably be expected to happen. The senate was gone, the Emperor was dead and his only obvious successor had died killing him.

The reason why the Empire splintered is the same reason why the Middle East is a giant mess now that all the "strongman" leaders have been removed. Whenever a strong centralized government is removed, there will always be a messy period where different factions vie for supremacy in the power vacuum. This is normal and doesn't have much relevance in the Star Wars or 40k discussion.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Not really. The destruction of the first Death Star lost the Empire resources (which can be replaced) and a good officer (Tarkin). However, as is apparent in Empire Strikes Back, the loss of the Death Star did not cripple the Imperial Navy in any way. The loss of the second Death Star was only crippling because it also led to the loss of the Emperor, the figurehead and driving force of the whole Empire.

The Death Star crippled the Imperial Navy just by existing, the thing is massive and it out masses the total Imperial Navy by several OoM.

The GE could had millions of Star Destroyers and thousands of Super Star Destroyers, but instead they decided to build a moon-sized station. The Death Star is the epitome of the "all eggs in one basket" thinking, made even worse by the unbelievable mistake of "shoot here and the thing explodes".

Honestly, the GE has the industry to beat the crap out of the IoM, but as Han Solo very well explained:

Han Solo wrote:That's not what the Empire would have done, Commander. What the Empire would have done was build a super-colossal Yuuzhan Vong-killing battle machine. They would have called it the Nova Colossus or the Galaxy Destructor or the Nostril of Palpatine or something equally grandiose. They would have spent billions of credits, employed thousands of contractors and subcontractors, and equipped it with the latest in death-dealing technology. And you know what would have happened? It wouldn't have worked. They'd forget to bolt down a metal plate over an access hatch leading to the main reactors, or some other mistake, and a hotshot enemy pilot would drop a bomb down there and blow the whole thing up. Now that's what the Empire would have done.

Don't misunderstood me, the High Lords of Terra hardly are the brightest idiots of the bunch, but the GE is crippled by the sheer arrogance and stupidity of their Emperor and his pets.

I say again. Tyranids, Necrons, Eldar, Daemons. This is not a IoM vs GE thread. This is SW vs 40k.

Necrons have time travel for feths sake!

EMPEROR DAMNIT!

This thread was so close to being bumped off to page two!

 Kavish wrote:
I say again. Tyranids, Necrons, Eldar, Daemons. This is not a IoM vs GE thread. This is SW vs 40k.

Necrons have time travel for feths sake!

Not to mention the ability to steal your sun and send your planet careening through the galaxy as a giant iceball, then convert that iceball into a World Engine and take it for a joy ride.

 EnTyme wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
I saw the film. I reject it in its entirety. It's not Star Wars, and its not what Star Wars fans are taking about when they say 'Star Wars'.

Disliking a movie doesn't make it non-canon.

True. But its so inconsistent with the established canon that it merits dismissal. It seemed a bad fan fic, from someone who saw the films once, but slept through most of them.
In any case it's not relevant to the discussion. Starwars V 40k is Galactic Empire v Imperium of Man- anyone bringing up what Jaina Solo did once to the Yuzzan Vong or the indetectable nature of Hrud infiltrators is shifting goalposts. Otherwise the discussion would be termed - 'Grand Army of the Republic or Tau' etc.

 =Angel= wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
I saw the film. I reject it in its entirety. It's not Star Wars, and its not what Star Wars fans are taking about when they say 'Star Wars'.

Disliking a movie doesn't make it non-canon.

True. But its so inconsistent with the established canon that it merits dismissal. It seemed a bad fan fic, from someone who saw the films once, but slept through most of them.
In any case it's not relevant to the discussion. Starwars V 40k is Galactic Empire v Imperium of Man- anyone bringing up what Jaina Solo did once to the Yuzzan Vong or the indetectable nature of Hrud infiltrators is shifting goalposts. Otherwise the discussion would be termed - 'Grand Army of the Republic or Tau' etc.

How exactly is it inconsistent?

 =Angel= wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
I saw the film. I reject it in its entirety. It's not Star Wars, and its not what Star Wars fans are taking about when they say 'Star Wars'.

Disliking a movie doesn't make it non-canon.

True. But its so inconsistent with the established canon that it merits dismissal. It seemed a bad fan fic, from someone who saw the films once, but slept through most of them.
In any case it's not relevant to the discussion. Starwars V 40k is Galactic Empire v Imperium of Man- anyone bringing up what Jaina Solo did once to the Yuzzan Vong or the indetectable nature of Hrud infiltrators is shifting goalposts. Otherwise the discussion would be termed - 'Grand Army of the Republic or Tau' etc.

It's less inconsistent than 40K canon. I mean, heck, I can write a novel where a single SSD steam rolls the entire 40K galaxy, and according to GW's "everything is canon, even when it's self contradictory" policy, it's canon.

 Happyjew wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
I saw the film. I reject it in its entirety. It's not Star Wars, and its not what Star Wars fans are taking about when they say 'Star Wars'.

Disliking a movie doesn't make it non-canon.

True. But its so inconsistent with the established canon that it merits dismissal. It seemed a bad fan fic, from someone who saw the films once, but slept through most of them.
In any case it's not relevant to the discussion. Starwars V 40k is Galactic Empire v Imperium of Man- anyone bringing up what Jaina Solo did once to the Yuzzan Vong or the indetectable nature of Hrud infiltrators is shifting goalposts. Otherwise the discussion would be termed - 'Grand Army of the Republic or Tau' etc.

It's less inconsistent than 40K canon. I mean, heck, I can write a novel where a single SSD steam rolls the entire 40K galaxy, and according to GW's "everything is canon, even when it's self contradictory" policy, it's canon.

That's the kind of canon necessary for an RPG style wargame where you can organise a campaign based around any event before, after or during the 10,000 year history of the Imperium.
Unreliable Narrator(tm) is a plot maguffin to allow you and your mates to play through the TRUE events of the Reign of Blood, the destruction of the Crimson Fists fortress monastery etc (did you know that my friend John's genestealer cult was involved?)
There are even edit wars within the Imperium, trying to rewrite history , further facilitating Player freedom to do precisely whatever the hell they want.
None of this alters the fundamental truths about the Imperium:



Star Wars canon is primarily what we are shown in the movies. The movies are visual and anything we are not shown here is mutable.
In the Extended Universe, the intervening years between Han's capture and release are filled in- with Leia being seduced by a sexy alien while Chewie disapproves. Since it's not shown on screen, it is not grade A canon and can be changed later, with a movie where a depressed Leia starts a blog and regains her spunk and vigour through the support of female and non binary followers.
What is not mutable is 6 movies of the Force(TM) being difficult to master, Imperial Star Destroyers being destroyed/disabled by asteroid hits and the complexities of hyperspace travel meaning it's not a universal 'get out of jail free' card. This makes any inconsistencies on screen more jarring- since they cannot be waved away as non canon without dismissing that particular movie.

For this reason, for me and the purposes of this discussion at least, TFA is not canon.


I love 40k, I love Star Wars. I am really digging Game of Thrones lately. I don't think Westeros would stand a chance against the GE, even if the battle suddenly followed GoT's narrative conventions and all the GE commanders were stabbed from behind by someone they had befriended.
Individually, a squad of stormtroopers might be able to take a squad of guardsmen or vice versa. Imperium V GE would see the Deathstars boarded and captured and the GE fleet burning in space.

 =Angel= wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
I saw the film. I reject it in its entirety. It's not Star Wars, and its not what Star Wars fans are taking about when they say 'Star Wars'.

Disliking a movie doesn't make it non-canon.

True. But its so inconsistent with the established canon that it merits dismissal. It seemed a bad fan fic, from someone who saw the films once, but slept through most of them.
In any case it's not relevant to the discussion. Starwars V 40k is Galactic Empire v Imperium of Man- anyone bringing up what Jaina Solo did once to the Yuzzan Vong or the indetectable nature of Hrud infiltrators is shifting goalposts. Otherwise the discussion would be termed - 'Grand Army of the Republic or Tau' etc.

It's less inconsistent than 40K canon. I mean, heck, I can write a novel where a single SSD steam rolls the entire 40K galaxy, and according to GW's "everything is canon, even when it's self contradictory" policy, it's canon.

That's the kind of canon necessary for an RPG style wargame where you can organise a campaign based around any event before, after or during the 10,000 year history of the Imperium.
Unreliable Narrator(tm) is a plot maguffin to allow you and your mates to play through the TRUE events of the Reign of Blood, the destruction of the Crimson Fists fortress monastery etc (did you know that my friend John's genestealer cult was involved?)
There are even edit wars within the Imperium, trying to rewrite history , further facilitating Player freedom to do precisely whatever the hell they want.
None of this alters the fundamental truths about the Imperium:

Spoiler:

That it has a military branch with hundreds of billions of soldiers considered by and large expendable because of the crushing mass of trillions in hive worlds across the galaxy.
That they are armed with blaster equivalent weapons, specialist field weapons and trained to die standing.
That they are backed up in the field by tanks, aircraft, superheavies and battle psykers whose abilities don't end at telepathy, telekinesis, wonky precognition and a little lightning here and there.
That the ships which carry them dwarf GE ships in size, destructive power and shield capacity.
That Imperium commanders are shown to be even more ruthless than Imperial commanders.
That despite all these advantages, in any battle in which they appear in 40k- the Astra Militarum are generally portrayed as having impossible odds arrayed against them, then fighting through those impossible odds to victory
(A) at great cost and sacrifice
(B) when the Imperium wheels out something even more terrifying
(C) both

Star Wars canon is primarily what we are shown in the movies. The movies are visual and anything we are not shown here is mutable.
In the Extended Universe, the intervening years between Han's capture and release are filled in- with Leia being seduced by a sexy alien while Chewie disapproves. Since it's not shown on screen, it is not grade A canon and can be changed later, with a movie where a depressed Leia starts a blog and regains her spunk and vigour through the support of female and non binary followers.
What is not mutable is 6 movies of the Force(TM) being difficult to master, Imperial Star Destroyers being destroyed/disabled by asteroid hits and the complexities of hyperspace travel meaning it's not a universal 'get out of jail free' card. This makes any inconsistencies on screen more jarring- since they cannot be waved away as non canon without dismissing that particular movie.

For this reason, for me and the purposes of this discussion at least, TFA is not canon.


I love 40k, I love Star Wars. I am really digging Game of Thrones lately. I don't think Westeros would stand a chance against the GE, even if the battle suddenly followed GoT's narrative conventions and all the GE commanders were stabbed from behind by someone they had befriended.
Individually, a squad of stormtroopers might be able to take a squad of guardsmen or vice versa. Imperium V GE would see the Deathstars boarded and captured and the GE fleet burning in space.

First, where is your evidence that a lasgun is equivalent to a blaster? What's the range? What's the power output? What sort of damage does it do? You cannot answer the first two because there is no consistency.
What good does your billions of people do, and all your tanks, and all your aircraft, when the planet can be blown up from light years away?
How big are the Imperium's ships? From what I've seen, the Emperor-class (largest size the Imperium has) is the same size as a SSD. And again you make claims about destructive power with no information backing your claims. How powerful are the Imperium ships? How much energy can their shields withstand? How quickly can they fly half-way across the galaxy? If the GE attacks planet A how quickly can the IoM respond?

Regarding canon:
Per Leland Chee (who was in charge of SW continuity): "The database does indeed have a canon field. Anything in the films and from George Lucas (including unpublished internal notes that we might receive from him or from the film production department) is considered "G" canon. Next we have what we call continuity "C" canon which is pretty much everything else. There is secondary "S" continuity canon which we use for some older published materials and things that may or may not fit just right. But, if it is referenced in something else it becomes "C". Similarly, any "C" canon item that makes it into the films can become "G" canon. Lastly, there is non-continuity "N" which we rarely use except in the case of a blatant contradiction or for things that have been cut.

I will not go into specifics as to what is considered "S" canon or what items that are seemingly "C" canon are actually "G" canon."

As of April 25th 2014, only the 6 original films, Clone Wars cartoon, Clone Wars movie and anything published after April 25 2014 is considered canon. Which includes The Force Awakens.

You cant just blanket this V that when its 40k. We need specifics.

Is the 40k universe allies with each other, or is the universe at war?

Are the Chaos gods united?

Are rebels and empire united? Jedi/Sith best buddies?

Is this movie star wars or extended universe?

How does the battle start and where? Star was cannot just plop up in 40k, its a whole galaxy, do the galaxies touch, do they just plop together?


First off, this question pops up a lot on reddit.com/r/whowouldwin. A lot of different scifi universes have been pitted against 40k. The reason I like that forum, is that it is isn't bias for 40k, its mostly comic book fans, but they know how to have a good imaginary battle. Check out this one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/whowouldwin/comments/3ryz5n/the_starcraft_halo_and_mass_effect_universes_vs/

Sarcraft, Halo, and Mass Effect VS a unified 40k.

40k is stupid strong. It is generally seen as an A tier, where S tier is INSANITY strong, stuff like Dr. Who, where you have races of time travel, or Star Trek, where you have races who reality warpers like the Q continum.

So, moving forward. There are a few things that we have to look at aside from the questions I asked.

1. Chaos corruption affecting the star wars universe. There are quite a few empire dudes who chaos is going to like a lot. The Chaos gods are going to get SUPER CHARGED during this, there is no avoiding it. SW also has absolutely no idea about daemons or how to battle them, so they are in for a world of hurt. This is a huge disadvantage.

2. Eldar and Necrons. These are two super races. In lore (because tabletop doesnt matter at all in this conversation, as star wars doesn't have tabletop) these two races alone could probably take on star wars. They have all sorts of insane relics. Distort weaponry and gauss weaponry are hilariously overpowered in lore as well.

3. SPACE MARINES - Storm troopers are pretty much guardsmen. We have seen several times the damage their blasters do to bare flesh, as well as armor. We have also seen several times how pitiful their armor is. Outside of Jedi, SM are not easily stopped. However, these are not nearly as strong as eldar and Necrons, as SM ships are not as crazy advanced. Ground wars though, SM will be pretty bananas.

4. Here is the insurance policy of it all. Orks and Tyranids. The infinite waves of infinity. 1 ork dropped onto modern earth could wipe out the planet. That is just how they reproduce, suddenly you have a waaagh on your hands. A genestealer could do the same, but different.

5. Final point. Current star wars is generally a peaceful galaxy, we see a lot of planets enjoying this. They are just in the middle of a bit of war. 40k is ONLY WAR, there is no planet that isn't home to either an ongoing war, or a base of some sort.

So look up all the lore on what happens to civilians and guard when daemons pop up in front of them. That is what will happen whenever a daemon shows up to someone from the Star Wars universe. I know the old lore was something along the lines of "eye gouging, weeping and suicide" just because they looked at them.

40k is inconsistent to the point that it is a trope of the universe. As the universe becomes ever more strip mined by GW's writers, all the instances of "rule of cool" result in a a contradictory mess. The firepower levels of 40k technology are always as awesome as the plot requires, and the armor of the 40k technology is always as awesome as the plot requires. This is problematic as even in-universe, if one were to try and quantify what the actual power level is, you are beset on all sides by non-sensical findings:

Examples:

1. Plasma torpedoes are stated by GW to be 5GT. Based on the method of function of a SINGLE gun in a battleship's standard gun battery - i.e. sublight speed, massive warheads... these guns put out firepower 10^2 to 10^3x the yield of a torpedo. These guns are more numerous and have higher rate of fire. For the torpedoes to have any kind of effect (shields nonwithstanding as these weapons are employed against unshielded opponents such as Hulks from time-to-time), I would posit that the torpedos NEED to be stronger than the guns, which fire in ridiculous broadside salvos (ammunition storage nonwithstanding).

1. Lasguns are explicitly stated in lore to be super weak and only effective vs. unarmored opponents - sometimes not even beating carapace armor, except that they can "on occasion" kill powered armored opponents - y'know... by hitting a weak spot. Power armor is the strongest armor afforded to the heroes of mankind (terminator armor and its variants nonwithstanding)... so, I'll let the reader make their own conclusion here.

I'll leave you with this other non-firepower related inconsistency, related to a pillar of the franchise's lore:

Bolters: Rounds are stated to be rocket propelled shells, which have a high explosive warhead AND an armored piercing tip, AND leave spent shell casings AND and bolters are often depicted ejecting a stream of empty casings that, if their volume was added up, can not fit into the magazines. Lore states that a magazine can hold 20-30 such bolts in its "hammerspace" interior. In addition to this, it is understood that Space Marines carry enough ammo to last a full battle despite almost every depiction of Space Marines in official art, never carrying spare magazines, supplies, or any sort of stowage.

Since 40k as a universe is afforded such lattitude to include whatever they choose - including things that shouldn't be possible, as well as undemonstrated feats extrapolated from vague descriptions of overall capability and implied effeciveness... Unless the debaters are of similar mind of what is admissible and not admissible, it is impossible to successfully debate 40k vs anything due to the eventual devolution of the thread to: "The Emperor pwns you all", or the "Chaos Gods pwn you all" - both arguments based entirely off IMPLIED abilities not demonstrated.

gwarsh41, as I pointed out earlier, most vs battles are generally between the two main factions of a given setting.

SW vs ST is Empire vs Federation (especially since a number of races, such as the Q, are more likely to do nothing or side with the Federations enemies).
For 40K it usually means IoM.
For HALO, it's either the Covenent or Humans (forget their name).
Etc.

Of course you could be more specific, such as Borg vs Necrons, but we both know that the winner there is whoever figures out a way to upload Windows 98 to both groups simultaneously.

@Happyjew: I disagree that the scope can't be "universe vs universe". This is perfectly workable, should there be set parameters. The problem is that the 40k writers depict their own universe in an extremely variable way.

Example: Space Marines are claimed in the lore to effortlessly cleanse the xenos, as required by plot, unless it is inconvenient:

In Space Marine (THQ game, a single squad of Ultramarines is inserted to fight amidst a Ork Waaagh and they are able to hold out until reinforcements arrive!).

In the War for Armageddon, (betrayal nonwithstanding), an entire CHAPTER of Space Marines gets pwned instead. (Celestial Lions)

If you go all the way back to Index Astartes about how 10 Iron Warriors was all it took to garrison an entire world... you'd extrapolate that Space Marines are at least capable of fighting 10^6:1 odds - while not carrying extra ammo or reloads... Good thing that combat knife never runs out of ammo.

If we use universe vs universe we run into the problem of ancient unquantified superpowers.

40k has DAOT humanity, Pre-Fall Eldar, WiH Necrons, C'tan and Old Ones.

SW has the guys that built Centerpoint and some other vague stuff.

Halo has Precursors, Forerunners and fully fledged Flood.

Of those, the only semi-quantifiable ones are Forerunners and Flood by the advantage of having a trilogy of books dedicated to that period of the Halo-verse. But the rest are a bunch of super-tech with very little context.

As I understand it, the reason Marines seem so useless is because the stories we get to read about them are their most hard-fought, tense and uncertain battles (to make the most exciting reads) and in truth, most of the missions they make 'off screen' are actually simple fights of stomping enemies who do not stand much of a chance, and would not make for very interesting books either.

Which is also why Chapters can sustain their size despite their slow recruitment.

 Happyjew wrote:
gwarsh41, as I pointed out earlier, most vs battles are generally between the two main factions of a given setting.

SW vs ST is Empire vs Federation (especially since a number of races, such as the Q, are more likely to do nothing or side with the Federations enemies).
For 40K it usually means IoM.
For HALO, it's either the Covenent or Humans (forget their name).
Etc.

Of course you could be more specific, such as Borg vs Necrons, but we both know that the winner there is whoever figures out a way to upload Windows 98 to both groups simultaneously.

Well most battles isn't this one, this is a full fledged universe fighting a universe. There is no pairing off with who looks like a good match up in 40k or Star Wars, so there certainly would be none of that going on in this thread. 40k universe means all of 40k, SW universe means all of SW. If the OP meant just mankind they would have specified. They can always edit the post.

You can't really talk about the power of starkiller base or the death star in a 'what if' scenario like this. First of all they're incapable of FTL travel. That makes them slow. REALLY slow. They would then have to slowly travel while gathering data on star systems in the 40k universe to know what planets they should even shoot at. In this long process they would be blown to bits.

Neither the death star or starkiller base had adequate defenses when it comes to anything in 40k. They mainly relied on political threats of planet destruction to keep systems in check.

FTL also requires updated star charts/hyperspace routes so that depends on what universe they're fighting on.

As for normal ship to ship combat I think it depends on the faction. But to be honest a boarding party of ANYTHING from the 40k universe would slaughter the crew of any star wars ship.

edit: against chaos you're also just fethed. no anti-warp shielding means bloodletters of khorne exploding out of the bodies of your command crew.

 Don Savik wrote:
You can't really talk about the power of starkiller base or the death star in a 'what if' scenario like this. First of all they're incapable of FTL travel. That makes them slow. REALLY slow. They would then have to slowly travel while gathering data on star systems in the 40k universe to know what planets they should even shoot at. In this long process they would be blown to bits.

Neither the death star or starkiller base had adequate defenses when it comes to anything in 40k. They mainly relied on political threats of planet destruction to keep systems in check.

FTL also requires updated star charts/hyperspace routes so that depends on what universe they're fighting on.

As for normal ship to ship combat I think it depends on the faction. But to be honest a boarding party of ANYTHING from the 40k universe would slaughter the crew of any star wars ship.

edit: against chaos you're also just fethed. no anti-warp shielding means bloodletters of khorne exploding out of the bodies of your command crew.

It's already been established from the movies that the Starkiller Base and Deathstars were FTL capable, also the ST was capable of firing its main weapon via hyperspace, it didn't even have to be in the same solar system. The starkiller base had shielding capable of withstanding any attack, it's sole weakness was to ships travelling faster than SOL. DS was vulnerable to small ships, can't comment on larger ships.

As for your last two comments, The first I think is simply a case of rose tinted spectacles and the latter has no basis to support it.

Cheers

Andrew

... if we're including the Rakata of SW, then this is like the Old Ones, pre-War in Heaven, taking the field.

The Rakata make the Necrons look like dimwitted morons banging rocks together.

 AndrewC wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
You can't really talk about the power of starkiller base or the death star in a 'what if' scenario like this. First of all they're incapable of FTL travel. That makes them slow. REALLY slow. They would then have to slowly travel while gathering data on star systems in the 40k universe to know what planets they should even shoot at. In this long process they would be blown to bits.

Neither the death star or starkiller base had adequate defenses when it comes to anything in 40k. They mainly relied on political threats of planet destruction to keep systems in check.

FTL also requires updated star charts/hyperspace routes so that depends on what universe they're fighting on.

As for normal ship to ship combat I think it depends on the faction. But to be honest a boarding party of ANYTHING from the 40k universe would slaughter the crew of any star wars ship.

edit: against chaos you're also just fethed. no anti-warp shielding means bloodletters of khorne exploding out of the bodies of your command crew.

It's already been established from the movies that the Starkiller Base and Deathstars were FTL capable, also the ST was capable of firing its main weapon via hyperspace, it didn't even have to be in the same solar system. The starkiller base had shielding capable of withstanding any attack, it's sole weakness was to ships travelling faster than SOL. DS was vulnerable to small ships, can't comment on larger ships.

As for your last two comments, The first I think is simply a case of rose tinted spectacles and the latter has no basis to support it.

Cheers

Andrew

In the original trilogy it states its defenses were made for a large scale capital assault. They also said that the Death Star 2 will be all but impervious to assault if its completed since the design flaws were being worked out and it was being protected by a shield generator until its own defenses were complete. At which point it would be more or less invulnerable bar sabotage of the highest order.

 keezus wrote:
@Happyjew: I disagree that the scope can't be "universe vs universe". This is perfectly workable, should there be set parameters. The problem is that the 40k writers depict their own universe in an extremely variable way.

I never said that the scope could not be universe vs universe. I merely claimed that it usually is not. Otherwise, any universe can call on any reality-warping macguffin to save the day. For example, ST vs 40K. What's that you have millions more men and ships then w do, plus can easily destroy everything we hold dear? That's OK, the Q will stop you and win the day for us.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
gwarsh41, as I pointed out earlier, most vs battles are generally between the two main factions of a given setting.

SW vs ST is Empire vs Federation (especially since a number of races, such as the Q, are more likely to do nothing or side with the Federations enemies).
For 40K it usually means IoM.
For HALO, it's either the Covenent or Humans (forget their name).
Etc.

Of course you could be more specific, such as Borg vs Necrons, but we both know that the winner there is whoever figures out a way to upload Windows 98 to both groups simultaneously.

Well most battles isn't this one, this is a full fledged universe fighting a universe. There is no pairing off with who looks like a good match up in 40k or Star Wars, so there certainly would be none of that going on in this thread. 40k universe means all of 40k, SW universe means all of SW. If the OP meant just mankind they would have specified. They can always edit the post.

In which case, SW can use everything that is non-canon, such as Luke's hand and Palpatine's foot as extra Force users.

 Happyjew wrote:


First, where is your evidence that a lasgun is equivalent to a blaster? What's the range? What's the power output? What sort of damage does it do? You cannot answer the first two because there is no consistency.

Sure I can. Observing the effects from the movies, a blaster is not a plasmagun. Han shoots Greedo, a man sized life form point blank and he does not spontaneously combust, disintegrate and the wall behind him is fine. He smokes a bit.
That is the described effect of being hit with lasgun beams- they cause explosive burn holes in you. They are both, in effect, fancy space guns, more powerful than a modern firearm but not overwhelmingly so. Being armed with lasguns and blasters is a primarily a logistical advantage over slugthrowers- as described in both universes. 'Beam weapons', the energy weapons that preceded blasters in the SWU introduced this advantage, making slugthrowers less atrractive and blasters compounded it.

What good does your billions of people do, and all your tanks, and all your aircraft, when the planet can be blown up from light years away?

What superweapon are we talking about now? The one which a single psychic pilot blew up or the one which depended on a nearby moon to project its shield?
It does you good to have billions of troops when we are talking about conquering and not just killing worlds. You don't get into a killing worlds competition with the Imperium of Man.

How big are the Imperium's ships? From what I've seen, the Emperor-class (largest size the Imperium has) is the same size as a SSD. And again you make claims about destructive power with no information backing your claims. How powerful are the Imperium ships? How much energy can their shields withstand? How quickly can they fly half-way across the galaxy? If the GE attacks planet A how quickly can the IoM respond?

What information would you like? ISDs have engines you can fly a YT 1300 down. IoM Cruisers have gun barrels you could fly a YT1300 down. The Death Star main cannon aside, GE weapons don't seem to scale with the size of the ships. SSD's, though impressively long, have regular turbolasers throughout. The Deathstar was shown to have turbolaser turrets like an ISD.


Ultimately, we see that StarWars tech scales like 40k tech- bigger is usually better. Walkers can be invulnerable to light artillery but killed by heavier guns.
I'm proposing that 40k heavy tanks like russes and landraiders would be able to shrug off blaster hits, Titans can shrug off lasercannon fire and 40k ships can shrug off turbolaser hits- as a function of armour scaling against weapons.

 keezus wrote:
@Happyjew: I disagree that the scope can't be "universe vs universe". This is perfectly workable, should there be set parameters.

Then the 40k ships find that in the StarWars universe the warp is stable and not full of deamons and all their psychic powers work fine.
The Starwars ships trigger their hyperdrives and fly through hell without gellar fields. They emerge millenia later combined as a spacehulk that inexplicably has genestealers on it.

I'm interested in what parameters you need beyond Imperium v Galactic Empire.

 =Angel= wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@Happyjew: I disagree that the scope can't be "universe vs universe". This is perfectly workable, should there be set parameters.

Then the 40k ships find that in the StarWars universe the warp is stable and not full of deamons and all their psychic powers work fine.
The Starwars ships trigger their hyperdrives and fly through hell without gellar fields. They emerge millenia later combined as a spacehulk that inexplicably has genestealers on it.

I'm interested in what parameters you need beyond Imperium v Galactic Empire.

Well... uh... you've just set some parameters, since the OT was 40k vs Star Wars.

You've also conveniently ignored all my previous posts regarding how 40k's fluff greatly contradicts itself. Until this can be sorted out, you can't really do any vs. threads, since there is great disparity between feats: Here are a few examples:

At the highest end, 40k is able to trot out "implied" strength from their lore. These are all events that are rumored to be possible, yet have not occurred for various reasons. i.e. Chaos gods giving not enough feths to actually warp themselves to victory... Chaos gods / C'tan / the Emperor reality-warping themselves a win (via implied abilities, even though this hasn't happened in-setting for some reason), Tyranids winning via unlimited swarm (via implied numbers, even though they are invading 40k space at a slow speed, and their full numbers haven't been seen), Necrons winning via full awakening / super powers (via implied numbers, technology, even though they haven't fully awakened in 40k yet.)...

However, these self-same "super victory conditions", have the following flip sides: The Emperor is a corpse. Chaos seems content with manipulating low end mooks for the last 10 000 years, as they've not corrupted anyone of the substantive magnitude since the Heresy (and that took a lifetime... they started when the Primarchs were babies!). This strongly suggests that they're OK with the status quo and don't really give two feths about winning in the conventional sense. Tyranids are slow rolling and have been defeated in every incursion into 40k territory. I would posit that their hive fleets are actually more vulnerable to Star Wars due to their greater awareness of what happens in the empty spaces between sectors. Unawakened tomb worlds are just that... unawakened. To move from the normally stated condition to the "auto-win" condition is a parameter.

Here's another example: What's the actual firepower of an Imperial Cruiser? Calcs have placed the firepower as low as single digit gigatons (or 100's megatons) to 10's petatons. This is a disparity of 10^6. Unless some parameters are set here, what would 40k's opponents actually be fighting against? Firepower is directly proportional to ship defense, so this is a big deal! I personally tend towards the 10s-100's gigatons mostly because of Orks and Tyranids. The terraton numbers make no sense, as lower tech 40k races would be auto-curb stomped at the higher levels.

Ashiraya wrote:As I understand it, the reason Marines seem so useless is because the stories we get to read about them are their most hard-fought, tense and uncertain battles (to make the most exciting reads) and in truth, most of the missions they make 'off screen' are actually simple fights of stomping enemies who do not stand much of a chance, and would not make for very interesting books either.

With respect: This argument doesn't work... and its mostly because of Chaos Space Marines. In theory, every Chaos Marine should be Space Marine ++ due to to similar (or better!) equipment, experience and training + chaos powers. However, this is not the case! In many respects, they fight evenly, or worse than their newer, less experienced, modern battle brothers. One might suggest this is a failure of leadership (since Abaddon has been allowed to run 13 failed Black Crusades, and nobody has deposed him as Warleader), however, this isn't really a thing when fighting one-on-one. The other argument against is how easily Space Marines usually murder Eldar Aspect Warriors in fluff, yet get murdered by Orks in return. On the one hand, you have the most highly trained warriors (outside the astartes), carrying the most advanced wargear in the galaxy get mooked on a regular basis by bog standard bolter marines, but a giant muscle-bound space hillbilly is able to cleave a Marine with an oversized butcher cleaver? This is the best armor in the Imperium?

You are entirely correct that "consistent" marines wouldn't make for very interesting fiction, however, for the purposes of a versus thread, it needs to be established which version of the lore that the opposing faction is supposed to be fighting against...!