Board Thread:Warhammer 40k General Discussion/@comment-27642965-20160211003725/@comment-24510587-20160922183659

come back when ou actually do have some arguments that you can back up with canon and reasoning, no point having a disussion with somebody who does not even have the skills to participate.

"it's how it is" is a very very eloquent line of reasoning,if yer talking to a 2 year old, that simply does not cut it here. So, what, we're going to debate whether or not things make sense even though they're established facts within the universe? If the core if sci fi was scientificcally impossible technology, then you have not understood science fiction at all. it tends to represent the technology capabilities at the moment (go look f.e. for Brennon Braga on writing sci fi or take  Halderman or Lem or many many other author [heck if we look at SEW and W40k  the Watrp is a thing working on paralel universe theory explaining ftl) ^^)(sidenote, you were the one bringing up calculators,and kilotonnes....

so trying that route if it suits you and denying it when it does nto suit you is pretty poor strategy. Aaand... Spaceships with massive blaster cannons and planet-breaking missiles are things our technology is capable of, then?

PS: Blasters being scientifically impossible has nothing to do with power outputs, which can still be calculated just as well. So you recognise that it breaks the setting's internal coherence. Now I wonder if you'll see that teraton Star Wars ships do the same. Oh really now? Well, pray tell, how do Teraton-power Turbolasers break the coherence? We know they're capable of vaporising asteroids without effort. We know they can turn an entire town into glass with one shot from orbit (without even spreading the power, like an explosion would). We know that the starships have a ridiculous amount of power hooked up to their shield generators (the Executor-class has an output similar to that of a medium star connected to its shields). Where does the coherence break? Big words from someone who's probably using the damned Incredible Cross Sections as a source given their preferred firepower calcs. You know that book was written by a fanboy who specifically wanted to win these sorts of debates, and did the Star Wars fandom a great disservice by discarding respect for the setting's internal coherency in favour of biggatons? That's cool. See how much power it takes to vapourise an asteroid the way they did in ESB, and you will find that it is somewhere in the Petajoules. How fast do these missiles accelerate? What's their maximum velocity? No clue. Apparently, fast enough to avoid point-defence fire. Citation please? I'm familiar with Eclipse and Eclipse II but not any further ships of that class, and I've never seen any actual numbers for the Sovereigns. What's your source for there being a few dozen of each? Whoops. Meant to say a couple and a dozen or so, each. But now that I think of it, I may have confused the Sovereign with the Executor at some point in time. Nevermind that, then :3 You can if the projector can't actually track you and given that it was designed to target Star Wars ships I doubt it'll be able to aim at 40k strikecraft or missiles. That's not even how tractor beams work; they're aimed in a general direction, after which they pull in ships from that direction. When said ships get pulled in close, they can then move them in any way they like. Impervious to sub-kiloton weapons with range shorter than mid 20th-century wet-navy vessels? Not impressed. You mean triple-digit teraton weapons? Vitiate isn't Vader. Vader is stronger in the Force than Vitiate. That guy's source seems to be Fractalsponge, who explicitly referred to the ICS for his numbers when designing his ships. Here's something to keep in mind: Curtis Saxton's masturbatory fantasies that contradict basically every other source in the franchise are not reliable. I'm going to once again point out that it takes a stupidly high amount of power to vapourise an asteroid.