Lascannon power downgrade / justification needed

[Skaffolding]

Fairly simple issue. On the Adeptus Astartes profile they are given a large island level rating with weaponry because Lascannons can vaporise tanks. Only problem is that it's linked to this calculation which is for subatomic destruction.

Am I being stupid and failing to see a scan depicting Lascannons destroying atomic nuclei or does this need fixing?

 

[Skaffolding]

bump

 

[Qawsedf234]

If there's no statement stating that the weapon destroys things on the atomic/sub-atomic level and there's implication that it does, then it can't be scaled to an explicit sub-atomic calc. The rating should just be removed entirely.

 

[Crabwhale]

Right, so that stuff about High 6-C? Actually comes from Conversion Beamers and Meltas (but mostly the former) which use a re-purposed calculation from War of the Worlds since the guy who made the actual proper calc for the weapon agreed that it was more accurate.

 

[Crabwhale]

That bit about Lascannons should definitely be removed of course, but they do still scale to said Beamers since they're in the same general class of heavy weaponry.

 

[Qawsedf234]

What evidence does either of those weapon types have for sub-atomic disintegration and a feat of similar magnitude to the tank one?

 

[Crabwhale]

Because Conversion Beamers are straight up stated to release a blast of something that sub-atomizes anything from soldiers, to vehicles, the bunkers.

If anything, that figure might be downplay, as 40k tanks can get quite a bit larger than those we have today.

 

[Qawsedf234]

My only familiarity with the verse comes from the Space Marines video-game and some Emperor text-to-speech videos, so I'm not familiar with the weapons or lore surrounding them. Do you have a scan of either than can be included in the profile update?

 

[Crabwhale]

"These esoteric energy weapons fire a beam which induces a subatomic implosion in their target, with the beam itself gathering power over distance up to a terminal point of beam instability." - Horus Heresy Book I: Betrayal

 

[Crabwhale]

This quote was provided by Azzy so I don't think it's validity needs to be checked.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I also trust Azzy, but a quote with no page source or image just isn't good in my view. But to help out I tracked down both the scan from the bookand the 5th edition Space Marine Codex. Although can anyone actually like... withstand the beam? Because if not that may downgrade some other dudes.

 

[Crabwhale]

Bambi was right, you really are a man of miracles

I don't think scans are absolutely necessary when the source statements come from is reliable. Lexicanum in particular has reference points just like Wikipedia for everything it says, right down to the actual page of the book, so I don't see why anyone should have a problem taking from them.

Anyway, as said on the profile, Terminator Marines can survive being shot at by Plasma Cannons, which are nearly on the same level of heavy weapon as Lascannons and Conversion Beamers, while usually surviving the ordeal.

Centurions and Dreadnoughts meanwhile are both far tougher than an ordinary Terminator.

 

[Skaffolding]

The main issue was the fact that there isn't a source showing it. The page itself even says vaporisation, if there's a source that shows Lascannons destroying atomic nuclei then it should be made available on the page shouldn't it? I mean, that's a pretty huge amount of energy and it turned the destruction of a tank into a large island feat. I just want to help avoid other people getting as confused as I did.

Also not to nit-pick but "subatomic implosion" is not the same thing as subatomising the target. It just means that the weapon is subatimising something. If a tank gets hit by a missile then I imagine a small part of it could be melted, but that doesn't mean that the entire tank is being melted. Right?

 

[Crabwhale]

Yes, actually, the whole thing. Lemme get the quote for ya.

 

[Crabwhale]

Also yeah I got no ******* clue why the vaporixation thing is listed there and the Lascannon is taken as an example when it should be the Conversion Beamer.

 

[Crabwhale]

"A Conversion Beamer can annihilate creatures, vehicles, or anything its beam reaches, provided it is given time to build to critical mass." - Dark Heresy: Daemon Hunter

"This turns the Predator Executioner into an extremely powerful siege unit and long-range tank destroyer, but this firepower is gained at the cost of manoeuvrability and increased vulnerability to short-ranged attacks." - Forge World: Deimos Pattern Predator Executioner

 

[Skaffolding]

Again, that doesn't explicitely say it's destroying every single atom in the target. Anihilate could just as easily mean it's blowing it to bits. Also I checked the Lexicanum and it said;

"The conversion beamer fires a high intensity energy beam, which transforms matter into pure energy. A heavily armoured target or dense material will be rent apart as its matter explodes. The more dense the material of the target the more energy that is converted, making conversion beamers particularly good against heavily armoured troops, vehicles and buildings. The intensity of the beam increases as it extends further from the weapon, becoming increasingly dangerous, until it reaches the focal point where the beam is so intense that the energy has to be released in a violent explosion"

I'm not completely sure how reliable the sight is but it seems to imply that it's ripping the tank to pieces with a single blast of energy, rather than completely wiping every single atom out of existence.

 

[Crabwhale]

Again, Lexicanium is great most of the time, but in this particular instance the quote above exists. The annihilation is taken as subatomic because that's supposedly what the Conversion Beamer, that's it's whole thimg.

 

[Skaffolding]

But it doesn't always obliterate things with no shrapnel, vapour or anything else left at all. It just doesn't make sense to me that it would be applied to the entire tank just because it does it to a specific part. Especially when it involves inflating a tank-busting feat to large island level. There isn't anything saying that it's subatomising the entire tank. Just a statement saying that it's subatomising something and the statement that it's anihilating a tank.

 

[Crabwhale]

To annihilate means to destroy utterly; obliterate.

Furthermore, and interestingly enough, in physics to annihilate means to convert (a subatomic particle) into radiant energy. Coincidence or reference to the previously mentioned quote?

I think the later.

 

[Skaffolding]

Firstly I think using dictionary definitions of words is a bit unreliable. For example the Juggernaut is regularly described as unstoppable, the definition of which is "impossible to stop or prevent." Does that mean he has infinite energy? I don't think so.

Secondly the Lexicanum mentions anihilation, converting matter into energy. It also mentions that it's power depends on the density, implying that it's effecting the same volume since the density would determine the mass being converted into energy. Now since it's described as being better against denser targets due to releasing more energy, I think that would imply that it's damaging them with the release of energy rather than converting the entire mass into energy. Since if it was anihilating the target completely the density would be irrelevant.

 

[Crabwhale]

I'm making an exception for using them in this instance because they directly support a piece of evidence. I highly doubt the use of that specific word when the context of subatomic destruction is concerned is simply coincidence.

The way the firing and actual explosion mechanisms work is itself inconsistent since I've seen variants for antimatter, matter to energy conversion and more. The one thing left consistent simply because none of these statements directly challenge that claim is the end result, namely the annihilation of the direct.

 

[Crabwhale]

I don't understand why this specific thing is being challenged to this extent anyway. Subatomic-destroying weapons are par for course in Warhammer, and a whole faction mounts them as the standard-isue foot soldier weapon (namely Gauss Flayers for Necrons, which also have a calc here).

Granted they are leagues and bounds above every other faction, but the Conversion Beamer is DAoT tech anyway.

 

[Skaffolding]

I'm not challenging it destroying nuclei, I'm challenging that it destroys every single nucleus in an entire multi-ton tank. I've yet to see evidence stating that each and every one was destroyed, only evidence that it destroys nuclei and evidence that it destroys tanks. Those are not the same thing. The same way a small part of a tank being melted by an irl missile doesn't mean the entire thing is being melted.

 

[Crabwhale]

I'm pretty sure when it says "annihilates vehicles", it is not referring to some part of them being destroyed and used to cascade the effect throughout the entire thing.

Occam's razor says it's far easier to assume when they say "annihilate something", they mean the whole thing.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Also weren't Plasma Guns downgraded to like 9-A or smth? Even though they can melt through Terminator Armor and the like? Seems like a ludicrous lowball.

 

[Crabwhale]

Plasma Pistols Matt, and they were put at High 8-C.

 

[Skaffolding]

I'm pretty sure Terminators, who can survive Plasma Cannons that are almost on the level of Lascannons and conversion beamers by your own words. So are you implying that Terminators are billions of times as durable as standard Astartes?

Occam's razor says the answer with the least speculation is usually correct. Since we know it subatomises things, assuming that it subatomises EVERYTHING seems a lot more like the answer that's requiring more assumptions to me.

 

[Qawsedf234]

From the quotes I take it as the beam turns whatever it hits into anti-matter, and the longer you can keep the beam on something the more matter it can convert and the larger the blast. It's not like it instantly turns a tank into anti-matter.

Even the page I linked stated that it's used for breaching starships, not destroying then outright.

 

[Skaffolding]

^

I feel like this is either going to result in a massive downgrade because not subatomic destruction, or a massive upgrade because.... antimatter.

 

[Crabwhale]

@ Skaffolding

Yes because that's how the power creep in Warhammer works. The higher up the totem pole you go, the more ludicrous the discrepancy between the higher level and the bog-standard foot soldier becomes.

Space Marine Captains can and frequently do have Tier 5 powerscaling. A bog standard Terminator is part of the Veteran 1st Company, making them leagues and bound ahead of their peers, so yes, them being billions of times stronger makes sense when you account the rest of the universe.

@ Qawsed

If anything the leads to even more precedent for the rating staying High 6-C and potentially higher, since I don't think you comprehend how tough ship hulls actually are.

Even without Void Shields starships (seems they're referring to larger void ships since they're the only ones who typically get boarded) are several kilometers long and can frequently take blasts of weaponry from weaponry that can vaporize oceans and atomize continents.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

There's a feat of a Terminator surviving being stomped on by an Imperator Titan.

 

[Skaffolding]

I think discussing the difference between Terminators and regular marines is probably a bit off-topic to be fair. Regarding this particular calculation I still haven't seen anything to suggest the "subatomic implosion" is tearing apart every single nucleus in the tank. Explosive bullets cause damage with a small explosion to tear through armour, that doesn't mean that they're detonating the entire target at once.

Also we're never given a timeframe for the starship breeching, so I'm doubtful that it's just instantly anihilating a gaping hole in it as much as it would be building power and "drilling" through slowly like a real-world blowtorch.

 

[PsychoWarper]

Yeah that big of a power difference in 40k isnt uncommon at all like Crab said.

 

[Qawsedf234]

A better point about ship hulls though is that it only converts a limited amount if the thing into anti-matter which then explodes. Unless there's a statistic for the amount of matter it can instantly covert I would say finding a tier would be incredibly difficult.

 

[Skaffolding]

Considering its power depends on density, not size, I think it's safe to say it's the same volume each time regardless. Maybe projectile size for artilery would be a decent estimate?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I find High 8-C Plasma Pistols to be Iunno.

 

[Crabwhale]

A better point about ship hulls though is that it only converts a limited amount if the thing into anti-matter which then explodes. Unless there's a statistic for the amount of matter it can instantly covert I would say finding a tier would be incredibly difficult.

There is. It's called annihilating that tank.

Seriously, why do we have to bother through such intense logic hoops when the statement "annihilates" should speak for itself? Generally, when I hear "annihilate", I hear "destroyed without a trace" because that's the definition of the phrase and alternative interpretations of it rarely if ever pop up.

The main way it destroys things is by subatomic yeeting, so I don't see why you are insisting we consider that not the entire thing is destroyed at once when the statement seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Also, you're still talking about High 6-A hulls there.

 

[Wokistan]

I gotta do stuff so I'll probably be brief, but...

If something's explained to destroy things on a subatomic level and then is stated to completely annihilate a thing, why would it arbitrarily completely destroy it in a totally different way? If we don't use the antimatter thing (which would probably be far higher so we really shouldn't) it seems odd to be like "yeah it sub atomized this part while just destroying this part in some nondescript way even though it totally destroyed it and this weapon damages on a subatomic level".

As for the ship hulls, they're High 6-A or better so punching a hole through that is actually probably a lot higher than the High 6-C.

 

[Crabwhale]

Obviously it's a focused spot so the durability might not be the same, and if not for that it'd just be hugely outlier-ish for the average Terminator to be able to survive something that's supposedly on the same level as void ship weaponry, but it still lends precedence to the fact that Conversion Beamers are that powerful.