Lascannon power downgrade / justification needed

[Skaffolding]

It's close enough to real-world metals for the subatomic destruction calc to be accepted.

 

[Crabwhale]

I don't think real life metals can shrug off automatic missile-launcher fire.

Also, the calc we're currently basing this on was designed for an actual real world vehicle and applied to Warhammer because it was the closest thing. Given how adamantium likely is far denser...yeah, that's another point for the High 6-C count.

Seriously, why are we still doing this?

 

[Skaffolding]

Because we still don't agree. If the subatomic destruction calculation still used real world metals then why can't this one? Seriously, it's even been done in warhammer before. Here and here

It's probably more accurate than ignoring the impact of the ship. the thing that's actually destroying the weakened hull.

 

[Crabwhale]

...Because the hull is High 6-A?

No kinetic projectile could reach that level of destructive force at that size unless it was traveling extremely close to the speed of light.

Hell, the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs was only High 6-B and it was traveling at comparable speeds.

 

[Crabwhale]

Anyway, this debate has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and it's quite frankly just wasting everyone's time. We don't need the Magna Melta calc unless we actually make a profile for the Caestus Assault Ram, because the amount of examples given in this thread in my opinion are already enough.

Since it seems we've reached a standstill, and neither side seems to be convincing the other, I say we put this to a vote.

 

[Skaffolding]

Yeah. That seems fair to me, I can't imagine either of us convincing the other at this point. Admittadly I've never actually held a vote here, I assume I'm supposed to do it since I'm the one who opened the thread?

 

[Crabwhale]

I don't think a vote is a strictly standard procedure in a CRT but since both arguments are just going in circles I think it's the only choice we have rite now.

Since I was the main proponent I'm going to abscond myself from voting like you.

 

[Skaffolding]

Yeah. I'm still unsure of what happens though. Am I the one who "holds" the vote and tallies it? If not, is an impartial mod going to? Sorry if it's a dumb question I'm just kind of confused here.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I vote on Crab.

 

[PsychoWarper]

I vote for Crebs reasoning.

 

[Paul_Frank]

I also vote on crab

 

[Crabwhale]

Yeah. I'm still unsure of what happens though. Am I the one who "holds" the vote and tallies it? If not, is an impartial mod going to? Sorry if it's a dumb question I'm just kind of confused here.

I think we just get people to post their opinion and then follow the majority.

 

[Skaffolding]

Alright, so that's three votes for using the total subatomic destruction so far then. I assume we'll wait a few hours and then add them up.

 

[Crabwhale]

Ya

 

[Skaffolding]

Alright, it's been two hours and I'm fairly sure everyone who's commented has voted so I think it's safe to say that the scaling will be left as it is.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Just replace the lasbeam stuff with the conversion beamer scans and I'm good with it.

 

[Skaffolding]

Also the word vaporisation. If it links to a calc for subatomisation probably call it subatomisation.

 

[Antvasima]

Should this thread be closed then?

 

[Crabwhale]

The correction has been made. This can indeed be closed now.