Lascannon power downgrade / justification needed

[PsychoWarper]

Well is there anything to suggest that the tank isnt fully destroyed? Like anything talking about shrapnel or maybe about how only a part of it was destroyed?

Or is the entire argument just that the feat doesnt specifically say that the entrie tank was destroyed?

 

[Skaffolding]

That's a good point, it'd help if we could see a scan of it's effects on a tank.

 

[Skaffolding]

Also it's stated to cause a subatomic implosion. I don't want to sound like a broken record but I wouldn't assume an explosive round is enveloping an entire tank in the blast just because it causes an explosion to damage targets.

 

[Crabwhale]

There isn't one, at least to our knowledge. All we have is the above, and as pointed out numerous times throughout this thread, assuming that it's not entirely destroyed requires far more leaps and bounds in logic that it does simply taking what the quote says at face value.

 

[Skaffolding]

The quote doesn't explicitely say the whole thing is destroyed though. It says it causes a subatomic implosion.

Not to mention that there's also the whole "converting a section into antimatter to release energy" thing, which implies that it isn't targetting the entire thing since if it was the amount of energy released by the section it converted would be irrelevant- the target would already be energy.

 

[Skaffolding]

Taking something at face value isn't the same as assuming that something it does at one stage is done to every single part of the target.

 

[Crabwhale]

Do I need to post the quote again? Okay Imma post the quote again, cause you're just making me repeat myself:

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

 

[Skaffolding]

Ok I think there's a misunderstanding and I think it's probably my fault for being unclear.

I'm not arguing that it can't do that to an entire vehicle. I'm arguing against it being on the profile as if it's done instantly, or over a single second. It's explicitely stated to require time to build up to that point. All I'm saying is that a calculation that requires an unknown amount of time to be applicable shouldn't be used as if it's the instant power delivered.

 

[Crabwhale]

And again, to annihilate means to utterly destroy; obliterate. Ergo, the entire thing is blown away, and the way that's done is via breaking the subatomic bonds.

 

[Wokistan]

The context of the weapon creating subatomic explosions wouldn't seem to support using annihilate as "transmute to antimatter". Antimatter exists on the scale of quarks, after all.

 

[Crabwhale]

The charge-up is happening INSIDE the weapon or after it is already fired and it reaches it's target.

There is absolutely no mention of it having to built up to strength after it has already hit it's target. Not only does that make no sense, it's also dumb design.

What are you even trying to argue at this point?

 

[Skaffolding]

Anihilate is often used in fiction to describe cases where there are chunks left over. I normally see it tied to pulverization. But again, it's just a word that sounds cool. I just think putting that much stock in it is kind of unreliable.

 

[Skaffolding]

And I'm trying to argue that the Lascannon can't be tied to the calc of completely destroying every single nucleus in a tank due to the fact that we've never seen anything to support it doing this beyond the fact that it destroys tanks and the fact that it causes a subatomic implosion.

From what I've seen it just uses the energy from that implosion to do the damage, implying it isn't converting the entire target since if it did there'd be nothing left to damage.

 

[Crabwhale]

Yes but in this case it is directly supporting the feat, therefore elevating it above simple "cool word".

Again, the literal scientific definition of annihilate: convert (a subatomic particle) into radiant energy.

 

[Crabwhale]

And I'm trying to argue that the Lascannon can't be tied to the calc of completely destroying every single nucleus in a tank due to the fact that we've never seen anything to support it doing this beyond the fact that it destroys tanks and the fact that it causes a subatomic implosion.
From what I've seen it just uses the energy from that implosion to do the damage, implying it isn't converting the entire target since if it did there'd be nothing left to damage.

Just because it doesn't subatomically destroy tanks doesn't mean it doesn't have the same level of energy compressed and redirected towards pure kinetic.

Again, these are all heavy weapons in the same class, and they are all generally used as anti-armor (Plasma Guns/Cannons, Lascannons, Multi-Meltas, all comparable to the Beamer).

 

[Skaffolding]

And I'm trying to argue that the Lascannon can't be tied to the calc of completely destroying every single nucleus in a tank due to the fact that we've never seen anything to support it doing this beyond the fact that it destroys tanks and the fact that it causes a subatomic implosion.
From what I've seen it just uses the energy from that implosion to do the damage, implying it isn't converting the entire target since if it did there'd be nothing left to damage.

Just because it doesn't subatomically destroy tanks doesn't mean it doesn't have the same level of energy compressed and redirected towards pure kinetic.
Again, these are all heavy weapons in the same class, and they are all generally used as anti-armor (Plasma Guns/Cannons, Lascannons, Multi-Meltas, all comparable to the Beamer).

Uh, you're technically right. Not subatomically destroying tanks does not mean it doesn't have the same energy. It does however mean that you need to prove that it does, since the subatomisation was the only thing showing that it had that much energy. All we know is that it is anti-tank and that it can cause a subatomic implosion. So surely fragmentation, violent fragmentation or pulverization would be better estimates. Since those don't rely on the assumption that the writer considered the dictionary definition or the scientific definition of the word when he used it.

 

[Crabwhale]

Plasma weapons fire with the heat of the solar to the heat of the sun's core depending on which ones we're talking about. Specifically designed Meltas can punch through the hulls of the aforementioned void ships, while also being stated elsewhere to be capable of subatomic destruction themselves. Lascannons are generally considered more powerful than both.

These are all valid reasons, along with the fact that they're all part of the same heavy anti-armor class of weaponry, to scale them to the Beamer.

 

[Skaffolding]

Firslty the plasma pistol was downgraded to large building level in a calc I made a while ago, I don't know about the heavier versions- though unless the projectiles are a thousand times bigger in every direction they shouldn't be High 6-C.

Secondly is there a timeframe for them punching through the hull of void ships? I kind of doubt heavy weaponry can strip away the multi-kilometre long void ships that quickly..

 

[Crabwhale]

Firslty the plasma pistol was downgraded to large building level in a calc I made a while ago, I don't know about the heavier versions- though unless the projectiles are a thousand times bigger in every direction they shouldn't be High 6-C.

Secondly is there a timeframe for them punching through the hull of void ships? I kind of doubt heavy weaponry can strip away the multi-kilometre long void ships that quickly..

The projectiles are not a thousands times, but that's because it's concentrated. This happens all the time in Warhammer. Again, the power creep I mentioned earlier.

The type of Melta I am speaking about is mounted on the Caestus Assault Ram, a vehicle specifically designed to insert itself deep into enemy void ships and put Space Marines inside of there. The hull is softened up and even partially destroyed mere seconds before impact, which is why these Meltas have to be supercharged, but by your own logic the regular heavy weapon Mult-Meltas would scale to some extent.

Except they don't and they shouldn't, because it would be hugely outlierish.

 

[Skaffolding]

I never said plasma cannons scaled to plasma pistols. I actually went out of my way to say they were likely much stronger. I just said I was doubtful that they were more than a billion times stronger.

Considering these are designed to breach the hulls of void ships and are being fired at point blank range in the vacuum of space with none of that pesky convection I'm somewhat doubtful those Assault Rams scale to regular Melta weaons as well, though I'll do a bit more research before I comment more. Do you know anywhere I can get some information about them?

 

[Crabwhale]

Out of the big three websites that list things on Warhammer (the FANDOM wiki, Lexicanum, and 1d4chan), I'd definitely go with the middle man.

 

[Skaffolding]

Alright, thanks. I'll try and read up a bit if you wouldn't mind waiting, I'm really enjoying this discussion so I want to make sure I'm not just spouting nonsense if that makes sense.

 

[Skaffolding]

Ok I read up a bit on Lexicanum and 1d4chan.

From what I've seen the Magna Melta only softens the armour before the boarding ship, which is big enough to contain a squad of half-ton Spacemarines, slams into it at what I'm guessing is at least a few dozen kilometres per second. That doesn't really seem like it scales to the Magna Melta alone. Unless you calced heating up that section of armour to the point where the metal becomes significantly weakened. Am I misinterpreting this orrr...?

 

[Skaffolding]

Also 1d4chan is, like, hilarious. I really regret not finding it before now.

 

[Crabwhale]

The ship hulls are High 6-A. Even softening them up should give some scaling.

 

[Skaffolding]

But this is a really small section. Also I'm not completely sure how it works but doesn't that High 6-A only apply to destruction? Since softening is just specific heat x temperature change.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Multi-Meltas can destroy tanks and there's some statements saying they heat molecules on a sub-atomic level.

 

[Wokistan]

But this is a really small section. Also I'm not completely sure how it works but doesn't that High 6-A only apply to destruction? Since softening is just specific heat x temperature change.

The High 6-A comes from a weapon that vaporized an ocean or something, which would indicate it being heat based. I can see about finding the calc.


http://gen.lib.rus.ec/ can let you pirate all sorts of books and journals (I use it for textbooks all the time) and some 40k stuff is there, if you're trying to look into it yourself.

 

[Skaffolding]

GASP

But that's illegal!

thanks

 

[Wokistan]

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Darkanine/Warhammer:_Atomizing_Continents

Here's source of High 6-A calc.

 

[Skaffolding]

Oh nice, I'll take a look now. Thanks for the help, I'm useless when it comes to finding my way through.... anything really.

 

[Skaffolding]

I still don't see how heating up the metal would be comparable to destroying the hull, especially considering the fact that there's only a very small section being affected.

 

[Wokistan]

Ships like this don't tend to one shot other ships, and given how much higher High 6-A is than High 6-C it exists more as support for the latter due to being a smaller chunk.

 

[Skaffolding]

Do you think it would be technically calc stacking to try and get a number by comparing the area of the ship to the minimum affected area?

 

[Wokistan]

Probably.

 

[Skaffolding]

That's unfortunate, I guess it can't be helped.

Also the area is only one part of what makes it much, MUCH less impressive than actually destroying the ship.

Not only is it making a hole a few metres wide on a ship that is 6-8 kilometres across, it is also not actually making the hole. It's just softening the metal enough for a boarding ship to punch through. Considering they're travelling at speeds far greater than escape velocity and carrying several tons of space marine and space marine equipment I find it hard to believe it's not a significant amount of kinetic energy.

Then there's the fact that it is still something that's far bigger than heavy weaponry.

Also is there even a source for a battleship tanking a continent-atomising blast without void shields?

 

[Crabwhale]

Ironclads were designed around that whole concept. Their use is restricted due to Void Shields being that much more superior. But even putting that aside, even the dingiest ship should be able to take one torpedo.

That's right, continent atomizing on single shot.

 

[Crabwhale]

Also, even a vehicle traveling that fast wouldn't possess the necessary energy to punch through that armor. It's almost a certainty that the Melta is doing most of the work by softening it up.

 

[Skaffolding]

That's different from destroying it though. If it's not outright destroying sections of the armout by itself then why not calculate it heating it up instead? That's what it's actually doing and it'd mean that there would no longer be any issue with things like ignoring a meteoric impact from a multi-ton spacecraft. Also it means that the feat is based on what the Melta is actually doing, rather than what it's capable of doing on an immensly smaller scale along with the assistence of said impact.

 

[Crabwhale]

...You can't calc adamantium. IT'S NOT REAL.