Question about 6-C Space Marines

[Jaakubb]

Why do space marines scale to a 6-C feat? I may be wrong as this info is from wikis, but the conversion beamer is an antimatter weapo. Antimatter works by converting matter and itself into pure energy through a sort of transmutation. This is backed up by the articles. Scaling them from this is like scaling a .50 cal or an m16 (superior weapon to flamethrower) to the total yield of a flamethrower that starts a forest fire. The weapon doesn't supply its own energy to the event, but just causes a chain reaction.

 

[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]

That scan takes dominance over those wikis.

Also, it can do this to entire tanks.

 

[Jaakubb]

If I were to find a scan that proves that it's antimatter, would the calc still be correct?

 

[Crabwhale]

Fairly certain it would be WAY HIGHER.

 

[Jaakubb]

Yeah it would have a higher yield, but as I said before, that's like scaling an m16 to a flamethrower that starts a forest fire. It's a chain reaction.

 

[Crabwhale]

No because the Beamer is said to be annihilating it's entire target. As in, it impacts the whole thing. That's why it's High 6-C currently.

 

[Jaakubb]

Suppose I found a quote that reaffirms that it is antimatter. It would be invalid because it's a chain reaction. However, I still have to find a quote that proves that the weapon uses antimatter, so the feat is still valid, right?

 

[Planck69]

Suppose I found a quote that reaffirms that it is antimatter. It would be invalid because it's a chain reaction. However, I still have to find a quote that proves that the weapon uses antimatter, so the feat is still valid, right?

Why would it using antimatter in anyway invalidate its AP? It still destroys its target in a single blow. Whether or not its a chain reaction is irrelevant since it still destroys what it hits, all in one go and as far as I'm aware, that's a valid reason to use it to estimate AP

 

[Akreious]

Pretty sure Anti-Matter ignores durability (At least on a 3D level), so...

 

[Planck69]

Pretty sure Anti-Matter ignores durability (At least on a 3D level), so...

Well then, that's quite a few profiles that need to be revised. I can remember at least four profiles had their AP based on antimatter feats. So what should be done about this? The only thing that comes to mind is to allow it to ignore durability which would lead to a lot of profile changes.

 

[Crabwhale]

Guys, you're acting as if this antimatter quote somehow completely dismisses the quote about it causing a subatomic implosion. It doesn't.

 

[Planck69]

Guys, you're acting as if this antimatter quote somehow completely dismisses the quote about it causing a subatomic implosion. It doesn't.

Hey, I completely agree with 6-C Space Marines and I hope I don't come across as dismissing its justification. But I do want to know whether or not antimatter ignores durability (logically it should but this still has an energy yield that can be used for AP). Or is it not treated that way in Warhammer 40K?

 

[Crabwhale]

I don't think causing subatomic implosion across the entirety of a tank can be considered durability negation.

It clearly takes a LOT of energy to do that regardless.

 

[Planck69]

I don't think causing subatomic implosion across the entirety of a tank can be considered durability negation.

It clearly takes a LOT of energy to do that regardless.

Well I'm glad that's been cleared up. Guess this thread can be closed.

 

[Jaakubb]

Wait. According to this site, implosion is part of the antimatter chain reaction. Yes, the weapon itself would cause 6-C damage or higher, but the problem is that we scale it to other Space Marine equipment and their armor. The chain reaction is like causing fission. It releases much more energy than you put into it. The weapon wouldn't actually supply any of the energy, it's just that when antimatter and matter collide, for scientific reasons (idk why honestly) all of the matter just turns into energy. The only energy that is released is enough to scale to 6-C, but the weapon itself only produces enough energy to propel the antimatter. As I said before, it's like scaling an m16's damage to the total yield of a forest fire caused by a flamethrower (weapon that is not as good as m16).

 

[Jaakubb]

I still haven't found a quote that supports the antimatter narrative, so space marines can stay at 6-C for now, until I do find the quote (I highly doubt that the 1d4chan wiki AND the wh40k wiki both lied, but I can't prove that they didn't).

 

[Jaakubb]

Antimatter does negate durability. According to CERN, just matter and antimatter colliding converts all of it into energy. No outside energy source is required.

 

[Jaakubb]

bump

 

[Jaakubb]

bump

 

[Crabwhale]

Look, the antimatter part may very well be a one-off addition from a single edition that was adopted by both of them due to no further alternatives.

Lexicanum makes absolutely no mention of the antimatter at all, and that is what I consider to be the most up-to-date site regarding the matter. The only thing consistent among all of them is the fact that it turns matter into energy.

 

[Jaakubb]

Well, Lexicanum does mention that it transforms the matter into energy, which would be transmutation. Transmutation negates dura. Also, these sources seem to support the antimatter description as well.

Also, subatomic implosion =!= subatomic destruction. As said by the source I provided earlier, implosion is just part of the natural reaction. They also use implosion to focus the energy into a beam instead of just exploding in all directions like antimatter normally would.

 

[Crabwhale]

1. Transforming the matter into energy would arguably yield even higher results. But it also makes no sense as the target is noted to be annihilated, whereas if all of it was turned into energy it would create an explosion that would ignite the planet's atmosphere every time.

2. As much as I love it I would hardly call 1d4chan a reliable source. It's good for general information. And neither would I call a YouTube video by a text-to-speech bot reliable.

 

[Jaakubb]

1. Annihilation is the term specifically used for antimatter reactions though, like here. I'm going to say it again, yes, the conversion beamer itself would be around 6-C or higher with dura negating hax, but it doesn't scale to any of the other weapons because it produces all of its energy from chain reactions. Antimatter-matter annihilation is something that happens naturally when antimatter and matter come in contact with one another, with no outside energy source required.

2. Why is Lexicanum a more accurate source? Are we only going to use scans? Do you have a link to the conversion beamer scan?

 

[Jaakubb]

But fine, this feat can stay until I find a reliable source that says otherwise. Still, my point about antimatter not scaling still stands.

 

[Crabwhale]

Because 1d4chan has blatantly lied about stuff or at least presented a very skewed image based on their own wants in the past and is not sourced at all, while YouTube is hardly an accurate place on it's best, even less so when it's a video with barely any views.

 

[Wokistan]

1d4chan is trying to be funny, take it with a grain of salt. They do cite things sometimes though

 

[Crabwhale]

Also, the Conversion Beamer itself might not even be needed completely in the long run since Meltas are apparently stated to do the same thing (as in, subatomic implosion).

 

[Jaakubb]

Also, the Conversion Beamer itself might not even be needed completely in the long run since Meltas are apparently stated to do the same thing (as in, subatomic implosion).

What? lexicanum specifically says "molten slag," so does the games workshop profile of it.

 

[Jaakubb]

Is the WH40K fandom article reliable or not?

 

[Crabwhale]

It was mentioned at one point in the Space Marine profile.

I hardly doubt the people who originally made just put that there out of their ass.

 

[Jaakubb]

I hardly doubt the people who originally made the conversion beamer article (on 1d4chan, the video, and on WH40K Fandom) made up the antimatter description either. You can't make me use scans but then suddenly decide to rely on hearsay to back up your claims. Again, lexicanum and even the games workshop descriptio say nothing about subatomic destruction, only melting to "molten slag."

 

[Crabwhale]

Since Azzy and Matt are the ones who have provided all the quotes necessary for the entire Space Marine profile, and the only ones of those quotes that have not been not proven by proper scans being found are the ones that people have not bothered to prove, I would think myself reasonable for trusting them.

But whatever, I suppose this really is a non-related topic.

 

[Jaakubb]

Fine. But if the antimatter description is true, then the feat would be invalid because it makes use of a chain reaction.

 

[Jaakubb]

bump

 

[Crabwhale]

Uh, why are you bumping this?

Didn't we kinda conclude it on the whole "finding the antimatter feat" thing?

 

[Jaakubb]

Oh whoops. So just making sure, if I find a scan or two, it's invalid?

 

[Crabwhale]

Depends how recent the scan is. If we're looking at something from like, 3rd edition, I think it's safe to discard given the massive amount of retcons that have happened in the meanwhile.

 

[Antvasima]

Should this thread be closed now?

 

[Crabwhale]

Yes.