• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Space Marine Durability

XING06

XING06

710
58
Terminators, Centurions, and Dreadnoughts can canonically be killed by earthshaker cannon barrages on basilisks which are anywhere from high 8-C to 8-A at max AP. They shouldn't be Continent level without shields.

The plasma resistance is likely a property of the adamantium underlayer/huge extra amounts of ceramite that is what makes the other sets different from bog standard space marine armor.

These guys are tough but they shouldn't even break into town level.
 
You can ask Azathoth to comment here if you wish.
 
@Matt

Well, a basic Space Marine wouldn't, since Gauss Flayers can one-shot them. However, it took a repeated barrage from multiple 'crons to kill a Terminator, so they would scale.

Edit: Quote I'm referring to. It takes the entire front rank of a group of warriors to do this to a Terminator, while it takes one shot of a gauss flayer to do the same to a marine in power armour even more quickly.

"As one, the front rank of the corpse-machines raised their weapons and blinding, green light roared from their barrels. Marduk saw the thick Terminator armour of one warrior-brother flayed instantly to nothing beneath the searing light. Skin was torn away, exposing first muscle tissue then inner organs then nothing but bone, before even that was seared away." - Dark Apostle
 
Sorry I understated the dreadnought's durability a lot.

It takes a large barage of Earthshakers to kill them so they could definitely go over Town level.

Neither a terminator nor a centurion would survive anything close to that though so they're closer to 8-A.
 
Since the question has been answered, should we close this thread?
 
Sure should I edit the page then?

So dreadnoughts at least 7-C? Terminator/Centurion 8-A?
 
What statistics do you wish to change specifically?
 
What do you think Matthew and Azathoth?
 
Quick question. Where did the Gauss flayer city level calc come from?

If it came from scaling then I don't think that's right based on the codex description of the actual weapon.

"A Gauss Flayer is a type of Necron Gauss Weapo that can strip a target down to nothing molecule by molecule, reducing it to its constituent atoms in a matter of seconds. Unlike more conventional directed energy weapons, a Gauss Flayer does not deliver a cutting beam or pure bolt of electromagnetic force or subatomic particles. Instead it emits an emerald, lightning-like molecular disassembling beam capable of reducing flesh, armour and bone to almost nothing.

Gauss Weapons have been known to hurt monstrous creatures that similar weapons have no hope of even scratching"

As stated, Necron gauss flayers seem to ignore durability in a limited manner due to the unique nature of the energy beam which pulls the target apart atomically, the amount of which is determined by the energy of the gun.

The amount they can comepletely destroy seems to be a fully grown adult human as space marines are killed but left intact, so based on a quick calc (a 95 kg human has a volume of around 95 liters give or take 5%. 95L=95000cc. 95000*30852.2 (j/cc for water b/c that's what humans are mostly) = 2x10^9 to 8x10^9 if use higher weight value) Necron gauss flayers would actually have around Building-Large Building level AP based on energy alone because they can atomize a human body.

Sorry this calc was a bit rushed so it could have some errors in it. If so feel free to correct me, but again based on this I don't think a Necron Gauss Flayer is 7-B, higher powered weapons mabye but definitely not the gauss flayer.
 
It could be lore related

That said, the weapon pages for warhammer might be a little...

flawed, to say the least.

I do think we need some clarifications, but If I find the calc, I will link it.

Edit: Gauss weapons arent in warhammer, are they?That is star craft.
 
Gauss flayers are definitely warhammer. It's always been in the codex/wiki; Necron weapons are gauss weapons because the disassembly beam is magnetically accelerated or something

Sorry my explanation's not clearer. I'm better with the Imperial Guard/Commisariant weaponry, which is why I brought up the space marine's durability, because Imperial Guard ballistic artillery, which is mostly builidng level can still take out terminator equivalents with a barrage of high explosive shells.

Anway like I said though, I would love to review the calc that it came from, but if it was scaled using lore, then something's off. A gauss flayer's AP doesn't work like other conventional weapons. It ignores durability to dissassemble a set amount of matter, and continous shots will continually disassemble the armor/creature until pretty much nothing is left. It doesn't need a very high AP (energy) because of this as it can destroy enemies far above its own AP as long as they don't have energy shielding of any sort.
 
Also gauss weapons are common in warhammer. The Tau use them all the time. The Necrons use them. Even the Imperium apparently uses it (this is a disputed point in canon).
 
It's not subatomic destruction though its atomic dissasembly ("reducing it to its constituent atoms in a matter of seconds") so the feat can't be right because its using the wrong values. It should be the water atomization value.\

Also this tech is Necron specific. Other races use magnetic weapons too but nothing like this.
 
Gauss tech has also been said to have reduced a target to its molecules, varying from writer to writer. This is going by the fact we are told it can and does operate on a sub-atomic scale.

@KinkiestSins

Every one of the countless fodder Necron warriors carries one of these.
 
Yeah WH40K is alwas really inconsistent. Like in codex 3 it stated a mollecular level. In five it says atomic then subatomic. 7 is just all oer the placee it first says atomic then subatomic once (that could be a typo). Anyway as a high end calc the 7-C gauss flayer is good, but we should use the most consistent showing of power which is definitely not 7-C

A Gauss Flayer is a type of Necron Gauss Weapo that can strip a target down to nothing molecule by molecule, reducing it to its' 'constituent atoms in a matter of seconds.

The most consistent thing is that it reduced the target to atoms. In all three codexes it says that it breaks it down to individual atoms, before introducing contradictions within the lore by adding technobabble about molecules or subatomic level.

For instance, while codex 7? says that it pulls on a subatomic scale, the end result is still atomization not subatomic destruction. We can tell because going by lore a gauss flayer causes trauma by disssasembling a target by pulling atoms towards the gun. However, in all depictions there is normally some form of vapor or residue afterwards.

The fact that there is vapor proves the targeted matter was atomized, drawn towards the gun, then converted to gasesous form or just a solid dust particles. It can't be heat effects because Necron guns don't work using high energy particle beams or plasma its some form of magnetic field. Subatomic destruction destroys the atoms itself so there would be no residue just a clean pile of nothing and empty armor.

Therefore while subatomic effects are sometimes stated in the codex this is higly inconsistent with lore and debated among different issues of the codex, so the subatomic destruction value shouldn't be used. Even in the calc quotes used it demonstrated atomization not subatomic destruction. The only place it ever says subatomic is in some of the codexes and even then its mixed up with atomization.

Seriously though WH40K powers are all over the place. In one book, a bunch of Necrons warriors took out a Land Raider with their Flayers but failed to scratch the Terminators inside using multiple shots. A LAND RAIDER.....WTF! (I forget where this happened I think it was a Ciaphas Cain novel?)
 
I don't think subatomic Necron Gauss weaponry is that inconsistent, considering it's kind of built into the mechanism of how the guns function, along with the fact we have repeated statements of the Necrons being capable of utilizing tech on something as small as a subatomic scale and as large as a higher-dimensional scale. It's also not like much that logically wouldn't be able to survive a tier 7 Gauss blast does so. Basic Marines disappear from even the slightest glancing hit, and even Termies can't stand up to a large barrage of them striking in quick succession.

I'd find instances of remaining vapor or dust to be significantly more inconsistent, since this often happens even in instances where the target has been completely atomized (or worse), and should not actually happen. Though I suppose it is often used more as a flowery description than something literal (ex: saying a Marine was "rendered into dust" immediately after mentioning how he was fizzling away without physical remains.).

That said, I've been meaning to downgrade Plasma Weaponry for a while, since the higher-end statements are obscenely greater than the low-end statements (another extremely inconsistent type of weaponry) and potentially scale things that currently use it as scaling to something else.
 
Why does the sub-atomic destruction stuff not count as ignoring durability instead of being counted as actual AP here? Said gun being able to break down stuff down to sub-atomic level should be counted as durability ignoring, as there is no major reaction/explosion that was shown to occur when atoms are being split apart here.
 
This logic makes no sense. Atomic Destruction isn't Durability Bypassing, it is instead a more through destruction which bypasses Regenerationn, not durability. That's where the confusion started.

To split atoms individually, let alone split sub-atomic particles like protons and neutrons, you need an obscene amount of energy, which can be calculated and quantified. Saying that it can't be counted as Attack Potency because a nuclear explosion doesn't follow is the equivalent of saying that no Planet-level character can punch the ground without the planet they're on exploding.
 
Saying that it can't be counted as Attack Potency because a nuclear explosion doesn't follow
This would be equivalent to saying that a material has been vaporized because the aftermath of a formed crater has no visible pieces left, even if there are no evidence of heat involved/steam forming from said crater.

Saying that a major reaction does not occur just because atoms were said to be split apart would be incorrect according to basic physics (nuclear fissio).

  • To put it in simple terms, when atoms are forcibly split apart, said atoms will release a massive amount of energy from doing so.
So if all the energy from the atoms being destroyed is not being released to the environment, we cannot classify this as an AP feat.

DarkAnine got a City level result for that Sub-atomic destruction feat, but then the yield generated from that attack seemed to have disappeared entirely, instead of causing an effect on the environment due to the sheer amount of energy released from the atoms being split apart. Where did all this energy go?
 
Warhammer 40K has a gun which has the energy of a Solar Flare but the destruction is only contained around a few meters. We've gone over that before.
 
I would prefer if everybody please remain polite and calm in this discussion.

That said, my apologies, but I technically agree with The Everlasting that we tend to disregard environmental damage levels. Lina is correct in real world terms however.
 
Does it really say energy? I thought the gun said it had the force of a solar flare, not energy?

Anyways, as this feat is not done by a character's powers, but done by a weapon instead, you would need to provide a text where said gauss weaponry (gun in this case) causes a nuclear fission due to sub-atomic annihilation (further justifying said gun's yield), as you cannot have a weapon that yields City level results, but no destruction on that scale was shown to occur.

  • Basically, if you really want to justify City level for this weapon, you would need to show that the gun itself is capable of causing City level destruction, as the yield from that gun resulted in City level, did it not?
  • Again, when atoms are being forcibly split apart via external forces, nuclear fission always occurs (same logic as how vaporizing a material causes it to turn into steam), which will cause a chain reaction -> explosion.
    • Ignoring this step is akin to ignoring that vaporizing something turns an object into gas/steam, as being turned to steam what is supposed to happen when something is vaporized. This analogy applies to the above example, where sub-atomically breaking down a matter would normally cause a chain reaction/explosion (as how nuclear fission is supposed to work).
Which is further justified by this.

The gauss flayer struck the Devastator at Ulantus' shoulder and for a moment it seemed to have no effect. There was no pressure behind the strike and the Space Marine held his ground
Why did the gun have no effect on Ulantus when it initially it his shoulder, and caused damage a moment after it made contact? If said yield of the weapon was actually calculable in terms of yield, said weapon would have caused damage immediately when the round (Apparently it's not a round, but a beam instead) made contact, not moment after.

All of this seem to indicate that the weapon itself doesn't have an actual AP, but rather ignores durability instead.
 
Lina, this is literally not how it works.

You seem to be completely ignoring AoE as a concept. These guns don't need to cause City level destruction to be City level. This is basic calcing.

Fiction doesn't need to and doesn't care about sub-atomic destruction causing nuclear explosions. It's the same reason why Universal feats don't occur in literally every DBS fight.
 
Antvasima said:
I would prefer if everybody please remain polite and calm in this discussion.
That said, my apologies, but I technically agree with The Everlasting that we tend to disregard environmental damage levels. Lina is correct in real world terms however.
Click to expand...
Darkanine has a calculation that yielded City level results from a round of that blast, but then there was no evidence that any form of destruction indication City level AP had occured.

You can't just calculate a feat to yield City level, and not show the destruction associated with it.
 
Eh I would have to agree with Everlasting, we've always kind of had to disregard environment effects when it comes to AP unless otherwise stated (eg. Esdeath/Alucard/How the meltagun should have collapsed the ice cave but didn't). A plasma gun does have that sort of power but not that sort of range.

However, it displays higher AP then it should because it constantly erodes at someones physical defenses. After a single shot your defenses are weaker than before so the next does more damage, then more and more and more. It erodes the target's durability so multiple shots seem to have higher AP.

@Azathoth

Thanks for replying, but I would still have to disagree. Sometimes while the source material may say something about a weapon, we have to disregard what they say when it conflicts with the actual canon descriptions (for instance, in FS/N Kirei [I really hope everyone knows who this is or this example won't work as well - if anyone doesn't please look up his profile] is barely superhuman in speed and can't break the sound barrier, but he can keep up with high hypersonic to Massively Hypersonic Servants, so we have to disregard canon descriptions to work with his most consistent showing).

Like I said, the most consistent description is atomization. It's in the calc that they used to find the 7-C ("which were consumed atom by atom") and is in all three codexes.

Also when a target is atomized its not destroyed you can tell there is atomization by the interaction with the environment, as atoms want to bond with others, creating gaseous mixture or solid particles (eg. dust). Again the dust/residue thing isn't exactly inconsistent, a two guardsman left behind vapor when shot (Sorry I don't have it now, I can find the example from the book, just give me some time. Thanks!)

Also though while it could be flowery language the consistency with which they imply some form of vapor leaves me in doubt. Please read the description closer it "fizzled and then dissolved away" Fizzle implies the release of gas or vapor, and dissolving involves a solid become incorporated into a fluid (liquid or gas) so as to form a solution. Thus again it supports atomization; as there is something left. Subatomic destruction would leave nothing there at all.

PS. Your downgrading plasma weaponry? Cool! tell me if you need any help. I always thought the plasma weaponry was a little bit high. How much AP do you think though?
 
Of course a weapon can be City-level without destroying a City. Star Wars Blasters are Small Building level+ and they barely cause small holes in walls.
 
Well yeah, all fiction is like that. For instance, no way Captain America can destroy a city block but he can harm people with 8-A durability so he is 8-A. Its fiction; we kind of have to ignore the inconsistencies with real world physics.
 
@XING

Trying to find the most consistent description while digging through many of the ridiculous low and high ends (ex: plasma weapons burn vaporize a bit of water vs plasma weapons hit with the force of a newborn star) to find something that can be best used. I'll have to see what there is.
 
@ Azathoth

Yeah sure I'll try to dig up some of my old books too.

But what do you think about what I said about the gauss flayer. I think that the consistent wording and portrayal in lore supports atomization as compared to subatomic destruction.
 
@XING

I could honestly see it going either way.

Though if both results lead to something in the Tier 7 range, that would be consistent for low-end Gauss weaponry.
 
@Azathoth

Yeah I don't quite think it would peak up into the tier 7 range (the flayer). A plasma gun though is consistently capable of killing terminators and centurions with minimal shots so its plausible.

I did a rough calc using a human atomization figures it's High 8-C for a 200 lbs human with armor on (guardsman). A space marine probably 8-B energy because they're like 2 times bigger with three times more armor. I'll calc it and post a calc up later.

If we accept that its not subatomic destruction but atomization, the flayers are probably going to be mid Tier 8 with durability weakening/limited negation not 7. I think this is actually pretty close though because a gauss flayer is weaker than a plasma gun (a barrage vs maybe a few shots to kill a terminator/centurion [using the Ciaphas cain novels]) so if the plasma is tier 7 a gauss flayer should be far lower.

What do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AngeronTheSkyHighAnger
The Helldivers vs Adeptus Astartes (0-0-0)
Replies
7
Views
1K
AbaddonTheDisappointment
AbaddonTheDisappointment
AbaddonTheDisappointment
  • Locked
Warhammer 40,000 8-B Upgrade
Replies
12
Views
2K
Crabwhale
Crabwhale
Liquid_Bigb0ss
  • Locked
Minor Space Marine revision
Replies
15
Views
2K
Crabwhale
Crabwhale
MagiSinbad
Space Marine vs Kamen Rider Gaim
Replies
15
Views
3K
MagiSinbad
MagiSinbad
AbaddonTheDisappointment
  • Locked
The Great Warhammer 40,000 Downgrade
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
Crabwhale
Crabwhale
Back
Top