Warhammer: Conversion Beamers

[Skaffolding]

Okay, I've made something similar to this before but it was in a different thread and I don't think I was able to fully articulate myself so I'd like to at least try and properly explain my reasoning behind this further to see if I can get it right this time.


In the previous thread I mentioned a few issues I had with this calculation being used for the energy yield of a conversion beamer, and by extension all weaponry of similar power. I will go through them now.

1. The conversion beamer is described on the Lexicanum as follows"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." Please note the phrases "transforms matter into pure energy" and "The more dense the material of the target the more energy that is converted". Now I would argue that due to the mention of density affecting the energy output, and not overall mass, the conversion beamer is subatomising a specific volume rather than the entire thing.
   
   
   • The only argument I have seen thus far for assuming the entirety of the target being completely and utterly sub atomised is the fact that it is described as having been "annihilated". Now ordinarily I'd consider this quite strong, however considering the conversion beamer is described as doing damage to a target using the energy from the conversion, and not the actual conversion itself, I see no reason to assume this isn't simply flowery language. Would you give a footballer large town level attack potency just because his tackle is described as annihilating his opponent? No, I know I wouldn't.
   • The ONLY other argument I was given for the conversion beamer being scaling from a Caestus Assault Ram which can apparently use a heavy weapon to breech ship hulls with multi-continent durability. The issue with this being that; A) Said hulls are normally dispersing said hits over a wider area, B) The melta weapon used to do this is about as far advanced of a conversion beamer as a main naval cannon is of a 9mm handgun and C) this is not even used to breach the hull, but to soften it enough for the kinetic energy of the Assault Ram to punch through.

Considering how relatively flimsy the above are, I would recommend the following to get a more cautious estimate.

1. Pick a few common materials, probably stuff with already calculated sub atomisation values for the sake of saving time.
   
   
   • Decide on a specific volume, I for one would suggest something similar to a heavy bolt round (basically 3.375x a .50 bullet's volume since it's around 1.5x as big and square-cube law)
   • Record the results somewhere to use for the AP of the conversion beamer when used against certain targets, i.e using the sub atomisation of the human body for AP against organic enemies or steel for AP against tanks and robots.
   • Scaling with other heavy weapons would be a little trickier but I'd recommend just scaling them to the value for steel since that's what was used earlier.

Just as an example, using the mass of a browning M2 round (52 grams at most) and multiplying by 3.375 (since heavy bolters are about 1.5x bigger in calibre) and dividing by the density of its material, which is steel, we get a volume of (52 / 7.75 x 3.375 =) 22.645 cubic centimetres. Now using the value for subatomic destruction of steel on the calculations page gets us 6.7034E12 j/cc Multiplying these values gives 1.518 x 10^14 joules. This is 36 tons of TNT or town level.


Thanks for your time, I look forward to either being commended for my amazing intuition and logic or laughed at for my overwhelming stupidity and hubris. Whichever one ends up being the more appropriate.

 

[Skaffolding]

bump

 

[Crabwhale]

"The conversion beamer is described on the Lexicanum as follows"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." Please note the phrases "transforms matter into pure energy" and "The more dense the material of the target the more energy that is converted". Now I would argue that due to the mention of density affecting the energy output, and not overall mass, the conversion beamer is subatomising a specific volume rather than the entire thing."

Except that isn't a consistent feature of it. If anything I'd argue the only consistent features of it are that it possesses some kind of effect over matter and that it's beam is based on range, as seen in these two scans. And choosing to take the "transmutes into energy" interpretation over the "subatomic implosion" one has been rejected before due to the most recent scans explicitly referring. Sure it's a bit of a matter of pick and choose, but the subatomic part just by being newer and being more useful for our purposes wins out for me.

"The only argument I have seen thus far for assuming the entirety of the target being completely and utterly sub atomised is the fact that it is described as having been "annihilated". Now ordinarily I'd consider this quite strong, however considering the conversion beamer is described as doing damage to a target using the energy from the conversion, and not the actual conversion itself, I see no reason to assume this isn't simply flowery language. Would you give a footballer large town level attack potency just because his tackle is described as annihilating his opponent? No, I know I wouldn't."

And that footballer analogy simply does not work, because when something is annihilated by an extremely powerful weapon in Warhammer, it is annihilated. It is not "flowery language" because you decide so. It is stated in black and white right on the quote I provided, and we spent hours debating this on the other thread, and it was still voted that it made no sense as a point you were trying to push. Please drop it.

"The ONLY other argument I was given for the conversion beamer being scaling from a Caestus Assault Ram which can apparently use a heavy weapon to breech ship hulls with multi-continent durability. The issue with this being that; A) Said hulls are normally dispersing said hits over a wider area, B) The melta weapon used to do this is about as far advanced of a conversion beamer as a main naval cannon is of a 9mm handgun and C) this is not even used to breach the hull, but to soften it enough for the kinetic energy of the Assault Ram to punch through."

Entirely false. There are numerous other instances of weapon or people that would logically scale to such a heavy implement as a Beamer having comparable power to it. Two Thunderhawk gunships possess in theory enough firepower to take on a Warhound Scout Titan, which while nowhere near as powerful, should at the very least be somewhere in Tier 6 due to sheer virtue of comparing somewhat to it's larger siblings.

Turbo-laser Destructors mounted on said Thunderhawks can punch through a Hive Spire, which can possess shielding comparable to Titans, as in, literal Void Shields, and obliterate half a kilometer of plasteel, adamantium and ferrocite in one blast.

Even Terminators are capable of surviving being stepped on by a Titan, which can kill other Titans, and one blast from a Plasma Cannon, a weapon equal or inferior to the Beamer is usually enough to put the suit out of commission, even if the guy inside survives.

 

[Crabwhale]

"In theory both of the assault gunships had firepower enough to take on a scout-class Titan. In the case of Khan Spear, the fact was indisputable. The long-barrelled turbo-laser destructor mounted atop the Spear was powerful enough to punch through one side of a hive spire to the other. During the Tarotian Suppression, the khan had seen it obliterate half a kilometre of plasteel, ferrocrete, and adamantium in one searing, blinding blast. It was one of the khan's most favourite weapons in all the galaxy. Though it greatly irritated the Spear's dour Techmarine pilot, Debedian, Kor'sarro would often shout out targeting solutions during an aerial engagement, claiming the credit if the subsequent kill shot hit home. Even shorn of its dorsal cannon the Thunderhawk could still embarrass a battle tank. Under its primary wings were sets of Hellstrike missiles whose individual payloads could collapse a hab-block. Lascannons graced its secondary wingtips, and twinned heavy bolter arrays swivelled on gimbals under the frontal stabiliser fins. White as snapped bone and marked by the lightning-split ingot of the White Scars, the Thunderhawk was the pride of the company's armoured elite. Its opposite number, the Headseeker, was just as formidable a sight. These were no mere aircraft, but deadly and sacred relics released from their sanctums to wage the bloodiest of wars."

 

[Skaffolding]

"Except that isn't a consistent feature of it. If anything I'd argue the only consistent features of it are that it possesses some kind of effect over matter and that it's beam is based on range, as seen in these two scans. And choosing to take the "transmutes into energy" interpretation over the "subatomic implosion" one has been rejected before due to the most recent scans explicitly referring. Sure it's a bit of a matter of pick and choose, but the subatomic part just by being newer and more useful for our purposes wins out for me."


Okay, the point on range was due to me misremembering. But newer does not equal more accurate, at one point Kaldor Draigo easily outmatching a Daemon Primarch and carving a name into his heart was the most recent information on him. Also "more useful for our purposes" could be argued for anything that gives an easily quantifiable description of the weapon's power, unless I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by that.


"And that footballer analogy simply does not work, because when something is annihilated by an extremely powerful weapon in Warhammer, it is annihilated. It is not "flowery language" because you decide so. It is stated in black and white right on the quote I provided, and we spent hours debating this on the other thread, and it was still voted that it made no sense as a point you were trying to push. Please drop it."


Uh, no. Things are not regularly completely destroyed so that each and every single individual one of the trillions of atoms making up their structure is broken apart to the point where there isn't even the slightest whisp of vapour or smoke left to show it ever existed when they're described as annihilated by an extremely powerful weapon in warhammer, and it may well be flowery language. Also it's not just because I decided it, it's because the calculations page for this wiki says on subatomic destruction;

"Applied only if clearly stated. It describes the energy necessary to destroy all atoms in a substance, by separating the particles in their nucleus."

I would not say that a mention of a subatomic implosion and the world "annihilated" would constitute being clearly stated. The same way I wouldn't say "incendiary" and "annihilated" would constitute melting or vaporisation being clearly stated in the case of a real world weapon. And I'm making this thread because I don't think I was completely clear about my argument on it, if you want to just tell me to shut up about it then alright, I'll drop it. For now I'll continue, since you raised a few points for me to argue before asking I leave the subject.


"Entirely false. There are numerous other instances of weapon or people that would logically scale to such a heavy implement as a Beamer having comparable power to it. Two Thunderhawk gunships possess in theory enough firepower to take on a Warhound Scout Titan, which while nowhere near as powerful, should at the very least be somewhere in Tier 6 due to sheer virtue of comparing somewhat to it's larger siblings. Turbo-laser Destructors mounted on said Thunderhawks can punch through a Hive Spire, which can possess shielding comparable to Titans, as in, literal Void Shields, and obliterate half a kilometer of plasteel, adamantium and ferrocite in one blast. Even Terminators are capable of surviving being stepped on by a Titan, which can kill other Titans, and one blast from a Plasma Cannon, a weapon equal or inferior to the Beamer is usually enough to put the suit out of commission, even if the guy inside survives."


A small void ship is not necessarily comparable or even close to a battleship, the same way a plasma pistol is not necessarily anywhere close to a plasma gun or other heavy weapons. And a Warhound Titan may not be anywhere close to a Warlord Titan. Are you suggesting conversion beamers should be scaled from something that could "in theory" destroy something that is much weaker than something that is weaker than something that is much weaker than something? Also the half a kilometre of plasteel, adamantium and ferrocite is difficult for me to comment on without more specific parameters regarding it, since it could vary massively depending on the specifics.


Also being stepped on is not the same as being shot by. Titans weigh MAYBE thousands of tons, that's nowhere close to island level. Also if I'm remembering right the Terminator only survived because the building he was on collapsed and absorbed some of the impact, though it's been a while so my memory may be slightly faulty.

 

[Crabwhale]

Titans can still break through each other's armor with simple steps.

A couple hundred of tons won't break through High 6-A armor. Obviously the Termies themselves don't have High 6-A dura since it's a far tinier point of impact, but it's still a supporting feat.

 

[Crabwhale]

Also why do you keep talking in Bold?

 

[Crabwhale]

"Okay, the point on range was due to me misremembering. But newer does not equal more accurate, at one point Kaldor Draigo easily outmatching a Daemon Primarch and carving a name into his heart was the most recent information on him. Also "more useful for our purposes" could be argued for anything that gives an easily quantifiable description of the weapon's power, unless I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by that."

It's funny you use that example because that piece of lore is still 100% canon, even if the specifics have been changed around a bit.

Also, if we're not supposed to trust newer information on a series that relies so much on retcons and the like what ARE we supposed to trust?

 

[Crabwhale]

"Uh, no. Things are not regularly completely destroyed so that each and every single individual one of the trillions of atoms making up their structure is broken apart to the point where there isn't even the slightest whisp of vapour or smoke left to show it ever existed when they're described as annihilated by an extremely powerful weapon in warhammer, and it may well be flowery language. Also it's not just because I decided it, it's because the calculations page for this wiki says on subatomic destruction;

"Applied only if clearly stated. It describes the energy necessary to destroy all atoms in a substance, by separating the particles in their nucleus."

I would not say that a mention of a subatomic implosion and the world "annihilated" would constitute being clearly stated. The same way I wouldn't say "incendiary" and "annihilated" would constitute melting or vaporisation being clearly stated in the case of a real world weapon. And I'm making this thread because I don't think I was completely clear about my argument on it, if you want to just tell me to shut up about it then alright, I'll drop it. For now I'll continue, since you raised a few points for me to argue before asking I leave the subject."

I'm asking you to drop it because we had agreed to disagree on the last thread as the arguments had become circular and the popular vote turned in favor of what I was saying. I'm asking not because I want to silence you but because I know this will only end up being a headache if you continue.

You are basically repeating the same argument as the previous thread. If you brought some new information I would be more than happy to reconsider but as it stands I want to avoid another pointless text of wall war.

 

[Skaffolding]

Titans can still break through each other's armor with simple steps. A couple hundred of tons won't break through High 6-A armor. Obviously the Termies themselves don't have High 6-A dura since it's a far tinier point of impact, but it's still a supporting feat."


Supporting feat for what? And can they? When have Titans ever broken through each other's armour with steps? Seriously, I want to know if this happened because I've never read anything showing them doing that before.


"Also why do you keep talking in Bold?"


I have no clue man… I tried turning it off but it didn't do anything so at this point I'm just ignoring it.


"It's funny you use that example because that piece of lore is still 100% canon, even if the specifics have been changed around a bit. Also, if we're not supposed to trust newer information on a series that relies so much on retcons and the like what ARE we supposed to trust?"

Yeah, the specifics did change…. The specifics changed enough to mean that Draigo was no longer comparable to a Daemon Primarch. And I'm not saying we shouldn't trust the newest lore, I'm saying that something being the newest doesn't make inherently trustworthy. If there's reason to trust the newest source other than it being the newest then we should trust it, but as far as I'm concerned, age alone doesn't mean anything beyond what the time period it was released in implies.


"I'm asking you to drop it because we had agreed to disagree on the last thread as the arguments had become circular and the popular vote turned in favor of what I was saying. I'm asking not because I want to silence you but because I know this will only end up being a headache if you continue. You are basically repeating the same argument as the previous thread. If you brought some new information I would be more than happy to reconsider but as it stands I want to avoid another pointless text of wall war."


I am not making different arguments, I'm trying to express my opinion and arguments more coherently and cleanly to make sure that they are being completely understood. Since at one point you claimed "my logic" stated a conversion beamer would be comparable to a continent-atomising ship cannon it occured to me that I probably didn't convey it well enough for you to get a good idea of what I was saying.


I am suggesting that the statement of a subatomic implosion and the use of the word annihilation does not fit the specification of subatomic destruction, that is the complete and utter separation of every subatomic particle in the entire structure of the target to the point where there would be zero visible trace remaining. Especially since this very wiki claims it must be "clearly stated". There is no mention of the tank being subatomically destroyed, only that there is an implosion of the subatomic scale and that the tank is destroyed. We have nothing to say it was the entire tank, especially paired with other references to the conversion beamer destroying targets by releasing energy through a subatomic reaction.


I've seen people contest "atoms ripped apart" as valid reason for regular atomisation, so I'd gathered there was a very strict requirement on something like this being accepted. Especially since it can cause an explosion which is at most a few hundred metres in diameter to be rated large island level. So again, if you think I'm repeating myself then just let me know and I'll shut it- but I just want to make complete certain that I'm not causing another communications barrier as I did earlier. I kind of enjoy this, I mean duh I joined a wiki dedicated to it, so I assumed you did to but if I'm causing you annoyance or discomfort then I'll stop.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree 100% with Crab and once again I think OP is grossly overthinking everything.

 

[Skaffolding]

I mean, this is a site based around using real-world mathematics and scientific principles to figure out which fictional character would beat up the other. Overthinking is kind of the point, right?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

You are overthinking in the sense that you are purposefully making assumptions not supported by the text to get lower results.

 

[Skaffolding]

That's not ovethinking, what you're describing is straight-up bias. Which I am quite sure I'm not, I'm just trying to make sure this is as accurate as it can be. I really like Warhammer and this wiki so I want to do my part and help as much as possible.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Crab on this one. Flowery language is when an author uses tons of literary devices and complex language to get a point across. The word annihilate is about as straightforward as they come, at least in this context.

 

[Skaffolding]

It seems people will probably still prefer Crabs arguments, still I'm glad I at least made absolute sure I was being clear with what I was suggesting.