1189 replies to this topic

[Catamount]

Ilithi Dragon, on 16 June 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Again, though, you're still missing my point. I'm not arguing the definition of futuristic, I'm pointing out that you were using different standards of definition for what could be classified as futuristic than you were using for what could be classified as technology.

When defining what could be classified as technology, you required that magic meet all the listed definitions of technology, otherwise it could not be classified as technology.

When defining what could be classified as futuristic, you required that Star Wars meet only one of the listed definitions of futuristic in order to be classified as such.

This is a double-standard. Either something has to meet all definitions to fit a classification, or it doesn't. You can't use both whenever it best suites your argument.

So, either magic only has to meet one of the definitions of technology, and as such is a form of technology, or Star Wars has to meet all the definitions of futuristic, and as such is not futuristic. One or the other, you can't have both.

He does the same thing with his definition of science.


According to this poster, to be futuristic, something need only meet any criteria of being futuristic, but to be technology, something has to meet every possible criteria for technology, such that he even cherry picks his definition from the source that gives one that he most likes (only one source provided a definition that required science for something to be technology, and he claims that's not arbitrary?), but then, suddenly, to be science, something only has to be able to meet any criteria of being any part of scientific methodology.

So when it suits him, he insists that something needs to meet all the criteria to fit the definition for something, but when it doesn't, he goes back to insisting something need only meet any criteria for any part of something, and he claims this isn't arbitrary?! All these double standards, and cherry picked definitions to back a point of view, and he claims that point of view is an absolute objective fact, any that anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong?



Don't get hung up on technicalities in the definition of science, the logic being used by this person is self-contradictory and flimsy, which is probably why it gets padded with gross ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees, all while this poster arrogantly proclaims that his position on a system of classification, which is subjective by definition, is somehow an immutable fact.

This user has offered no reason why his definition is superior to ours, not one single, solitary reason, beyond simply saying it's true because he says so (bare assertion fallacy), and can't even make sense of his definition.

Until this poster addresses these fundamental failings, I think I'm just moving on from that discussion. I like my definition because I don't have to back it by running around with this giant house of cards worth of ridiculous arbitrary technical definitions, double standards of reasoning, and ad hominem attacks lobbed at anyone who disagrees with me. I'm content to leave it at that.

Edited by Catamount, 16 June 2012 - 01:29 PM.

[Catamount]

Regarding 40k, the problem is that little information is ever given on their capabilities. Anecdotal information is given in a few cases that some weapon, of some type, of some size, of which the Imperium has an unspecified amount, can do X damage to Y, but it's just not much to go off of.

There is no reliable information on their normal weapon yields, their ship sizes, their ship numbers, their power sources, and little information on their world numbers, population, industrial capacity, etc.


It's just impossible to place them in any remotely definitive way. From what I've seen, they seem to be capable of some measure of impressive destruction, but as Ilithi noted, only using packages far rarer and less wieldy than Federation equivalents from Trek (much less, say, Ancient technology from Stargate), but I could also be completely wrong in that impression, because little to no information exists. As such, they're not much good for comparison in these sorts of discussions, as I've discovered trying to get over the impasse of lack of information in debating them with others here.

[Skadi]

Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

Regarding 40k, the problem is that little information is ever given on their capabilities. Anecdotal information is given in a few cases that some weapon, of some type, of some size, of which the Imperium has an unspecified amount, can do X damage to Y, but it's just not much to go off of.

There is no reliable information on their normal weapon yields, their ship sizes, their ship numbers, their power sources, and little information on their world numbers, population, industrial capacity, etc.


It's just impossible to place them in any remotely definitive way. From what I've seen, they seem to be capable of some measure of impressive destruction, but as Ilithi noted, only using packages far rarer and less wieldy than Federation equivalents from Trek (much less, say, Ancient technology from Stargate), but I could also be completely wrong in that impression, because little to no information exists. As such, they're not much good for comparison in these sorts of discussions, as I've discovered trying to get over the impasse of lack of information in debating them with others here.

That i can understand, although there are some very accurate sizes on their ships (ill dig those up later), tbh im suprised starwars is winning... some people are prolly thinking "Oh deathstar, thats wingame" Wrong, that thing is a giant meatshield
in space.
(PS. Author, you forgot Homeworld! for shame...)

Edited by Skadi, 16 June 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Catamount]

Skadi, on 16 June 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

That i can understand, although there are some very accurate sizes on their ships (ill dig those up later), tbh im suprised starwars is winning... some people are prolly thinking "Oh deathstar, thats wingame" Wrong, that thing is a giant meatshield in space.

There are some very seemingly reasonable size estimates from sites (which usually put the big ships around 4km ish), but they're not canon, as far as I know

The Battlefield Gothic materials don't list sizes, although they do mention crew counts occasionally which can give an idea.

[Catamount]

Waladil, on 16 June 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

An extra benefit to the wormhole cloning mechanism is that so long as you could provide the mass, you could make as many copies as you had output gates. The upper limit shown in the comic is 850,000,000 copies at once. Of a person. To use the words of the author, "[he] became his own wierd demographic."

This particular function does seem to rival or even beat Star Trek replicators, largely because it can clone things (seemingly, at least) with a greater complexity or scale than replicators. First you have one Enterprise... then you have two Enterprises... then you have four... eight... so long as you can keep feeding Enterprise-massed rocks to the singularity, no reason that the Enterprise going back and forth through a gate couldn't make dozens, hundreds, or thousands of perfect copies. Right down to the memories of each crewmember. (Yes, it can be awkward when gate-clones meet. And if a second version of your wife shows up, do not mention anything that rhymes with "gleesome." At this point I'm blatantly quoting scenes from the comic.)

This is a very interesting industrial technology, I have to admit, though I also have to admit, it does beg a question... where do the copies come from?

I'll look into this franchise more, see what can be figured out with them. I imagine this technology must have some kind of limitation, otherwise you'd just replicate a warship over and over and over and over and over, 850,000,000 at a time. Is it power intensive? (would explain where the copies come from)

[Skadi]

Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

There are some very seemingly reasonable size estimates from sites (which usually put the big ships around 4km ish), but they're not canon, as far as I know

The Battlefield Gothic materials don't list sizes, although they do mention crew counts occasionally which can give an idea.

this is the best for ship size comparisons ive found (Note there are some warhammer ships that are... as best i can say "unseen" also other non 40K comparisons in this giant mash of images for further comparisons)

[Shredhead]

Ilithi Dragon, on 16 June 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Shredhead, I think we might be running into a bit of problem of translation. You seem to be missing some of the nuances of what Catamount and I are saying, and you are using some words that don't seem to quite fit with the context, which is probably causing confusion on both sides (though I have to give you huge props for knowing a second language well enough to engage in a discussion of this level, as I failed my second year of Spanish (correspondence courses suck)).

Thanks. Now that I am aware of it, I'll try to be more careful.

Quote

First of all, the Scientific Method does exist in Germany, it is a specific process or method that was developed in the 17th Century, and all Science is done using the Scientific Method. Prior to the 17th Century, Science was not done. There were alternative methods of reasoning and deduction, many of which formed the foundations of the Scientific Method, but they were not Science.

The Scientific Method (with capital letters) is a formal process for deduction that goes as follows:

1. Formulate a Question about an Observation

2. Formulate a Hypothesis to explain the Observation

3. Formulate a Prediction based on the Hypothesis

4. Test the Prediction to see if it holds true (or, more appropriately, try to prove the prediction false)

5. Analyze the Result of the Test, and how the Observation of the Result compares to the Hypothesis and the original Observation

6. Repeat

Modern Science also includes the Peer Review process, where the Results are presented to other experts for review and testing, and if found to be sound and proper and not flawed or erroneous, are published in peer-reviewed journals. After sufficient Tests and Peer-Review, and also the Repetition of the Result by others, a Hypothesis can then become a Theory.

THAT is the Scientific Method, and prior to the 17th Century, it did not exist. Prior to the 17th Century, technologies were developed using other methods of deduction, but they were not developed using Science. As such, Science is not required to develop technology (though it is the best method for doing so, because it's the best method of deduction we have yet developed), and so magic developed without Science can be technology.

I know what you mean with it, but even in the english wikipedia I can't find evidence of what you are saying. I'm quoting:
-Scientific methodology has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years^[4] and is the process by which science is carried out.- Source: http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method
also:
-An Egyptian medical textbook, the Edwin Smith papyrus, (circa 1600 BC), applies the following components: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the treatment of disease,^[2] which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd^[3] played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (circa 1550 BC) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism.- Source: http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method
It doesn't matter what you call it, scientific methodologies are thousands of years old, todays "Scientific Method" bases on these old methodologies. It was a process of refinement, taking the methodologies and shaping them to fit the ever changing requirements as science evolved into the Scientific Method that is taught today.

Quote

I do not understand what you mean here. I made a snipped quote referencing you and your argument, and they you complained of 'cripplequoting'.

I've written: Magic =/= Technology (I know " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." A.C. Clarke, but it doesn't fit the other way round!)
You quoted me like that:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Magic =/= Technology

" Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." A.C. Clarke

Magic is just another form of technology, in stories often involving mystical incantations and forces and energies that don't exist in the real world, but it is just another form of technology, and if you took your house and its contents and a generator back to 908 CE, you'd be a high wizard.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, as I originally stated, A.C. Clarke's sentence doesn't work the other way around, and you just ignored that statement somehow.

Quote

I'm wondering if the MWO forum's placement of the faction icon in the place of the traditional poster avatar may be contributing to some of the confusion, since I know I usually rely on forum avatars to differentiate posters much more than forum names, and the odd way that MWO does things has thrown me off quite a bit at times.

Maybe I mixed statements of you two up, could be possible.

Quote

Again, though, you're still missing my point. I'm not arguing the definition of futuristic, I'm pointing out that you were using different standards of definition for what could be classified as futuristic than you were using for what could be classified as technology.

When defining what could be classified as technology, you required that magic meet all the listed definitions of technology, otherwise it could not be classified as technology.

When defining what could be classified as futuristic, you required that Star Wars meet only one of the listed definitions of futuristic in order to be classified as such.

This is a double-standard. Either something has to meet all definitions to fit a classification, or it doesn't. You can't use both whenever it best suites your argument.

So, either magic only has to meet one of the definitions of technology, and as such is a form of technology, or Star Wars has to meet all the definitions of futuristic, and as such is not futuristic. One or the other, you can't have both.

But I only stated that magic doesn't meet the criterium of scientific explainability. Of course it meets most of the other parts of the definition, as it is akin to technology. It fills the same gap. It still isn't technology.

Quote

I never claimed that Dr. Brin was infallible, I noted that he is an expert on the subject of what Science Fiction is, as he is an acclaimed Science Fiction writer. That makes him a qualified expert to speak on the nature of what Science Fiction is, and we referenced him as such. If you think he is just spinning BS on the subject, that's your opinion, but his qualified expert testimony on the subject outweighs your personal opinion. If you want to render his argument invalid, you must demonstrate why it is invalid, or demonstrate that he is not a reliable expert. Simply stating that you think he is spinning BS to pad his ego is not sufficient to do that, it's just stating your own, unfounded opinion, and is an ad hominem attack, which is a logically invalid argument.

That may be as it is, so to make it a bit more clear: Dr. Brin is a Doctor graduated in Astrophysics (I've got a friend who made Doctor in Astrophysics this February, working in Jena right now, nice coincidence). He is also a writer of "Hard" Sci Fi. But the genres in literature aren't defined by authors, but by literary scholars and the publishers. His try to dismiss "Soft" SF as Fantasy and therefor no "real" Science Fiction smacks of elitism, as even "Hard" SF can only fantasize about future developments. Writing a book doesn't make him an expert in literature, as growing some plants don't make me a gardener.

Quote

No, I am not wrong. It was not called Science back then because Science did not exist as a method of deduction back then. As previously noted, there were other methods of deduction back then, many of which later formed the basis for the Scientific Method, but those methods were not themselves Science.

"Science" is not a method of deduction, it is:

Quote

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.^[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see History and philosophy below).

You see, even Aristoteles called it science back then.

Quote

Logic is a broad subject covering valid and deductive reasoning. There are many forms/types/topics of logic, what you call them is semantics.

Yupp.

[Catamount]

Skadi, on 16 June 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

this is the best for ship size comparisons ive found (Note there are some warhammer ships that are... as best i can say "unseen" also other non 40K comparisons in this giant mash of images for further comparisons)

Yeah, I've seen some of these suggested sizes, but sadly they seem to be just that. 40k canon never gives us any ship lengths or volumes :/

[Sleeping Bear]

If you want to get different here's my opinion, the Gunbuster/Diebuster franchise would slag any of these other series hands-down. The technology to build and employ a planet-sized reactor that would generate a chain reaction of micro-singularities is downright ridiculous. Diebuster goes even further, with Buster Machine 07 taking the form of a teenage girl. Capable of instantaneous warp travel and controlling a force of starship size drones numbering in the millions, she has the power herself to manufacture micro-singularities and can split a planet in one shot. With space engagements numbering in the millions with said millions getting vaporized in only a few hours, this has to be the most power franchise. Besides how can you beat a series who's motto is "you can accomplish anything with hard work and guts!"

[Strum Wealh]

Groundstain, on 16 June 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

40k defiantly, the vast amounts of emperors ships alone will destroy a galaxy in the blink of an eye if he so chooses. This is not even counting the space marines where a 5 man devastator squad can take out a small mech. There are millions of the emperors troops.

Actually, I wrote up an analysis some time ago where we were able to determine that the Imperial Navy has "only" ~144-329 million ships, with the Space Marines having an additional million or so ships on their own.
And that those ships are spread out across a volume encompassing most of the Milky Way (which is ~120,000 light-years in diameter and ~1,000 light-years thick).
(The Imperium's territory could technically cover a sphere of radius 70,000 light-years - the range of the Astronomican - that is centered around Earth, though a significant fraction of that would be relatively-empty intergalactic space.)

The same research also shoes that their ships are large (up to ~8 km for the more common large ships), plasma-powered (with some sources explicitly naming fusion as the source of said plasma), that their Void Shields are only really effective against energy weapons, that they are heavily-armored (up to several meters of material on the flanks and hundreds of meters on the bow-ram of the largest ships), and that their common shipboard weapons (lasers, railguns, plasma cannons, and light missiles) are likely in the triple-digit megajoule range, with the lance batteries (consisting of larger versions of the common weapons) being more powerful (gigajoule-terajoule range?) and the most powerful weapons (like the Nova Cannon - basically a gravitic mass driver that fires a 50-meter-wide (fusion-based?) explosive shell) being still more powerful (terajoule-petajoule range?).

----------

Tech-wise, 40k is not much better than the Zentraedi of Macross/Robotech, and as a civilization they are actually less advanced than many other franchises (as they've lost most of their technical knowledge and capability, seeing much of their now-ancient tech as magical items to be prayed to rather than as machines to be repaired and maintained).
Arguably, 40k's most substantial advantage is sheer numbers.

And those numbers are not terribly useful against a well-executed surgical strike.
I submit that the All Systems Commonwealth (from Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda) would be able to defeat the Imperium, should they feel it necessary, by staging outside of their range (as the Commonwealth controlled the Milky Way Galaxy, Andromeda Galaxy (2.54 million light-years from Earth), and Triangulum Galaxy (2.3-3.1 million light-years from Earth)) and using a fraction of the 500,000 High Guard ships outfitted with Nova Bombs (star-killing ordinance) to take out Sol (and, thus, Earth... and both the God-Emperor and the Astronomican) and other strategic Imperial systems.
Without the Astronomican, Imperial ships are effectively stranded where they happened to be (as they would be unable to safely navigate the Warp), and the battlegroups that weren't lost attempting to navigate the Warp without a link to the Astronomican would be picked off at the High Guard's leisure... or left to become ghost ships as their crews run out of food and water, fresh air, replacement parts and ordinance, and other resources.

Even if the High Guard loses thousands of ships - or even a hundred-thousand ships - in in the effort, the Imperium would be crippled and its war machine starved into oblivion.

And I doubt that the other major powers in 40k would fare any better...

Your thoughts?

[Waladil]

Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

This is a very interesting industrial technology, I have to admit, though I also have to admit, it does beg a question... where do the copies come from?

I'll look into this franchise more, see what can be figured out with them. I imagine this technology must have some kind of limitation, otherwise you'd just replicate a warship over and over and over and over and over, 850,000,000 at a time. Is it power intensive? (would explain where the copies come from)

For one thing, it's only been actually invented by the Super-Smart-Ancient-Race-People. None of the regular characters actually know how any of it work.
But yes, it does take massive amounts of energy, in addition to mass equal to what was being created. That's provided by a singularity inside a star, both feeding off of it and feeding into it.

So I'm re-reading the pertinent strips. First off, I misremembered the number. It's 950,000,000. Small slip.

Only twice have we (the readers) seen it used to mass-produce objects, both to clone one person and one over-20,000 kilo droid (forgot about the droid, too) 950,000,000 times and then to mass-produce an armada of drones and missiles.

The star exploded shortly thereafter.

The star's explosion was not due to the creation of objects, but because the star contained said singularity -- inherently unstable, with a Dyson Sphere-like creation around it, no doubt containing the singularity. Our heroes blew that up. The armada of drones and missiles was built by the previous owners in order to kill our heroes. Those previous owners knew full well the star was going to go nova and based their battle plan on it.

But anyways, a little mathematics:
According to wikipedia, our Sun weighs about two nonillion kg (2 * 10^30).
In the strip, the star that was due to explode was stated to be about 45% heavier than it ought to be for its size, attributed to the unstable singularity. According to our heroes' math, the star would release about one nonillion kilograms of mass in a supernova. Now, I'm a little rusty on my astrophysics, so I don't know how much off the mass is released in a supernova and how much remains as a neutron star, black hole, or what. But let's use one nonillion as our lower limit.
The person mass-cloned was a middling-built man, so we'll say he weighed 80 kilograms. Add the over-20,000 kilo droid (why'd I even bother mentioning the man's weight?) and we'll call it 20,100 kilos. A pretty massive construction project... weighing in at 1.9 * 10 ^ 13 kg.
So... about %0.0000000000000019095 of the lower limit of one nonillion kg.

Okay. Using the setup exactly as shown in the comic, you couldn't clone the Enterprise. Because the 950 million exit gates were arches about eight feet tall, and about ten feet across at the base. (Sizes are just eyed from relative scale of people.) However, there's no reason that the creators couldn't make larger versions that could spit out tons of ships.

So let's see how many Enterprises we could make using 1% of our lower limit of 1 nonillion kg. (So we'll say 10^28 kg)
The Enterprise NCC-1701-D weighs 3.25 * 10 ^ 9 kg. So.... 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 Enterprises, roughly. Assuming you could use a full 1% of that mass... that's enough military force to wipe out anything.

[Skadi]

Strum Wealh, on 16 June 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Actually, I wrote up an analysis some time ago where we were able to determine that the Imperial Navy has "only" ~144-329 million ships, with the Space Marines having an additional million or so ships on their own.
And that those ships are spread out across a volume encompassing most of the Milky Way (which is ~120,000 light-years in diameter and ~1,000 light-years thick).
(The Imperium's territory could technically cover a sphere of radius 70,000 light-years - the range of the Astronomican - that is centered around Earth, though a significant fraction of that would be relatively-empty intergalactic space.)

The same research also shoes that their ships are large (up to ~8 km for the more common large ships), plasma-powered (with some sources explicitly naming fusion as the source of said plasma), that their Void Shields are only really effective against energy weapons, that they are heavily-armored (up to several meters of material on the flanks and hundreds of meters on the bow-ram of the largest ships), and that their common shipboard weapons (lasers, railguns, plasma cannons, and light missiles) are likely in the triple-digit megajoule range, with the lance batteries (consisting of larger versions of the common weapons) being more powerful (gigajoule-terajoule range?) and the most powerful weapons (like the Nova Cannon - basically a gravitic mass driver that fires a 50-meter-wide (fusion-based?) explosive shell) being still more powerful (terajoule-petajoule range?).

----------

Tech-wise, 40k is not much better than the Zentraedi of Macross/Robotech, and as a civilization they are actually less advanced than many other franchises (as they've lost most of their technical knowledge and capability, seeing much of their now-ancient tech as magical items to be prayed to rather than as machines to be repaired and maintained).
Arguably, 40k's most substantial advantage is sheer numbers.

And those numbers are not terribly useful against a well-executed surgical strike.
I submit that the All Systems Commonwealth (from Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda) would be able to defeat the Imperium, should they feel it necessary, by staging outside of their range (as the Commonwealth controlled the Milky Way Galaxy, Andromeda Galaxy (2.54 million light-years from Earth), and Triangulum Galaxy (2.3-3.1 million light-years from Earth)) and using a fraction of the 500,000 High Guard ships outfitted with Nova Bombs (star-killing ordinance) to take out Sol (and, thus, Earth... and both the God-Emperor and the Astronomican) and other strategic Imperial systems.
Without the Astronomican, Imperial ships are effectively stranded where they happened to be (as they would be unable to safely navigate the Warp), and the battlegroups that weren't lost attempting to navigate the Warp without a link to the Astronomican would be picked off at the High Guard's leisure... or left to become ghost ships as their crews run out of food and water, fresh air, replacement parts and ordinance, and other resources.

Even if the High Guard loses thousands of ships - or even a hundred-thousand ships - in in the effort, the Imperium would be crippled and its war machine starved into oblivion.

And I doubt that the other major powers in 40k would fare any better...

Your thoughts?

The only empire that wouldnt need to worry about that would be necrons, which are rather formidable (although their is limited knowledge on their star ships.)But i do agree, the Emperium would be screwed at that point, maybe the space marines would be able to operate since their Astronomicans arnt staged on sol, rather on their home worlds or on their fleets that are, as you said, spread out. (also im not counting the Tyranids as an empire here),
Edit: Chaos wouldnt need to worry either, cant realy wipe them out...

Edited by Skadi, 16 June 2012 - 03:24 PM.

[Zakatak]

This thread is back? WHY DID NOBODY TELL ME?!

[Catamount]

I was going to; honest!

[Ilithi Dragon]

He's lying! He told me so.

[Charles Martel]

Time to pipe up for one that's not getting enough love, Space Battleship Yamato.

The main area the ships from this series excel in is pure speed. Keep in mind, in the original series, the Yamato makes a round trip from Earth, to Iskandar in the Magellanic Cloud and back in one year. In addition, the wave motion gun allows what is in essence a fairly smallish ship to pack an insane amount of surge firepower.


As for raw firepower. I see the Imperium of Man and I raise you the New United Nations Space-Navy from Macross Frontier.

Edited by Charles Martel, 17 June 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[A11eycat]

OK, forgive me Starwars fans, but that universe is in TATTERS, the Rebellion still doesn't have control over the known galaxy, there are dozens of Imperial forces still romping around, Sith are going crazy, and they could barely beat a horribly run( as in half the stuff didn't get done, other rebellions were common place, and the Imperial had only their name on hundreds of planet's deed, where they were actually run by street gangs, thugs, crime syndicates, etc.) dictatorship and have less the 1/16 the resources, manpower, and technology that half the other considered universes is bringing to bear. when calculating resources, Halo , StarCraft, Gundam, and Stargate shouldn't even be on the list, and (since I'm unfamiliar with many of the other genres) you'd be hard press to find anyone with the sheer resources to rival Warhammer 40K, where literally thousands of planets are solely dedicated to producing the darnds't hard to kill men and machines, where men are mutated into 9 foot tall monstrosities that spit acid, have triple-backup organs, can breath in the viod for a short period of time, and a single overlord-class battlecrusier can annihilate a planet, and it's commander willing to do so with little reverence to life, society, and technology. Were deamons spawn through even the tiniest inter-dimensional hole and tear worlds asunder, where war machines the size of cities roam, and a single tentacle of a Tyranid hive fleet could easily over-run SC zerg or Rebel forces with little effort.
nuff said

Edited by A11eycat, 10 September 2012 - 06:37 AM.

[Catamount]

Oh god, this thread... it's been resurrected again




We've beaten the 40k discussion to death about a dozen independent times over, with few conclusions. I'm not really up for round 13 of that discussion :/

Edited by Catamount, 10 September 2012 - 10:28 AM.

[Imagine Dragons]

A11eycat, on 10 September 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

OK, forgive me Starwars fans, but that universe is in TATTERS, the Rebellion still doesn't have control over the known galaxy, there are dozens of Imperial forces still romping around, Sith are going crazy, and they could barely beat a horribly run( as in half the stuff didn't get done, other rebellions were common place, and the Imperial had only their name on hundreds of planet's deed, where they were actually run by street gangs, thugs, crime syndicates, etc.)

You know, there are books out there that continue the Star Wars universe literally right after RotJ?...

The first being about space dinosaurs trying to steel the life force out of humans to power their technological empire...

And last series to end ties up with a reference to a certain clone wars episdoe (the newer 3d animation one -shiver-)

Also there was that Star Wars Legacy that was set a hundred or so years after TBY...

But thats enough of me SWnerding out.

Edited by XenomorphZZ, 11 September 2012 - 08:38 AM.

[pursang]

Holy necro, Batman!