Mr. Oragahn wrote: How? I'm merely pointing out how big the lava bomb would have to be, according to the power figures you gave, to start fiting with the rest of the universe.
I didn't distort anything. I dind't even misquote anything.
Please don't make false claims such as these.
You're the only one who thinks a Lava Bomb would be the size of the ship carrying it. Distorting what I said, putting words in my mouth, mocking me because you lack evidence to support your view, eta take your pick as to what you want to call it, but stop doing it.
Please. You're the one abusing fallacies here, notably strawman arguments and even double-strawman arguments in fact, claiming I put words in your mouth, which doesn't even happen once in the part you quoted.
Contrary to your lie, I never believed that the lava bombs are of the size of the ships carrying them.
What I said, in rather very simple terms, is that it WOULD NEED to be of that such size to start to move from "total rubbish" to "barely acceptable".
The reason for that is quite simple, as it has to do with power production vs size of ship.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Which would mean it would take very little volume for the ship in question to have more of these reactor/warheads.
Which obviously does not solve the problem of the warhead already producing too much power for its size.
1) Since I've never seen anyone provide more information about Lava Bombs, I'm going to have to assume you are making panicked assumptions about a Lava Bombs dimensions, or not providing information like you should be.
Thing is, nothing in the book alludes to the lava bombs being huge instead of some ammo that fits in broadside tubes or the larger turreted bombardment cannons.
BFG PDF Basic Rules wrote: Ordnance includes missiles the of skyscrapers to swarms of small attack craft such as fighters and bombers.
With typical anti-ship torpedos being over 200 hundred feet long, a lava bomb could be miles long. It's already believed we can build 2 mile high skyscrapers with our technology if we wanted to.
You'd think lava bombs being that big would have warranted a remark from the author in a form or another.
2) As things stand, I fail to see where you would put extra specialty weapons.
Could you reword that please?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: And yet I'm pretty sure that even 1/20 of the volume of such a starship would provide ample room for a huge quantity of those reactor/warheads.
And yet they have a hard time powering energy weapons and propulsion at the same time, and can't or don't fix the problem by simply adding reactors/generators.
Perhaps you know of some fluff concerning the number of reactors on a given type of ship?
I believe I read some examples of ships housing more than one reactor, and in other instances, the power generation room taking a lot of a ship's volume.
Still, the only limit is about volume and power relays and nothing else. The fact they trade those advantages for spacious rooms for parade is their problem.
Anyway, let's remember that I'm simply pointing out that there's lots of room they could convert to more power cores and relays if they wanted to. Any empty volume that's useless can be scavanged for useful purposes.
It only takes hardware and organization. Let's also notice that it's nothing to do with my point (which is to compare the size of a lava bomb, which are described as fusion reactors, and the size of a ship's reactor space to understand their power production capability) and I was only replying to a specific part of your reply.
In other words, I don't really intend to continue this little subdiscussion.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: That is true but the ships are so huge and vast that any waste in specific symbolic chambers doesn't need to automatically translate as a massive volumetric waste for the rest of the ship's systems, such as the power plants.
However, we're talking about warheads. That is, already a fraction of the volume of a projectile that's supposedly stored in large quantities inside a starship.
And thus far, you have not provided one single piece of evidence that would require either of us to believe the lava bombs are humongous beyond the usual range of projectiles fired by those warships.
1) Wasted space, and tens of thousands of humans along with everything that goes with that kind of takes up a lot of space.
BFG PDF Basic Rules wrote: The area of the ship given over to the torpedo tubes is a massive space criss-crossed by lifts, hoists and gantry cranes for moving the huge missiles from the armoured magazine silos where they are stored to the launch tubes.
This sounds like it takes up a lot of space.
This is not defining wasted space. It's defining how this space is put to proper use.
My point is that there is no evidence that the room wasted for symbolic sections of the ship is a reliable example of the pattern applied to the rest of its important and practical sections. If anything, we have citations of crews living many years in cramped sections.
2) There has not been any data given as to the dimensions of a Lava Bomb given in this thread, and I certainly don't have any as it seems to appear in a single source that I don't own. All the given quote states is that the Lava Bomb has a large fusion reactor as a warhead, but we don't know how large a large fusion reactor is.
I actually do know, and I will soon post the quotations. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that I was totally right about the size of those lava bombs.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: When you made your calculations and got numerous power output figures, you didn't seem to have a problem with the definition of power, which is the same I use. Why the sudden confusion?
I can read my own mind, but I have a very limited ability to read other people's minds, and you will note I purposely did not use the word power.
What? You calculate power figures yet you "purposely" don't use the word power? Whatever the silly reason you concoct lately for you not to use the word power is irrelevant, I'm afraid.
Or perhaps you're just backpedaling because you didn't know the definitions of power...
My words hardly allowed you to misunderstand the meaning of power unless you didn't know about the word power.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Huh, the reactor would obviously be able to generate those particles. Do you have to explain everything?
The reactors generate energy that is then turned into electricity, and carried by cables to the weapons.
BFG PDF Basic Rules wrote: Engine Room Damaged. The engine room is rocked by explosions, forcing all hands to tend to the reactors. The ship may not make any turns until the damage is repaired.
Thanks, but totally irrelevant. There's a reason why I embed quotes. It's to understand the context.
BFG PDF Campaign Rules wrote: REFITS TABLES
The ship’s engines are fitted with additional systems or improvements have been made to the power generators and energy relays in some fashion. Roll a D6 on the following table:
D6 Engine Refit
1 Secondary Reactors. The ship’s additional power generators allow it to put on a tremendous burst of speed for short lengths of time. The ship rolls an extra 2D6 when
on All Ahead Fullspecial orders.
2 Evasive Jets.The hull of the vessel is studded with powerful short-burn engines which allow it to drastically turn to avoid incoming fire. At the start of the enemy shooting
phase, the ship may take a Leadership test. If it is passed, the ship may make a single 45° turn immediately. However, the ship may not go on to special
orders during the next turn.
3 Manoeuvring Thrusters. Additional thrusters along the length of the ship allow it to turn much more quickly. The ship reduces the distance it needs to move before
turning by 5cm.
4 ArresterEngines. The ship has a number of secondary engines mounted near its prow, which enable the vessel to reduce speed rapidly. When attempting to Burn Retros
or Come to New Heading special orders, the ship may add +1 to its Leadership.
5 Auxiliary PowerRelays. The rear of the ship is criss-crossed with additional cables and pipelines, feeding more power to the engines. The ship gains +5cm to its speed.
6 Navigational Shields. The ship is enveloped in low-frequency shields designed to shunt aside debris and other impediments as the ship moves. The ship does not suffer
reductions to its speed for moving through Blast markers (this includes gas and dust clouds and similar effects).
I see a mention of cables and pipes.
Are they electric cables, optical cables or plasma conduits?
I see no mention of electricity.
And how is that relevant?
They have a vast array of technologies based on plasma, of all sizes. They obviously know how to channel plasma from point A to point B.
So yes, they could either have one single central power core, or smaller dedicated cores.
BFG PDF Ships of Mars wrote: Augmented Weapon Relays: Weapon batteries shift left
on the gunnery table before all other modifiers are applied. Lance hits count double on rolls of a 6
Looks like they can put more power relays. Interesting.
The reason they barely modify their ships is because they can barely allow to repair them in some cases, they're old and sometimes falling apart, and take a huge time to build.
They wouldn't be crying like babies about the loss of ships like they do if they could mass produce them in a hearbeat.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: How is that a problem? The more advanced the tech is, the less waste there might be. Which means the users of this advanced power technology will have even more liberty at managing the amount of energy stored and the power output. Soon, it will become nothing more than a question of rate of reaction and the size of exit valve.
Something rather well expected for Warhammer 40000, even if they're on the decline.
Given the IOM pumps electricity from the engine room to the weapons and drives. The weapons batteries (laser cannons, missile launchers, rail guns, fusion beamers and graviton pulsars), lances, and engines all run on the same grid. Pumping too much electricity through a cable will destroy it, cook the crew, melt the ship, eta.
How is that a reply to me? Could you stop shifting goalposts please?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: No, what the quotation says is that the Apocalypse-class benefited from a superior power relay technology that allowed to dramatically drain most of the ship's power output, all put into the lances.
It never says this class of ships used reactors inside each single lance turret. The lance turrets were linked to the ship's power source.
It is a design decision, where the makers once thought it better to have a choice over what the power should be used for, instead of having reactors entirely dedicated to weapons.
It doesn't change the fact that with the things those ships do, channeling the super hot particles into a stream straight out from a reactor placed inside the very weapon's structure would be a child affair.
This sort of think sounds like the kind of reasoning that leads to things like the attack of the clones and revenge of the sith ICS. What you think would be a good idea has no bearing on what is actually done in the setting.
OK. Did you even try to read what I wrote? Because that's required to debunk an argument, you know?
It's not "a good idea". It's a fact, since that's how their reactors work and their plasma lances work as well, plus all the other plasma based designs they use. Geez.