Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.24236996 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

So I'm working on a Dark Heresy game, and part of me wants to know:

How badly could a 6 foot long, 3 feet wide, 3 feet deep slab of indestructible metal travelling uninhibited (presumably accelerating through space) destroy a planets surface?

And what are some other good ways of messing up shit on a grand scale in 40k?

>> No.24237021

>>24236996
Truly immovable asteroid field.

>> No.24237050

>>24236996
Every big fighting ship carries enough crap to murderize a planet or five. Newton doesn't enter into this if your setting runs on blood and magic like 40k.

>> No.24237096

>And what are some other good ways of messing up shit on a grand scale in 40k?

Detonate a ships warp drive core.

>> No.24237097

>>24236996
How is it accelerating, and how fast?

>> No.24237103

>>24237050
>setting runs on blood and magic

Hell yea

>> No.24237109

>>24236996
The plate would probably disintegrate in the atmosphere of any planet it hits. A void-ship has shields. So it's not a catastrophy by any means unless we're talking relativistic speeds.

Wrecking shit, though? Look up shipboard weapons. Fucking orbital lance bombardmebt will fuck shit up. Pretty much all shipboard weapons are capable of destroying a city on a planet, though the planet might have orbital defence stations or other assorted weaponry.

To fuck shit up on a non-voidship scale? Nukes still exists in 40k but are called atomics. They're probably on the hundred megaton scale.

Really, why do you have such a problem of wrecking stuff in 40k? The setting is pretty much made from explosions and destruction.

>> No.24237174

>>24237109
And technically, if you're moving at relativistic speeds, then OPs pic is irrelevant.

>> No.24237311

>>24237174
in battle fleet khronus a whole entire planet was rendered uninhabitable because a cruiser suffered plasma core exploded while crashing into the planet. to give you an idea.

Mega meta torpedo, virus bombs, Glassing a planet with capital weapons, and chaos shenanigans all can destroy a world.

A mass effect style rail gun would only count as orbital bombardment.

if you need to do anything crazy just say the enemy found a device from the dark age of technology.

here is a cut seen for exterminatus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67JpMyrOVE

>> No.24237496

8.8244996e+15 joule's. Assuming block is tungston and it goes nuclear. Who needs kinetic force in the grimdark future????

For reference Hiroshima was 6.3 × 10 13 joules

>> No.24237727

>>24237109
Pretty sure OP specified "indestructible metal".

>> No.24237743

>>24236996
I think not...

>> No.24237780

>>24236996
>>24237109

Weird fact: it dose less damage if it dosn't break up. If it was really indistructable, you'd end up with a rather energetic hole punched into the planet that would devestate a large area but wouden't wreck shit up much.

Ok OP: We need to know how fast your monolith is. We can sort of guess the mass, but an object going at .9c has much less energy then one going at .99c and a tiny fraction of the energy of one at .9999c

If you just want to wreck things in 40k, you can match atomic weapons in damage with lasers and time in 40k. Load down with Starsear batteries on a small ship and shoot two at once at a planet, and in a week or so you can wipe out a biosphere.

>> No.24237883

>>24236996

>accelerating through space

What?

>> No.24240050

>>24237883
What this guy is getting at is that without an application of force, there is no acceleration;
ie. as F=MA, A=F/M;

Give us the following:
- A magnitude of force (assuming you're talking thrust, but this would also include the gravity of the target planet.)
- The mass of the metallic body (Or, preferably, its material composition and its dimensions ie. length,width,height)
- An initial velocity at which the body is travelling at the moment in which we begin to measure its behavior.

>> No.24240069

>>24240050
Correction, you gave us dimensions, hurrdurr. so just tell us a velocity (force as source of A is optional) and what metal we're talking about and we'll know its mass and thereby its kinetic energy

>> No.24241963

>>24236996
Why not just stat Isaac Newton as a space-faring, angry god?

>> No.24242009

>>24237097
Gravity
In that case, probably not too bad. Local area might not be that happy, though.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action