Wow, this thread got ugly towards the end didn't it?
About half way through the fanboys from one world started screaming at the others and the point was lost.
Both universes have over powerful garbage that hurts the brain. The mind control gun from some of the star wars books can meet the shooting through armour lasguns from the 40k books. Sun crushers can face off against planet killers as for most unrealistic machine. Both universes suffer from bad writers who will include some new and even sillier weapon. The fanboys who look at those weapons and go 'wow! now it all makes sense!' bother me not just because they Believe it, but because they rewrite their own understanding to require X new silly thing.
In the end it comes down to how do the two fictional worlds interact and overlap and setting up the ground rules. Without these we cannot even start. How does warp space compare to the hyperspace of the star wars universe? (So even in Star Wars things don't go faster then the speed of light -- they make the jump to hyperspace) Can the ion blasters be stopped by the void shields? Can the deflector screens stop a torpedo strike? (My thoughts are no, as the star destroyer took a fighter to the bridge but again, it's all on how do they work?)
All of the races in 40K have super weapons that make them dangerous. In star wars the weapons only show up to move the plot along and are often lost at the end of the book. Yes, there is no reason why you wouldn't rebuild some super weapon in the star wars universe but there is also no reason why in 40K you couldn't turn half a sector towards a single crusade either.
Both universes are very fictional and neither really holds up to a real world model for economics or physics. Star wars lost me as a supporter when I was forced to see star wars as a movie without all the childhood memories of it with the redone versions. Not that I was a very strong supporter before that as I found the books to be painful to read. I find the 40K books to be similar in structure. I still read both, but as popcorn books in which I laugh at how dumb things are. Both worlds have had people work out rules for how different parts interact with themselves, the d20 books the earlier d6 books... Rogue trader and on up through the rulebooks for 40K. (Necromunda was my favourite scale for the 40K world, but I have played them all)
So really, given that the last couple of pages on this thread seem to have been given over to fighting about how and where you could build a death star instead of how a planet killer and support fleet would strike against a death star I don't have much to add. I've played Star Wars Rebellion and I had three death stars running around blowing up planets held by the rebels because it was easier then trying to take them. But I'm not going to use that to suggest that the six exterminus missions that my imperial cruisers took against chaos held worlds in battlefleet gothic were any more realistic.
About half way through the fanboys from one world started screaming at the others and the point was lost.
Both universes have over powerful garbage that hurts the brain. The mind control gun from some of the star wars books can meet the shooting through armour lasguns from the 40k books. Sun crushers can face off against planet killers as for most unrealistic machine. Both universes suffer from bad writers who will include some new and even sillier weapon. The fanboys who look at those weapons and go 'wow! now it all makes sense!' bother me not just because they Believe it, but because they rewrite their own understanding to require X new silly thing.
In the end it comes down to how do the two fictional worlds interact and overlap and setting up the ground rules. Without these we cannot even start. How does warp space compare to the hyperspace of the star wars universe? (So even in Star Wars things don't go faster then the speed of light -- they make the jump to hyperspace) Can the ion blasters be stopped by the void shields? Can the deflector screens stop a torpedo strike? (My thoughts are no, as the star destroyer took a fighter to the bridge but again, it's all on how do they work?)
All of the races in 40K have super weapons that make them dangerous. In star wars the weapons only show up to move the plot along and are often lost at the end of the book. Yes, there is no reason why you wouldn't rebuild some super weapon in the star wars universe but there is also no reason why in 40K you couldn't turn half a sector towards a single crusade either.
Both universes are very fictional and neither really holds up to a real world model for economics or physics. Star wars lost me as a supporter when I was forced to see star wars as a movie without all the childhood memories of it with the redone versions. Not that I was a very strong supporter before that as I found the books to be painful to read. I find the 40K books to be similar in structure. I still read both, but as popcorn books in which I laugh at how dumb things are. Both worlds have had people work out rules for how different parts interact with themselves, the d20 books the earlier d6 books... Rogue trader and on up through the rulebooks for 40K. (Necromunda was my favourite scale for the 40K world, but I have played them all)
So really, given that the last couple of pages on this thread seem to have been given over to fighting about how and where you could build a death star instead of how a planet killer and support fleet would strike against a death star I don't have much to add. I've played Star Wars Rebellion and I had three death stars running around blowing up planets held by the rebels because it was easier then trying to take them. But I'm not going to use that to suggest that the six exterminus missions that my imperial cruisers took against chaos held worlds in battlefleet gothic were any more realistic.
