Okuto you are right
Okuto you are right
Just stop. I think its clear people here really don't like that connection you are trying to make Which i might add doesn't fit into the fluff no matter how you try to justify it. The Star Trek background has its dates all mixed up compared with the ones from the 40k fluff. And changing these dates to meet your own ends again does not help your argument.
Except using Star Trek makes everything worse. I say keep 40k as it is. Its why most of us got into the story in the first place.
Also:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by Ulysses S. Grant; October 06, 2011 at 07:03 AM.
Art //
Oh come now, at least ST has some sensible plots and tries to discuss the human condition, 40K is just juvinile in comparision. All just ultra-manly manly men beating up other ultral manly manly men all the while :wub: over huge wars.
Hammer & Sickle - Karacharovo
And I drank it strait down.
It is and that's what separates 40k from other SCI-fi worlds, it's over the top heroics.
I watch Star Trek if I want of productive space oddessy with actual common sense and exploration
I play 40k if I want a senseless grimdarky Mcgrimdarky slaughter feast/dark age with pockets of sense through in for measure, esp pockets of sense...only a few of the factions actually get crap done in the universe
The two just don't mix and I think it's delusional and counterproductive for someone to take the two and mix them together esp from someone(who would appear so far) who isn't fully familiar with the overall background but simply read it off the lexi and now thinks that will suffice to do a cross universe mash up.
The whole appeal of 40k is it's dark age in space atmosphere, add in all that "everybody is happy/sane from Star Trek and the background hits rock bottom and the bulk of the fandom leaves.
I can only see "happy everybody get along" in Ultramar but even then it woulnd't be the "utopia" you envision
Last edited by Okuto; October 06, 2011 at 08:50 AM.
I agree they don't mix, but I'm disagreeing with Ulysses saying that 40K is superior. It's not, they are very different beasts. However, as far as I'm concerned, 40K does at times, come off as juviline war-wank. The HH novels have been (something) of a surprise in this regard.
Hammer & Sickle - Karacharovo
And I drank it strait down.
Oh I didn't read his post yet but yes they both fill completely different demographics so I wouldn't agreed that one is better than the other, it's a matter of what one prefers.
40k is currently going in the wrong direction imo, we need to dispose of ward asap, I want more grittyness not the kiddy I'm the hero crap.
Warhammer started off as a tabletop WAR game, while Star Trek started off as some nerd's way to state his opinions on political and world issues. Of course they're going to be different. Warhammer, especially 40k, has been working to add depth and complexity to the universe (through Black Library), not necessarily tackling morality issues as a whole, but focusing on certain characters or groups and the challenges they face (like the HH novels). There's already good fluff discussions about characters and armies, beyond "Would Primarch/Space Marine Chapter/Guard Regiment X pwn Chaos-noob Y?", and they will only increase as more novels are written. Yet there's also discussions about the famous battles: what happened in them, some of the tactics used by both sides, whether or not those tactics were smart, etc., etc, which could be "juvenile war-wank" to you.
Then again... If by "juvenile war-wank", you're talking about Ultramarines and a certain Mr. Calgar, just keep in mind that 1) they're the posterboys of GW and all Space Marines, and thus 2) their stories and tales have been (slightly) exaggerated.
We don't have to say one is superior, necessarily. On a worldwide popularity scale, of course Star Trek is more prominent. But 40k fills a wonderful niche, and I believe it has room to grow without losing its character.
Edit: It'll grow straight into the toilet with Mr. Ward. Good point, Okuto.
Last edited by Davidicus II; October 06, 2011 at 11:47 AM.
Eh.
Read 'The First Heretic' or the short story 'The Last Church' in Tales of Heresy. Not all of 40k is ultra-manly manly men beating up other ultral manly manly men all the while :wub: over huge wars. Failing that check out some Inquisition books, which tend to be much more like thrillers or spy novels than ever concerning themselves with huge wars.
Anything non-Goto written/space marine(barring HH series) are good reads to get into the background in a serious fashion.
Phil kelly is the only sane one left.....the old guard are gone and phil kelly shows the most promise outta the big three game developers...
I shudder at the thought of what ward will do with the necrons....no doubt his inner smurf pride is hurt after damnos.....originally I thought he'd make necrons OMG but then after sisters(ward doesn't like them much) I fear for necrons as they did lay the smack down on smurfs
I use to think that but remember that ward is a smurf fanboy......on damnos the smurfs lost to them.....so I'm not comfortable with a smurf zealot writing the codex of one of their greatest enemies.
Should of just left ward in the lotr department......
It is a comparison. The big 40k ship is a Retribution Class Battleship, and the smaller one is a Cobra Class Destroyer which is the smallest Imperial Navy ship (And its still bigger than the battleships of those other sci-fi universes).
Art //
Yeah thats crazy.
I bet the Retribution Class Battleship has its own gravitational pull and orbiting objects.
Its not the biggest ship either, right?
Contact me on Steam: steamcommunity.com/id/IZob/ or send a PM.
The Retribution is about as big as standard Imperial Ships get. Its 7km long and almost 2 km high, which is large even for 40k ships. Only Necron and Tyranid ships are bigger on average. You have the off Ork ship, but thats very random. Tyranid ships can be almost ten times larger, and the Necron Cairn Class Tomb Ship is slightly larger than Retribution, but then they have planet sized ships (World Engine).
Art //
It should be.
An Imperial Class Star Destroyer from Star Wars is suppose to be ~1.7km and carries about 72 fighters onboard plus a full regiment of stormtroopers plus armour.
Star Trek warships in general have been stated to go from 50m to 150m? At least last time I looked at it. The Enterprise is one of the Federation's biggest ships but even then compared to Star Wars it's no bigger than a corvette.That's why in the movies and TV shows the ships are so agile.
Then you go into 40K universe and the Imperium Cruisers (And not battleships mind you) are reputed to carry at least thousands of starfighters and bombers which are at least 50-70m long.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A squadron of Fury Interceptors would decimate an entire fleet from Star Trek with ease.
Last edited by nameless; October 06, 2011 at 08:42 PM.
Well not Fury Interceptors. Starhawk Bombers would do the job. And they go around crippling 40k ships all the time.
You also have to take into account the fact that some Imperial Torpedoes are bigger than Star Trek ships. Hell, even the Nova-Cannon's projectiles are bigger than most Star Trek ships.
Art //