Warhammer: After 18 years, finally an end

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Warhammer: After 18 years, finally an end

Noctis Horrendae: Nov 1, 2013

Fried Chicken posted:

That's smaller than the smallest legion these days. It got bumped up midway through the series so they could tell more stories and because the writers didn't like the scale constraints.

Smallest one now is 80,000 marines, most of them 100,000. But the indications are that even the official legion numbers are wrong because the heretics were hiding their size prior to istavaan and guilliman, corn, and Johnson had superior "production" to make up losses

Really, it is probably best to treat 40k numbers like the word "wan" in Chinese epics. Sure it means a real value, but in the context of myths and legends it just means "an overwhelmingly huge number"

Typical GW. I bet they think something along the lines of "hey, maybe if we bump up the legion size these nerds will want to be all ~realistic~ and they'll want to buy more miniatures as a result!"

# ? Jan 16, 2014 05:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 2, 2024 16:18

Pornographic Memory: Dec 17, 2008

Noctis Horrendae posted:

Typical GW. I bet they think something along the lines of "hey, maybe if we bump up the legion size these nerds will want to be all ~realistic~ and they'll want to buy more miniatures as a result!"

Some day half a century from now a very lonely man who had more money than sense will proudly post his life's work for all the internet to see: a complete space marine legion in miniatures consisting of tens of thousands of painted plastic space mans and vehicles. Furious debate ensues whether he should be committed to an institution or just put down for being too far gone.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 05:46

VanSandman: Feb 16, 2011; SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod2160196a&_requestid=1427322

I am genuinely curious how many of these things they've sold.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 05:55

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; THE HATE CRIME DEFENDER HAS LOGGED ON

Arquinsiel posted:

Oh dear. That is much worse. I had happily ditched the EU by the time R.A. Salvatore started getting threats for killing off Chewie etc.

Lucky. I left at Bug Orgies (With only coming back for the Vong War Wraith Squadron book)

# ? Jan 16, 2014 05:59

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

VanSandman posted:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod2160196a&_requestid=1427322

I am genuinely curious how many of these things they've sold.

I know two of my friends split the previous version that didn't have all the tanks and other new poo poo they made up between editions to sell mans.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 06:23

Shadowhand00: Jan 23, 2006; Golden Bear is ever watching; day by day he prowls, and when he hears the tread of lowly Stanfurd red,from his Lair he fiercely growls.; Toilet Rascal

VanSandman posted:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod2160196a&_requestid=1427322

I am genuinely curious how many of these things they've sold.

Who are those dudes in the 9th Company? Centurion squads - are they Terminators? As strong as terminators?

God, they really have expanded out the range to sell more space mans.

Edit: Nevermind, found it on 1d4chan:

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Centurion_Squad

quote:

Hey, you! Tired of just one Heavy Bolter? Wish to crush your foes with their own armour? Want to wear armour while you wear armour? Crave GIANT loving DRILLS? Then the new Centurion Warsuit is for you!
A Centurion Squad is a new type of Space Marines Squad available with the release of 6th edition. A Centurion is a warsuit whose STC printout was discovered after the Age of Apostasy. After getting the "not heresy" stamp from the Adeptus Mechanicus, the Imperium of Man began supplying Space Marine Chapters with the suits, who dubbed them "Centurion" after the former officers of the Legiones Astartes. The Centurion is a specialist piece of equipment used for sieges or line-breaking. Despite not interfacing with the Space Marines Black Carapace, it gives the Marine durability that is rivaled by that of a Dreadnought, without the requirement of losing their spine and three out of four limbs in a heroic, but probably avoidable last stand. Instead of recruiting out of the Chapter's First Company Veterans, Centurion pilots are recruited from the Assault or Devastator Squads, as Centurions are only useful in specific roles of Assault and heavy weapons, and their pilots need to be immersed in a specific type of warfare.
While you won't be blamed for calling them "Reasonable Dreadnaughts", it should be noted that their current status makes them inferior to true dreadnaughts in both loadout and points price DUE TO LACK OF HEROIC SACRIFICE.
They are also commonly referred to as "Space Marine inside a Space Marine" or "baby Dreadknights" by fa/tg/uys. Sometimes "tubinators" by less fatguys.

Shadowhand00 fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Jan 16, 2014

# ? Jan 16, 2014 06:38

Pyrolocutus: Feb 5, 2005; Shape of Flame

Shadowhand00 posted:

Who are those dudes in the 9th Company? Centurion squads - are they Terminators? As strong as terminators?

God, they really have expanded out the range to sell more space mans.

Edit: Nevermind, found it on 1d4chan:

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Centurion_Squad

I just looked at the 1d4chan page, and how the hell do Terminators have an invul save but these don't? :catstare:

# ? Jan 16, 2014 06:46

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

The worst thing about those is that it resurrected the old Xzibit recursion meme.

The best thing is that you can just mash the head in and replace it with Ork heads and maybe file off the symbols and it looks sensible.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 06:49

Jerkface: May 21, 2001; HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE DEAD, MOTHERFUCKER?

Those are just, ugh, the worst. I hate that every army is getting new 'bigger' units when we already had perfectly functional 'big units' for most armies and the next steps up were always Titans/Baby Titans but nope, actually the space marines have giant stupid pieces of poo poo that have never been mentioned before and Grey Knights have even bigger, stupider pieces of poo poo no one knows about.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 07:09

Shadowhand00: Jan 23, 2006; Golden Bear is ever watching; day by day he prowls, and when he hears the tread of lowly Stanfurd red,from his Lair he fiercely growls.; Toilet Rascal

Jerkface posted:

Those are just, ugh, the worst. I hate that every army is getting new 'bigger' units when we already had perfectly functional 'big units' for most armies and the next steps up were always Titans/Baby Titans but nope, actually the space marines have giant stupid pieces of poo poo that have never been mentioned before and Grey Knights have even bigger, stupider pieces of poo poo no one knows about.

At least its redeemed by this :3:

# ? Jan 16, 2014 08:39

Lead Psychiatry: Dec 22, 2004; I wonder if a soldier ever does mend a bullet hole in his coat?

Arquinsiel posted:

The worst thing about those is that it resurrected the old Xzibit recursion meme.

I'm seriously considering being done with this franchise now that I'm seeing poo poo to suggest that someone thought Matroyshka Marines was a good idea.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 09:13

TheArmorOfContempt: Nov 29, 2012; Did I ever tell you my favorite color was blue?

Pyrolocutus posted:

I just looked at the 1d4chan page, and how the hell do Terminators have an invul save but these don't?

Because they don't have the Crux Terminatus?

# ? Jan 16, 2014 12:00

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Jerkface posted:

Those are just, ugh, the worst. I hate that every army is getting new 'bigger' units when we already had perfectly functional 'big units' for most armies and the next steps up were always Titans/Baby Titans but nope, actually the space marines have giant stupid pieces of poo poo that have never been mentioned before and Grey Knights have even bigger, stupider pieces of poo poo no one knows about.

It's not every army, but..yeah. CSM and Daemons got no bigger beasties. Dark Angels and loyalist Marines also didn't get a big bot; centurions are pretty much beefier, goofier Obliterators.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 15:04

Pyrolocutus: Feb 5, 2005; Shape of Flame

Uroboros posted:

Because they don't have the Crux Terminatus?

I...well...uh....actually that makes perfect sense under 40k logic :v:

# ? Jan 16, 2014 15:34

VanSandman: Feb 16, 2011; SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

Jerkface posted:

Those are just, ugh, the worst. I hate that every army is getting new 'bigger' units when we already had perfectly functional 'big units' for most armies and the next steps up were always Titans/Baby Titans but nope, actually the space marines have giant stupid pieces of poo poo that have never been mentioned before and Grey Knights have even bigger, stupider pieces of poo poo no one knows about.

I don't even hate the idea of the Dreadknight, but the design is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen, not to mention useless in an actual fight. Just rip off those pistons above the shoulders and boom, now the Dreadnight can only headbutt you.

They could've just made them a variant Dreadnaught that only the Grey Knights get, but noooooo

# ? Jan 16, 2014 16:28

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

Pyrolocutus posted:

I...well...uh....actually that makes perfect sense under 40k logic

It actually doesn't. What that thing does is a retcon. The Terminator "invulnerable save" is not the same type of thing as an Iron Halo, it's just a way of representing that the armour is really really thick without allowing it to be 3+ on 2D6 anymore. It uses to just be a badge of honour that said you were 1st Company, thus all Veteran marines should have it too. Where's their 5+ invulnerable?

# ? Jan 16, 2014 17:56

Shadowhand00: Jan 23, 2006; Golden Bear is ever watching; day by day he prowls, and when he hears the tread of lowly Stanfurd red,from his Lair he fiercely growls.; Toilet Rascal

Pyrolocutus posted:

I...well...uh....actually that makes perfect sense under 40k logic

Because, yes, a infinitesimally small chunk of the Emperor's armor makes you partially invulnerable.

Sometimes I love this universe a little too blindly.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 18:57

berzerkmonkey: Jul 23, 2003

Noctis Horrendae posted:

Typical GW. I bet they think something along the lines of "hey, maybe if we bump up the legion size these nerds will want to be all ~realistic~ and they'll want to buy more miniatures as a result!"

Yeah, but you also have to realize that you're talking about a galaxy-spanning empire here - you needed huge amounts of troops to conquer entire star systems. Some of the enemies the Legions had to fight were extremely well equipped and difficult to defeat. Without pure strength of numbers, the Crusade couldn't succeed. When you think about it, eighteen Legions of 100K Space Marines each would only make up a grand total of 1.8 million Space Marines - that is certainly not unrealistic when you realize that China is said to have a standing army of 2.2 million.

Also, a Legion wasn't just Space Marines - it was spacecraft, Imperial Army, and associated Titan Legions.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 20:31

Noctis Horrendae: Nov 1, 2013

VanSandman posted:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod2160196a&_requestid=1427322

I am genuinely curious how many of these things they've sold.

There were three people at my LGS considering buying this. Us nerds are dumb!

# ? Jan 16, 2014 21:22

A 50S RAYGUN: Aug 22, 2011

Aren't the Space Wolves still basically...a Legion? Their numbers were never split the same way the other Legions were, and their only Successor chapter ended up hosed.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 22:01

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

berzerkmonkey posted:

Yeah, but you also have to realize that you're talking about a galaxy-spanning empire here - you needed huge amounts of troops to conquer entire star systems. Some of the enemies the Legions had to fight were extremely well equipped and difficult to defeat. Without pure strength of numbers, the Crusade couldn't succeed. When you think about it, eighteen Legions of 100K Space Marines each would only make up a grand total of 1.8 million Space Marines - that is certainly not unrealistic when you realize that China is said to have a standing army of 2.2 million.

Also, a Legion wasn't just Space Marines - it was spacecraft, Imperial Army, and associated Titan Legions.

Yeah well if we are invoking realism, then the energy constraints of getting things into orbit and landing from space are so huge that interplanetary war is a nonstarter.

I'm telling you, treat all numbers in 40k the same way Chinese epics treated "wan". What's more likely, in a galaxy of 400 billion stars and a minimum 8 billion habitable worlds the galaxy spanning Imperium controls 1 million worlds (which would fit in a volume of a few hundred lightyears), or they are a galaxy spanning Imperium that controls most of the habitable real estate and "million" is a big enough sounding number to impress the illiterate serf making bolter shells when he hears the priest say it?

How many space marines are there? Enough to conquer all that in 200 years. How many are there now? Not enough to conquer us, but enough to keep us safe provided you make this months ammunition quota. Now stop asking questions or I'll make you into a servitor.

Yeah, you could probably figure out how many are needed by doing something like looking at how many people the Russians fed into Stalingrad, then figuring how many similar sized cities there are on the planet, then multiply that by the number of habitable planets, then adjust that for space marine badass-itude and the probable casualty rates. But why bother? Even when the author tries to make a point of it they usually flub something (eg David Weber and fixing the Styrofoam ships). There are enough for the story, that's what matters.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 22:05

Shadowhand00: Jan 23, 2006; Golden Bear is ever watching; day by day he prowls, and when he hears the tread of lowly Stanfurd red,from his Lair he fiercely growls.; Toilet Rascal

SUPER NEAT TOY posted:

Aren't the Space Wolves still basically...a Legion? Their numbers were never split the same way the other Legions were, and their only Successor chapter ended up hosed.

Recent literature about the Space Wolves seems to imply that they're still the same size as they were when they were under Russ.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 22:29

Nephilm: Jun 11, 2009; by Lowtax

Fried Chicken posted:

Yeah well if we are invoking realism, then the energy constraints of getting things into orbit and landing from space are so huge that interplanetary war is a nonstarter.

I'm telling you, treat all numbers in 40k the same way Chinese epics treated "wan". What's more likely, in a galaxy of 400 billion stars and a minimum 8 billion habitable worlds the galaxy spanning Imperium controls 1 million worlds (which would fit in a volume of a few hundred lightyears), or they are a galaxy spanning Imperium that controls most of the habitable real estate and "million" is a big enough sounding number to impress the illiterate serf making bolter shells when he hears the priest say it?

How many space marines are there? Enough to conquer all that in 200 years. How many are there now? Not enough to conquer us, but enough to keep us safe provided you make this months ammunition quota. Now stop asking questions or I'll make you into a servitor.

Yeah, you could probably figure out how many are needed by doing something like looking at how many people the Russians fed into Stalingrad, then figuring how many similar sized cities there are on the planet, then multiply that by the number of habitable planets, then adjust that for space marine badass-itude and the probable casualty rates. But why bother? Even when the author tries to make a point of it they usually flub something (eg David Weber and fixing the Styrofoam ships). There are enough for the story, that's what matters.

Considering we don't know how much of the galaxy is inhabitable, a million worlds doesn't sound bad, and in a setting where planets and entire star systems can be obliterated, habitable points in space are the one true measure of territory - if the enemy entrenches itself on some dead rock, you just blast it apart since it has little strategic value.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 22:33

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Nephilm posted:

Considering we don't know how much of the galaxy is inhabitable, a million worlds doesn't sound bad, and in a setting where planets and entire star systems can be obliterated, habitable points in space are the one true measure of territory - if the enemy entrenches itself on some dead rock, you just blast it apart since it has little strategic value.

We do have estimates of how much is habitable. In fact, you quoted where I repeated the estimate. And if you want to invoke that the setting has planets and systems destroyed, I'd point out that the setting also has terraforming and genetic and mechanical augmentation to make worlds that would otherwise be uninhabitable habitable.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 22:43

VanSandman: Feb 16, 2011; SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

Don't worry about scale in science fantasy. Ever.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 22:44

Nephilm: Jun 11, 2009; by Lowtax

Fried Chicken posted:

We do have estimates of how much is habitable. In fact, you quoted where I repeated the estimate. And if you want to invoke that the setting has planets and systems destroyed, I'd point out that the setting also has terraforming and genetic and mechanical augmentation to make worlds that would otherwise be uninhabitable habitable.

That estimate is nonsense. Our sample size is hilariously small: just Earth and around what, 50 'potential' exoplanets in what could be the habitable area of their respective stars? Of which as little as 0 could actually host life, and that's even with generously cataloging pond scum as such.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 22:58

berzerkmonkey: Jul 23, 2003

Fried Chicken posted:

Yeah well if we are invoking realism, then the energy constraints of getting things into orbit and landing from space are so huge that interplanetary war is a nonstarter.

How so? You're dealing with technology that is 30,000 years advanced - power requirements and sources are vastly different from anything we'd know today. Look at the differences of a few hundred years on Earth - there was no way you could sustain a war a continent away for an extended period of time, let alone a few countries away. Now we can literally land an army with enough supplies for a month in any warzone on the planet in a couple of days. I would imagine that they've gotten a little better at it in 300 centuries.

I understand that there is no point in doing the math on this stuff, as it isn't meant to be realistic in any way. I'm just saying that I don't see a problem with the huge numbers 40K throws around.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 23:01

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

Nephilm posted:

That estimate is nonsense. Our sample size is hilariously small: just Earth and around what, 50 'potential' exoplanets in what could be the habitable area of their respective stars? Of which as little as 0 could actually host life, and that's even with generously cataloging pond scum as such.

Bear in mind just what the Imperium consideres "habitable". Phantine immediately springs to mind, as does the obvious Armageddon.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 23:01

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Nephilm posted:

That estimate is nonsense. Our sample size is hilariously small: just Earth and around what, 50 'potential' exoplanets in what could be the habitable area of their respective stars? Of which as little as 0 could actually host life, and that's even with generously cataloging pond scum as such.

So what I've been putting forth here is that we should treat million as just an arbitrarily big number picked by the priests 10,000 years ago for the ignorant rubes rather than try to explain the scope of reality to them, and your response is that we should accept a random big number put forth by a toy company 30 years ago for uncaring fans rather than consider the published, peer reviewed work done by the experts of a field, who applied their most precise observations to their best models to provide an answer.

Is this some kind of abstract meta-posting where you are attempting to illustrate my point to everyone else or something?

# ? Jan 16, 2014 23:53

Nephilm: Jun 11, 2009; by Lowtax

Fried Chicken posted:

So what I've been putting forth here is that we should treat million as just an arbitrarily big number picked by the priests 10,000 years ago for the ignorant rubes rather than try to explain the scope of reality to them, and your response is that we should accept a random big number put forth by a toy company 30 years ago for uncaring fans rather than consider the published, peer reviewed work done by the experts of a field, who applied their most precise observations to their best models to provide an answer.

Is this some kind of abstract meta-posting where you are attempting to illustrate my point to everyone else or something?

Okay, why don't you go find your sources? I'll meanwhile gather the holy texts of St. Fermi.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 00:13

OXBALLS DOT COM: Sep 11, 2005; by FactsAreUseless; Young Orc

Jerkface posted:

Those are just, ugh, the worst. I hate that every army is getting new 'bigger' units when we already had perfectly functional 'big units' for most armies and the next steps up were always Titans/Baby Titans but nope, actually the space marines have giant stupid pieces of poo poo that have never been mentioned before and Grey Knights have even bigger, stupider pieces of poo poo no one knows about.

Apparently centurions were originally going to be Imperial Fists only but then they realized this might make fewer people buy them so they just sort of gave them to veryone.

And yes they are dumb.

VanSandman posted:

Don't worry about scale in science fantasy. Ever.

I prefer "space fantasy" especially considering that the 40 setting is explicitly anti-science.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 00:18

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Nephilm posted:

Okay, why don't you go find your sources? I'll meanwhile gather the holy texts of St. Fermi.

Idle speculation from a guy in a different field who has been dead for 60 years and whose work you are misrepresenting versus the latest stuff published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

ok

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/48/19273.full

# ? Jan 17, 2014 00:19

Nephilm: Jun 11, 2009; by Lowtax

Fried Chicken posted:

Idle speculation from a guy in a different field who has been dead for 60 years and whose work you are misrepresenting versus the latest stuff published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

ok

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/48/19273.full

Hey, he's still winning on points. Also, I fail to see where in the article comes your estimate of "minimum 8 billion habitable worlds".

# ? Jan 17, 2014 00:28

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Nephilm posted:

Hey, he's still winning on points. Also, I fail to see where in the article comes your estimate of "minimum 8 billion habitable worlds".

You clearly have no idea what Fermi was really saying. There is a difference between habitable planets and planets currently inhabited by a civilization at a comparable and recognizable technological level who is interested in communication. As for the paper, they cunningly buried it in the part labeled "Conclusions". I can see how that would trip you up.

here

quote:

Using Kepler photometry of Sun-like stars (GK-type), we measured the prevalence of planets having different orbital periods and sizes, down to the size of the Earth and out to orbital periods of 1 y. We gathered Keck spectra of all host stars of planets having periods greater than 100 d to accurately determine their radii. The detection of planets with periods longer than 100 d is challenging, and we characterized our sensitivity to such planets by using injection and recovery of synthetic planets in the photometry. After correcting for orbital tilt and detection completeness, we find that 26 � 3% of Sun-like stars have an Earth-size Graphic planet with P = 5�100 d. We also find that 11 � 4% of Sun-like stars harbor an Earth-size planet that receives nearly Earth levels of stellar energy Graphic.

We showed that small planets far outnumber large ones. Only 1.6 � 0.4% of Sun-like stars harbor a Jupiter-size Graphic planet with P = 5�100 d compared with a 23 � 3% occurrence of Earth-size planets. This pattern supports the core accretion scenario in which planets form by the accumulation of solids first and gas later in the protoplanetary disk (13, 22⇓�24). The details of this family of models are hotly debated, including the movement of material within the disk, the timescale for planet formation, and the amount of gas accretion in small planets. Our measurement of a constant occurrence of 1�2.8 Graphic planets per logP interval establishes an important observational constraint for these models.

The occurrence of Earth-size planets is constant with decreasing stellar light intensity from 100 Graphic down to 1 Graphic. If one was to assume that this pattern continues down to 0.25 Graphic, then the occurrence of planets having flux levels of 1�0.25 Graphic is also 11 � 4%.

Earth-size planets are common in the Kepler field. If the stars in the Kepler field are representative of stars in the solar neighborhood, then Earth-size planets are common around nearby Sun-like stars. If one were to adopt a 22% occurrence rate of Earth-size planets in habitable zones of Sun-like stars, then the nearest such planet is expected to orbit a star that is less than 12 light-years from Earth and can be seen by the unaided eye. Future instrumentation to image and take spectra of these Earths need only observe a few dozen nearby stars to detect a sample of Earth-size planets residing in the HZs of their host stars.

Note Added in Proof. Estimates of the occurrence of Earth analog planets appear in several previous works including Catanzarite and Shao (25), Traub (26), and Dong and Zhu (27). These estimates, which range from 1% to 34%, were built upon early catalogs of Kepler planet candidates (based on less than 1.3 years of photometry). These estimates did not address survey completeness with injection and recovery or uncertain stellar radii with spectroscopy.

Now apply those percentages to observed stellar cartography and observations and you get the number.

EDIT: By the way, here is a paper arguing that the criteria for "habitable" is too narrow. Which would make for more worlds if correct

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2013.1088

Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jan 17, 2014

# ? Jan 17, 2014 00:43

VanSandman: Feb 16, 2011; SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

Oh my god you nerds just make out already.

I'm glad there is very little making out in the 40k verse. No time for that, gotta bless this tank.

Sci-fi writers can be really awful about writing anything remotely sexual.

VanSandman fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Jan 17, 2014

# ? Jan 17, 2014 01:10

Nephilm: Jun 11, 2009; by Lowtax

Still not seeing it. Are you saying there are over 114 billion g-type main sequence stars in the galaxy (that aren't in irradiated star clusters)? Because I'd like a source for that. By the way, that last paper also argues that planets within the habitable zone aren't necessarily habitable either, but that's neither here nor there.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 01:13

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; THE HATE CRIME DEFENDER HAS LOGGED ON

So, guys, when's the next space-flashman coming out? I really hope Space-Baldrick uses his melta.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 01:15

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Nephilm posted:

Still not seeing it. Are you saying there are over 114 billion g-type main sequence stars in the galaxy (that aren't in irradiated star clusters)? Because I'd like a source for that. By the way, that last paper also argues that planets within the habitable zone aren't necessarily habitable either, but that's neither here nor there.

The Milky Way has an estimated 200-400 billion stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_mass_function

Take Salpeter's IMF and you get about 2% of the stars are F/G type.

26+-3% of the F/G types will have a habitable planet according to the conclusion.

Low ball it at 200 billion starts and 23% you get 40 billion F/G types and ~9 billion. If you use 22% you get the 8.8 billion that has popped up in all the articles, so I assume that is what they were using.

High end of course here would be 23 billion habitable planets.

VanSandman posted:

Oh my god you nerds just make out already.

I'm glad there is very little making out in the 40k verse. No time for that, gotta bless this tank.

Have you heard of Slaanesh, God of Love?

# ? Jan 17, 2014 01:40

Nephilm: Jun 11, 2009; by Lowtax

2% of 200 billion is 4 billion.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 02:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 2, 2024 16:18

Waroduce: Aug 5, 2008

Fried Chicken posted:

You clearly have no idea what Fermi was really saying. There is a difference between habitable planets and planets currently inhabited by a civilization at a comparable and recognizable technological level who is interested in communication. As for the paper, they cunningly buried it in the part labeled "Conclusions". I can see how that would trip you up.

here

Now apply those percentages to observed stellar cartography and observations and you get the number.

EDIT: By the way, here is a paper arguing that the criteria for "habitable" is too narrow. Which would make for more worlds if correct

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2013.1088

I love you.

please post more educational poo poo

# ? Jan 17, 2014 04:04

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Warhammer: After 18 years, finally an end

«‹›1140 »