Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[META] Perceived Setting Assumption Contradiction
Re: [META] Perceived Setting Assumption Contradiction
#3
Quote:
First, on weapons in general: There's been some discussion about what the first major crossover storyline is going to be. Some people have taken to calling it "Fenspace: Season One". It's a war. More specifically, it's a war initiated by the SOS-dan. If "blowing up stuff for great justice" isn't allowed, then how the devil do the SOS-dan expect to be able to fight a war? Forbidding weapons necessarily makes the entire Convention thread non-canonical, by my logic.
First of all, I would like to say for the record that I really fucking regret *ever* coining the phrase "blow stuff up for great justice." It bites, it burns us, precious!
That said, the weapons ban was not a ban on weapons in general but a ban on using handwavium to create weapons. Since handwavium extracts ridiculously large amounts of energy out of the ether, the weapons ban was put into play partly to keep Fenspace from dissolving into a mega-cannon arms race, and partly to keep more cynical participants from introducing death rays and photon torpedoes to the mundane world.
However, handwavium can be used as a energy source for a viable weapons system. Viable weapons systems do not have to be death rays. For example, Griever decided to use coilguns, which are entirely possible using hardtech but haven't been built outside of labs because a weaponized version requires more energy than can be hauled around. Same thing goes for any number of lasers, particle cannons.. almost anything that the Reagan administration spent money on in the 80s becomes fair game.
Quote:
Second, on 'waved weapons: Hulls treated with 'wavium are extremely resilient, to the point that they resist mundane weaponry. (They used to be inpenetrable, but that notion was out-voted.) Reavers attack ships for loot and prisoners. Ships that hit objects at the fractions of lightspeed that we've agreed ships use in Fenspace are destroyed, releasing energy in the megaton-equivalent range. A necessary corollary to these three data points is that reavers do not ram ships. If there are no weapons more powerful than mundane weaponry, then what are reavers using to reave?
Here I think you're missing the idea of matching velocities. Yeah, two ships hitting each other at relativistic speeds are going to cause one hell of a bang, but if they're both moving at the same relative speed along the same vector, then the two ships can latch onto each other without causing a multimegaton explosion. It's like when the shuttle goes up to dock at ISS or on a Hubble repair mission, they don't collide and disintegrate at a combined speed of 10 km/s because they matched velocities before getting close.
Some of us have been using an Age of Sail metaphor for space combat in Fenspace. The more I look at it, the more I think the correct metaphor isn't Age of Sail but Iron Age naval warfare. The tactics are about the same; maneuver into position where you can grapple the target and then send your boarding parties. If you can't board, then ram it or otherwise try to sink it.
Quote:
Third, on 'wavium: As has already been shown in accepted Fenspace fic and mentioned in the above point, every 'waved ship is a weapon. As has been discussed, 'wavium is not intelligent. A necessary corollary to these two data points is that 'wavium cannot prevent itself from being used as a weapon. (Aside: I'll point out that I suggested putting a statement into the rules saying any 'waved weapon was a one-shot deal, but I was out-voted.)
And this one... I really don't have a good answer for. You're right, it *is* a gap in the logic. One of the dangers of group work with a rapidly-evolving setting, I suppose.---
Mr. Fnord
http://fnord.sandwich.net/
http://www.jihad.net/
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: [META] Perceived Setting Assumption Contradiction - by The Hunterminator - 01-17-2007, 06:35 PM
Re: [META] Perceived Setting Assumption Contradiction - by M Fnord - 01-17-2007, 08:59 PM
Re: [META] Perceived Setting Assumption Contradiction - by Sirrocco - 01-18-2007, 04:03 AM
Re: [META] Perceived Setting Assumption Contradiction - by Kokuten - 01-18-2007, 04:36 AM
Re: [META] Perceived Setting Assumption Contradiction - by Sirrocco - 01-18-2007, 07:48 AM
Re: Why you don't need explicit waved weapons - by KJ - 01-19-2007, 03:55 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)