PDA

View Full Version : Iron Man vs Space Marine



Talkkno
2008-05-09, 03:14 PM
In honor of the profilfiration of Iron Man threads, lets pit the Imperium's finest agaisnt Stark.
1 Ultramarine with standerd equipment vs the movie version of Iron Man. And if that isn't enough, throw in 3 more Ultramarines, two of them will have of their choice. Battlefield will a dense featurless plain.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-09, 03:25 PM
dude.

move stark takes a tank round without damage. You could fire a bolter all day at him and it wouldn't hurt.

stark vs one marine:

stark flies up, then unleshs his arm-beam thingys. marine fires back, his shots bouncing off, before he is creamed.

vs four marine with a selection of heavier guns, it'd be more even. I can't decide wether it's better to go for the plasma guns high ROF and range over the metla safty. I'm temped to say plasma, as stark might well be able to outrange the meltas.

Mr.Silver
2008-05-09, 03:26 PM
Space Marine. Ironman's only real advantage is flight, even with his suit there's simply he can know way match a space marine's strength and endurance. This isn't even getting into the fact that the Ultramarine's equipment will be 38K-odd years ahead of Stark's in advancement, your average bolter round will be enough to hurt Stark through his suit's armour. Plus Space marines have decades/centuries of combat experience and training over Iron Man.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-09, 03:31 PM
Space Marine. Ironman's only real advantage is flight, even with his suit there's simply he can know way match a space marine's strength and endurance. This isn't even getting into the fact that the Ultramarine's equipment will be 38K-odd years ahead of Stark's in advancement, your average bolter round will be enough to hurt Stark through his suit's armour. Plus Space marines have decades/centuries of combat experience and training over Iron Man.

oh, they may have training, but .75 cal rounds, explosive or not, are just not going to cut it, not against iorn man. allow me to repeat, a tank shot him with it's main gun and he survived unhurt.

I'm not sure how effective his arm beam thingys are going to be, but he's just as strong as a marine and we know marines can kill other marines in CC, I'd say he's in with a good chance. this is discounting any tricks i forgot about his armour may hold. that pop up hgun he used on the tank is a good example.

Mr.Silver
2008-05-09, 03:52 PM
oh, they may have training, but .75 cal rounds, explosive or not, are just not going to cut it, not against iorn man. allow me to repeat, a tank shot him with it's main gun and he survived unhurt.
.75 cal? You wish. A bolter shell is a self-propelled miniature missile. I'm not sure if bullets even exist in 40k actually. As I said before, 38k-odd years of tech advantage, that includes weapon power.


I'm not sure how effective his arm beam thingys are going to be, but he's just as strong as a marine
Evidence?

Storm Bringer
2008-05-09, 04:32 PM
.75 cal? You wish. A bolter shell is a self-propelled miniature missile. I'm not sure if bullets even exist in 40k actually. As I said before, 38k-odd years of tech advantage, that includes weapon power.


bolter: .75 cal mass reactive explosive shell. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolter_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29#Bolt_Weapons).


offical stats for a autogun: range 24", strength:3, AP: -, rapid fire. e.g. same as a standard imperial guard issue flashlight.

The fact is if iron man can take a 90-140mil KEP round, he can take a .75 cal explosive.



Evidence? (Of Iorns Man being as strong as a SMurf)

well, in the flim, he catchs a car the was falling(as in, stops dead), punches though about 3 inches of concrete, then drags a human back though the wall.....ya know, the sort of stuff the SMurfs do in the fluff.

tyckspoon
2008-05-09, 04:43 PM
Evidence?

http://en.marveldatabase.com/Strength_Scale

Assuming that's accurate, the suit has a lifting capacity of around 90 tons. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's at least as strong as the typical Marine, even if you step back to less-powerful editions of the suit.

warty goblin
2008-05-09, 05:03 PM
A few points on the whole Iron Man taking a tank round thing:
1) Something shot him out of the air, and the next thing he sees is a tank. This is somewhat suggestive that the tank in fact was the thing that shot him, but not definitive proof.

2) Even if it was the tank, I'd think this is as much a strike against Iron Man as for, I mean, he's got supersonic flight capabilities and presents a much smaller target than aircraft which don't get shot by tanks, he still manages it? That's pretty shoddy performance right there.

3) The tank's shot was also, as I recall, visible to the naked eye as a blur. Given that an actual Kinetic Energy Penetrator has a flight speed upwards of 1,400 meters per second, I feel fairly safe in saying that something else was being used. The muzzle flash from the tank was also way, way less than it should have been, leading me to conclude that it wasn't much of a tank.

4) Also note how he falls out of the sky after being hit by whatever it was? Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but he was flying, the tank was below him. If the tank shot him, the shell would have knocked him upwards not downwards. Even if he totally cut power on when he got shot, his velocity is still forwards and upwards, and given the speed he was travelling was likely to remain so for some time.

My money's on the Space Marine on this one. For one thing the Space Marine is familiar with fighting people in power armor, and for another thing is a sociopathic killing machine with hundreds of years of combat training. Hand to hand, he's just plain better. The advantage of flight is easy to negate, just go into the middle of some building full of people and start killing them. It's not even as if the Space Marine wouldn't, they're all heretics anyway.

Raiser Blade
2008-05-09, 05:08 PM
Iron Man is way quicker then the SpaceMarine while still being as strong. I think that would give the edge to Robert Downey Jr.

Deadmeat.GW
2008-05-09, 05:24 PM
I would give it to the Ironman in a one on one fight.

4 Marines with kit versus Ironman...I would actually go with the marines.

Stark is too overconfident, his suit may give him raw strength over a marine by about triple or a bit more but his experience with fighting power armoured foes without obvious exposed components, roughly man-sized and far more agile and skilled in hand-to-hand will be a seriously flawed.

His armour will take a random shot of a bolter without trouble but if the actually fluff is anything to go off the marines are more experienced at peeling people out of powered armour.
When you have several of them working together they will crack his suit pretty fast and he can't keep out of range forever while trying to take them with his repulsors or 'high-beam' attack is not likely to work.

They will be too tough to take down with those unless he gets very lucky and in close quarters versus more then one marine he will get into trouble fast.
Versus one marine his superior raw strength, superior toughness of his suit and superior manouvrability will easily carry him through but versus 4...

And if one marine has a power weapon Ironman could actually loose if he gets too close even versus one marine.
Not likely though but powerwapons are nasty enough to carve up bulkheads given time and can slice through less thick armour as if it is not or barely there.

Dragging the marine into upper atmosphere is also not going to work as their suits are built to function in vacuum or space.
Any and all kinds of lethal environments, as well, if not slightly better then Ironman's suit.

LBO
2008-05-09, 05:44 PM
38k-odd years of tech advantage
40K DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.


Iron Man is way quicker then the SpaceMarine while still being as strong. I think that would give the edge to Robert Downey Jr.
Quicker? Stark is just a human, and armour can't make you faster. Marines have ridiculously good reflexes.

IMO, the Marine has the edge. Stark is human in a really, really fancy suit, Marine is a genetically engineered comprehensively superhuman tough bastard with the most insane combat training and a slightly less fancy suit. Sounds like they'd both be somewhat useless against each other at range, but close it up and Astartes reflexes, experience and melee training win.

Give the marine a plasma gun and it's all over in seconds.


The advantage of flight is easy to negate, just go into the middle of some building full of people and start killing them. It's not even as if the Space Marine wouldn't, they're all heretics anyway.
...I see why they call you the thread-winner guy, WG.

Blayze
2008-05-09, 05:50 PM
Hmm. Are we talking "basic" Space Marines here, or Grey Knight level? I wonder what a Nemesis Force Weapon would do to Iron Man's shiny suit.

Selrahc
2008-05-09, 05:52 PM
Iron Mans power level is way above that of a Space Marine. Without any special tank busting equipment the Space Marine is doomed.

Space Marines are not as strong as superheroes. Iron Man is probably capable of out arm wrestling a carnifex on steroids. Space Marines as an equal or near equal in strength? Ludicrous. If that was true they wouldn't need chainswords or any other melee weapons as their normal punches would be capable of much more than a mere chainsaw. I've read of Space Marines with a lot of effort being able to rip open a tank turret, or pull up steel tables. I know they're very strong guys, but I have never seen mention of them being able to juggle cars. Superheroes are stronger than Space Marines in almost every case.



1) Something shot him out of the air, and the next thing he sees is a tank. This is somewhat suggestive that the tank in fact was the thing that shot him, but not definitive proof.

Its pretty much as definitive as you can get in a fight scene. And is clearly intended to be viewed that way.





3) The tank's shot was also, as I recall, visible to the naked eye as a blur. Given that an actual Kinetic Energy Penetrator has a flight speed upwards of 1,400 meters per second, I feel fairly safe in saying that something else was being used. The muzzle flash from the tank was also way, way less than it should have been, leading me to conclude that it wasn't much of a tank.

4) Also note how he falls out of the sky after being hit by whatever it was? Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but he was flying, the tank was below him. If the tank shot him, the shell would have knocked him upwards not downwards. Even if he totally cut power on when he got shot, his velocity is still forwards and upwards, and given the speed he was travelling was likely to remain so for some time.

Filmic inaccuracies in depiction. Not important.



2) Even if it was the tank, I'd think this is as much a strike against Iron Man as for, I mean, he's got supersonic flight capabilities and presents a much smaller target than aircraft which don't get shot by tanks, he still manages it? That's pretty shoddy performance right there.

Sounds like a badass tank gunner to me.:smallamused:


The point of that scene was for us to see Iron Man kicking ass. We're supposed to look at that scene and go "Woah. Iron Man took a tank shell and it didn't even phase him!" not go "Hmmm, the muzzle flash wasn't quite right, obviously the director was emplacing a secret message that this was an especially weak tank shell."

The point of the scene in general is to show how much of a leap the Iron Man suit is over conventional military technology.


My money's on the Space Marine on this one. For one thing the Space Marine is familiar with fighting people in power armor,

Space Marine armour is way way different though. Tony starks armour is faster than any non flier in 40K, and more maneouvarable than any of the flyers.

You can't say that that falls into the Space Marines experience with power armour. This is something entirely different.

Iron Man is packing enough firepower to smash a land raider. He can tank any of the Space Marines shots. He has enough mobility to turn a swooping hawk green with envy. The space marine is outsped, outranged, outgunned and even outarmoured.

I really don't see what a space marine is going to do about that. Even with their massive experience and skill advantage.

Mando Knight
2008-05-09, 06:02 PM
At least it's the movie version of Iron Man, and not the Extremis version... he's got Wolverine-level regeneration and the capability of absorbing his enemy's firepower into a quick recharge for his batteries... and with Hulkbuster armor, he might as well be completely invincible... he trades blows with the Hulk for cryin' out loud!

Movie Iron Man would probably still beat out the Space Marines: he's got genius level intelligence; highly mobile, highly resistant armor; and he's a plot-central character. Faceless mooks can't compensate for the sheer Power of Plot.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-09, 06:10 PM
Depends on what you define as 'standard equipment'. Sure, a normal bolter round might not instantly penetrate it, but, given that, say, Kraken Armour Penetration Rounds are designed to punch holes through Tyranid spaceship armour (c.f. Space Hulk). They're distributed as standard to all Deathwatch Marines, who may also be Ultramarines, given their rotation policy.

Furthermore, Tactical Dreadnought armour is made of Adamantium, which, if we're using Marvel Physics (TM), is basically invulnerable; even if you're looking at the GRIMDARK version of the stuff, note the awed horror in that report in the Wargear Guide when the Ad.Mech priest notes that the Gauss Flayer is punching a hole through an Adamantium-shelled Land Raider: it would require 'an energy source so powerful that it is unlikely we could replicate it on any weapons system save that employed by a titan or starship'. In other words, adamantium is either invulnerable, or it requires orbital weaponry to breach.

Also, the effect of power weapons' disruption field on Stark's armour (more developed than 'lol, no armour save) - thoughts?

Also, if we're doing this fight on a WH40K setting, then surely Stark's bright, unshielded mind gets broken apart by GRIMDARK LOVECRAFT MONSTERS?

warty goblin
2008-05-09, 07:21 PM
So um, the movie is what we are going from until it isn't anymore? Way I see it, if we are going from the movie, that means that what happens on screen is what we work with for basic assumptions. Directorial intent can be argued as much as you like, that's an interpretation of an interpretation, but what is onscreen is, as far as I can tell, what we are accepting as canon. Hence it is what I will be working with.
More fun with numbers:
1) By my count the tank round in onscreen when it passes right in front of Iron Man for ~ .5 seconds. This shot is reasonably close, IM's torso takes up ~1/3 of the screen. Assuming his torso is three feet across (probably a little high, but it makes room for the armor after all), that means that the shell travelled ~9 feet in half a second second, or 5.4 meters/second (note, since the tank shell passes in front of Iron Man it actually travels slightly less than this distance, but the camera pans a bit, and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt here). That's one two hundred and fiftieth of the actual speed of a KEP. At this point we've left 'cinimatic abstraction' way behind. In short if we are going to except error factors of two hundred and fifty, we might as well match Iron Man with 250 Space Marines, it'd be just as accurate.

2) The whole catching the car thing- let's talk about that. The car was a fairly normal four door IIRC. I can't find the shot in any of the trailers, so I'm going off of memory, somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Let's put its weight at ~ 1 ton (english) or just over 900kg. It was thrown what, three meters up? Iron Man was, IIRC, bent pretty far over when he caught it, so I'll call it's final height something like a meter. Assuming no other forces but gravity, the car will takes .65 seconds (rounded up a bit) to fall this distance, giving it a velocity of 3.1 meters per second, and a kinetic energy of 8820 joules. Iron Man would, in order to stop the car, apply equal force to the car as gravity, and f=ma. Hence Iron Man needed to put out 900kg*9.8m/s*s, or 8820 Newtons

Now for the Space Marine destroying a tank bit. I'm not sure of the details of the incident, but I'm going to calculate how much it takes to rip the turret off of a tank, since it's the easiest form of tanks shredding I can think up. The only explicit weight for a tank turret that I could find unfortunately is this (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rooikat.htm), but even that weighs in at 5.5 tons. Converting to metric that's 5,000 kg. Merely lifting it would take 107,800 Newtons of force, or twelve times what Iron Man exerted to catch that car. In terms of energy output, assuming the Space Marine lifted the turret half a meter, we are looking at 53,900 joules, or six times the energy of Iron Man's car juggling.

I stand by my earlier conclusion, the Space Marine still wins.
edit: why thank you LBO. And really, even if the Space Marine didn't do it to bait Iron Man, it's totally in their modus operandi anyway...

Mr.Silver
2008-05-09, 07:46 PM
http://en.marveldatabase.com/Strength_Scale

Assuming that's accurate, the suit has a lifting capacity of around 90 tons. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's at least as strong as the typical Marine, even if you step back to less-powerful editions of the suit.
Film Iron Man, not comics Iron Man.



offical stats for a autogun: range 24", strength:3, AP: -, rapid fire. e.g. same as a standard imperial guard issue flashlight.

The fact is if iron man can take a 90-140mil KEP round, he can take a .75 cal explosive.
Well, guess that'll teach me to start quoting technical details on a game I quit playing two years ago. Ok, fair point (although in-game profiles don't count for anything in VS. Threads) Iron Man is going to be tough to damage. The downside? So's the Space Marine. The 'flashlights' of the Imperial Guard can knock limbs off in a hit, and power armour alone can practically ignore them. Aside from his pop-up rocket, Stark doesn't have anything much that can do any real damage. Sure, maybe he's about as strong but that would mean going into hand-to-hand with someone who's had a lot more experience in close combat and who's armour is a lot harder to detach.

Rogue 7
2008-05-09, 08:02 PM
Stark's got rockets of some sort, correct? As in, he can outrange the marine? That could be the deciding factor- Iron Man just flies into the air and plants a rocket in the marine's head. He follows up with a few more if the marine's still standing.

If he's got to go into hand to hand, it's a bit dicier. I think Iron Man might have the strength edge and superior armor, but Marines have training, chainswords, are phenomenally tough without armor. So that's something I'm not willing to call.

Selrahc
2008-05-09, 08:08 PM
So um, the movie is what we are going from until it isn't anymore? Way I see it, if we are going from the movie, that means that what happens on screen is what we work with for basic assumptions. Directorial intent can be argued as much as you like, that's an interpretation of an interpretation, but what is onscreen is, as far as I can tell, what we are accepting as canon. Hence it is what I will be working with.

Dude... seriously?

You really think that the film makers thought about it as much as this? You think they went over the ruddy calculations for bullet speed and came to these conclusions?

I see no reason to assume it is anything other than cinematic abstraction. Because the alternative is that the director did this intentionally to make some manner of point, and then drew absolutely no attention to it, so that you have to study the scene to come to the conclusions.

Do you really watch the film and think this? Do you really not get the same impressions as me from this sequence? As far as I was concerned it was like a big neon light saying *This guy is much better than conventional sources. It could revolutionize warfare*. And in fact later on in the film, people are pretty much saying exactly the same thing. There would be no reason to say that if the suit was going to be slagged from a single shell.



Now for the Space Marine destroying a tank bit. I'm not sure of the details of the incident, but I'm going to calculate how much it takes to rip the turret off of a tank, since it's the easiest form of tanks shredding I can think up. The only explicit weight for a tank turret that I could find unfortunately is this, but even that weighs in at 5.5 tons. Converting to metric that's 5,000 kg. Merely lifting it would take 107,800 Newtons of force, or twelve times what Iron Man exerted to catch that car. In terms of energy output, assuming the Space Marine lifted the turret half a meter, we are looking at 53,900 joules, or six times the energy of Iron Man's car juggling.

Ripping open the lid of a tank turret does not equal lifting a tank turret.

Oslecamo
2008-05-09, 08:10 PM
Also, if we're doing this fight on a WH40K setting, then surely Stark's bright, unshielded mind gets broken apart by GRIMDARK LOVECRAFT MONSTERS?

Starck fuels a world wide death machine just to make money, has no trobule fighting other super heros just to protect his own interests, uses and tosses away women in a daily basis, has severe alchool problems, and likes to participate in high politics during his free time. Not to mention that episode in wich he almost got killed by his own berseker human hating armor.

He's probably the most grimdarck super hero of the whole marvel universe. The only thing that could scare him in the Wh40k universe would be the lack of capitalism, and even then I bet he would fit pretty well in the Adeptus Mechanicus research department.

But anyway, Space marines have plenty of weapons to fight armored foes. A standard ork killing bolter may just scratch tony's armor, but if they bring the heavy toys Tony's toast, pure and simply.

GoC
2008-05-09, 08:18 PM
Space Marine. Ironman's only real advantage is flight, even with his suit there's simply he can know way match a space marine's strength and endurance. This isn't even getting into the fact that the Ultramarine's equipment will be 38K-odd years ahead of Stark's in advancement, your average bolter round will be enough to hurt Stark through his suit's armour. Plus Space marines have decades/centuries of combat experience and training over Iron Man.
Let's think:
A. Can Space Marines consistently lift 40 tons or more (he was running at below 10% when he lifted that SUV)?
B. Hasn't humanity been stangant or in decay for most of those 38 thousand years?

WG: I agree it couldn't have been the tank that shot him. Otherwise we'd have to throw logic and consistency out the window. Wait... this is a comic book movie, consistency doesn't matter. (In fact I bet the tank was empty.:smallbiggrin:)
Also after the hit he had no singe big hole or scraped paint. This leads me to conclude that whatever hit him was a small blast weapon.

Ripping a tank in half is an isolated Rule of Cool event. What can SMs consistently lift? And your final result (107,800 newtons) is incorrect and needs to be divided in half.
And calculating the amount of energy Spark uses is bound to lead to inconsistency. I advise against it or you're going to get tens of megawatts for when he does his complicated turns at mach 2 and merely a few kilowatts when using other sources.
Basic idea: Don't analyze too deeply into either setting or we'll start hitting some very hard brick walls.

More on topic: Space Marines don't seem to have quite the same caliber armor and I doubt a chain saw can destroy something that's immune to medium caliber bullets in its un-improved version.
btw: Why is it I find myself agreeing with Selrahc in almost every vs thread?:smallconfused:

Mando Knight: Yeah, the comic book version could tear through a lot of space marines. I've no idea whether movie spark can win though, I know too little about Space Marines and we've only got one movie to work with.
Can't we go with some comic stuff if it doesn't contradict the movie?

Talkkno
2008-05-09, 10:04 PM
Can't we go with some comic stuff if it doesn't contradict the movie?

Hmm....I'll allow it, but if the Marines still can't win, replace Ultramarines with Grey Knights. And another trick Marine has in close combat, vortex grenades, they open a hole in the friggen warp.

warty goblin
2008-05-09, 10:32 PM
Dude... seriously?
You really think that the film makers thought about it as much as this? You think they went over the ruddy calculations for bullet speed and came to these conclusions?

The 'ruddy calculations' for the tank took me two minutes of reviewing footage, three on wikipedia, and another two to look up all of the equations I forgot from Freshman physics. I probably spent a total of ten minutes figuring that out, which is hardly a vast commitment of time and resources. I don't think actually thinking about what you are putting on the screen is too much to ask of a movie-maker. Given that the movie was about a guy who designs weapons, having weapons act correctly doesn't even seem like it's particularly off topic either.


I see no reason to assume it is anything other than cinematic abstraction. Because the alternative is that the director did this intentionally to make some manner of point, and then drew absolutely no attention to it, so that you have to study the scene to come to the conclusions.


Now I'm all for cinematic abstraction, I don't mind bullets sparking off of metal surfaces, or how every single round looks like a tracer, or how 99% of movie bullet wounds stop bleeding pretty much instantly. Thing is a movie conveys information to me primarily by showing me pictures. In that scene I saw a guy dodging something moving about the speed of a fast baseball (~4.8 m/s), hence I conclude it was moving about the speed of a fast baseball. I also saw a tank fire the thing, hence I conclude that the tank fired something that moves about the speed of a baseball. I can't conclude that the tank fired something that moves faster than that, because the movie showed me how fast the thing moved. Since I see no evidence to tell me that the tank is a normal tank firing depleted uranium discarded sabot or HE or HEAT or squash explosives I conclude that it was a seriously underpowered tank, because every piece of evidence I'm shown tells me that.

In fact pretty much every scene in the movie points to seriously underpowered, nerfed and downright bad weaponry. It's not just the tank, Stark was supposed to be in significant danger from the fighters as well, which makes it a little hard to buy that he could shrug off (actual) tank shells like that. The planes that Stark had his little run-in with were American, yes? I would also discribe the range as 'close' and hence they would be likely to use a close range missile, like a Sidewinder, which attempts to cut up the target with lots of very fast moving titanium fragments- the frag grenade from hell in other words. Now I unfortunately have been unable to locate really good data on the WDU-17/B warhead used in current US Sidewinder missiles, but I'll bet that they pack less concentrated punch than a tank shell. Admittedly that was a little bit more in-depth research, it took me nearly 20 minutes to chase this data down.

All of this is particularly galling because he's supposed to design really good weapons, but just about every single weapon we see in the entire movie performs worse than its real world analog.



Do you really watch the film and think this? Do you really not get the same impressions as me from this sequence? As far as I was concerned it was like a big neon light saying *This guy is much better than conventional sources. It could revolutionize warfare*. And in fact later on in the film, people are pretty much saying exactly the same thing. There would be no reason to say that if the suit was going to be slagged from a single shell.

Yep, that was pretty much my impression actually, this suit is much better than weapons systems that suck, and could revolutionize armies that rely on weapons that suck. That people are later on saying groovy things about his suit is no surprise, since all of their technology seriously underperforms compared to what it is supposed to represent. It's not like these are minor technical deviations either, but weapons working completely differently (generally worse) than they are supposed too.

tyckspoon
2008-05-09, 10:37 PM
And another trick Marine has in close combat, vortex grenades, they open a hole in the friggen warp.

Those are about as far away from standard gear as anything man-portable can be. You'd also have to be near suicidal to try using them in a close-combat situation; the resultant warp-rifts are unstable and unpredictable. They're as likely to drift back over your own position and eat you too as they are to neatly banish your enemy and then disappear. The best technique of using them is more like throwing them as far as you can and then running the hell away.

Seraph
2008-05-09, 11:05 PM
The 'ruddy calculations' for the tank took me two minutes of reviewing footage, three on wikipedia, and another two to look up all of the equations I forgot from Freshman physics. I probably spent a total of ten minutes figuring that out, which is hardly a vast commitment of time and resources. I don't think actually thinking about what you are putting on the screen is too much to ask of a movie-maker. Given that the movie was about a guy who designs weapons, having weapons act correctly doesn't even seem like it's particularly off topic either.


Now I'm all for cinematic abstraction, I don't mind bullets sparking off of metal surfaces, or how every single round looks like a tracer, or how 99% of movie bullet wounds stop bleeding pretty much instantly. Thing is a movie conveys information to me primarily by showing me pictures. In that scene I saw a guy dodging something moving about the speed of a fast baseball (~4.8 m/s), hence I conclude it was moving about the speed of a fast baseball. I also saw a tank fire the thing, hence I conclude that the tank fired something that moves about the speed of a baseball. I can't conclude that the tank fired something that moves faster than that, because the movie showed me how fast the thing moved. Since I see no evidence to tell me that the tank is a normal tank firing depleted uranium discarded sabot or HE or HEAT or squash explosives I conclude that it was a seriously underpowered tank, because every piece of evidence I'm shown tells me that.

In fact pretty much every scene in the movie points to seriously underpowered, nerfed and downright bad weaponry. It's not just the tank, Stark was supposed to be in significant danger from the fighters as well, which makes it a little hard to buy that he could shrug off (actual) tank shells like that. The planes that Stark had his little run-in with were American, yes? I would also discribe the range as 'close' and hence they would be likely to use a close range missile, like a Sidewinder, which attempts to cut up the target with lots of very fast moving titanium fragments- the frag grenade from hell in other words. Now I unfortunately have been unable to locate really good data on the WDU-17/B warhead used in current US Sidewinder missiles, but I'll bet that they pack less concentrated punch than a tank shell. Admittedly that was a little bit more in-depth research, it took me nearly 20 minutes to chase this data down.

All of this is particularly galling because he's supposed to design really good weapons, but just about every single weapon we see in the entire movie performs worse than its real world analog.


Yep, that was pretty much my impression actually, this suit is much better than weapons systems that suck, and could revolutionize armies that rely on weapons that suck. That people are later on saying groovy things about his suit is no surprise, since all of their technology seriously underperforms compared to what it is supposed to represent. It's not like these are minor technical deviations either, but weapons working completely differently (generally worse) than they are supposed too.




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Darkseraph15/jesuspalm.jpg

LBO
2008-05-10, 03:01 AM
Starck fuels a world wide death machine just to make money, has no trobule fighting other super heros just to protect his own interests, uses and tosses away women in a daily basis, has severe alchool problems, and likes to participate in high politics during his free time. Not to mention that episode in wich he almost got killed by his own berseker human hating armor.
So what? It doesn't matter in the slightest how much of a bastard he is. What matters is he's a human. The most puny sanctioned psyker could turn his head inside out.

Anteros
2008-05-10, 03:57 AM
As someone who isn't involved in the thread at all, and who absolutely hates Iron Man in every incarnation...I have to say that the IM side has made better points, and WG is just being intentionally thick.

I mean, it's certainly much more likely that the director is subtly implying the existance of a specially developed, sub-par tank that fires slow motion rounds, while simultaneously expecting everyone in the audience to calculate bullet speeds than it is to assume he is just simulating a tank blast in a manner that is easy for the audience to comprehend. Right?

Artemician
2008-05-10, 05:34 AM
So what? It doesn't matter in the slightest how much of a bastard he is. What matters is he's a human. The most puny sanctioned psyker could turn his head inside out.

Not if the psyker dies first.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-10, 05:42 AM
My personal thoughts are these:

Both the movie and warhammer are powered by Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage).
As such I will answer in the form of Genre Savvy! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy)

Iron man and the Space Marine are both protagonists and as such have equal starting plot armor. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor?from=Main.PlotArmour)

The character types are super soldier (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuperSoldier) (please note not space marine (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceMarine)) in Schizo Tech (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SchizoTech) power armor and a borderline CCE (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CorruptCorporateExecutive) in sleek clean relatively idealistic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfIdealismVersusCynicism) power armor.

A very prevalent trope in Warhammer is Authority (and more so Uniqueness) equals ass kicking (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorityEqualsAsskicking). This is a clear blow for Iron Man over the marine, in the warhammer universe the inverse ninja rule (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConservationOfNinjitsu?from=Main.InverseNinjaLaw) applies over a whole universe. If you are the only one, you will rock harder than the foe.

One on one, the marine falls, although space marines have Or is it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OrIsIt) built into them and Stark will have to do a LOT of leg work. If we take the novels then the marine will take a lot of killing, if we take the game then the bolt gun has 33% more stopping power than a weapon that will deprive you of an arm if it hits you in the elbow. It is no mere .75 callaber shell, mostly because no .75 callaber shell has a chance of coverting a tank into a crater.

If the marines get their choice or weapons, even one marine if he is a devistator, then it comes in much closer to the wire. The armor is unlikely to stand up to a las cannon... (Str 9 where Str 10 can damage light titans, laser weapn and therefore speed of light travel, AP2 so even terminator armor would only get the reduced 5+ save, and those are made of Iron Man verse's own indestructium)

Dode
2008-05-10, 05:48 AM
Comic book Iron Man would win this in about 15 seconds.

Selrahc
2008-05-10, 06:33 AM
Yep, that was pretty much my impression actually, this suit is much better than weapons systems that suck, and could revolutionize armies that rely on weapons that suck. That people are later on saying groovy things about his suit is no surprise, since all of their technology seriously underperforms compared to what it is supposed to represent. It's not like these are minor technical deviations either, but weapons working completely differently (generally worse) than they are supposed too.

If thats your impression of the scene, then I guess we can't debate this on a meaningful level.



Also, if we're doing this fight on a WH40K setting, then surely Stark's bright, unshielded mind gets broken apart by GRIMDARK LOVECRAFT MONSTERS?

The vast majorities of humanity exist unshielded. It is only psykers that attaract daemons for the most part. Nobody else really needs them, unless weird stuff happens.

Since he is fighting a perfectly ordinary Space Marine, he probably doesn't need them.



So what? It doesn't matter in the slightest how much of a bastard he is. What matters is he's a human. The most puny sanctioned psyker could turn his head inside out.

Ah, the fabled "most puny sanctioned psyker" who always gets wheeled out in these thread, in the mistaken belief that psychic powers always make you uber.

Look at Dark Heresy. Until a psyker gets very powerful, he is stuck using minor psychic powers. Theres some very useful stuff, but most of it is in the power range of making a weapon jam, cheating on cards, making things smell, making a big flash, increasing your pain threshold, causing slight bruises and other fairly low key applications.

But maybe our "most puny sanctioned psyker" is a badass battle psyker. Maybe hes mastered a discipline. Well disciplines are fairly hard to use for a start, so this "most puny sanctioned psyker" is going to have to be an uncommonly strong willed sanctioned psyker to get his most powerful discplines working consistently.

But hey, lets say he is. It would then depend on the discipline he has chosen as to what he can do. The only three that really even come close to fitting the bill are biomancy(physically), telekinesis(mentally) and telepathy(mentally).

Biomancy contains blood boil, a tricky to use power that slowly increases the targets blood pressure, until their head and chest explode. Unfortunately the key word there is slowly. It would take a significant ammount of concentration to do this, and the implication is that the psyker is doing this with some ease. Telekinesis lets you crush a guy with telekinetic force, but unfortunately its an outside-in thing and results in the armour being able to block it. In telepathy then is the closest to what you want, with Dominate. This power lets you take control of an opponents mind temporarily, as long as you don't force them into something suicidal, and you beat them in a willpower roll. Its pretty hard to use, but that won't matter to the imperiums most puny sanctioned psyker, cause that guy is a badass.

To get to the level of insant mindrape, or instant headbangs that you seem to be talking about the most puny sanctioned psyker needs to get to a power level beyond that described in Dark Heresy as the end of his career path. He needs to reach a psychic peak above the normally achievable human maximum. He needs to be one of the most powerful and unique people in the imperium.

If you don't like using Dark Heresy then find me some examples from the fluff of puny psykers doing what you say they are capable of doing.


btw: Why is it I find myself agreeing with Selrahc in almost every vs thread?:smallconfused:

I guess its cause I'm so awesome :smallwink:

LBO
2008-05-10, 07:47 AM
Whoops, you totally missed the point in an impressively tl;dr manner. Oslecamo said that Stark being a complete amoral bastard made him immune to psychic crap. I said that, well, no, he's got no psychic ability of his own so psychic suggestion can play hell with him ("turn his head inside out" doesn't necessarily mean LITERALLY). Wasn't even talking about a fight, just the possibility. You just read some INSTANT MINDRAPE nonsense into it.

ps: Dark Heresy game mechanics and "disciplines" designed for a good RP =\= last word on all 40k psychic ability.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-10, 07:51 AM
Not only that but compared to the standard mentality of the imperium, Stark is an idealistic, pacifistic, overly moral, wishy washy wimp.

Case in point, the imerpial nobility are kept young with drugs made from live human children.

Artemician
2008-05-10, 08:00 AM
Whoops, you totally missed the point in an impressively tl;dr manner. Oslecamo said that Stark being a complete amoral bastard made him immune to psychic crap. I said that, well, no, he's got no psychic ability of his own so psychic suggestion can play hell with him ("turn his head inside out" doesn't necessarily mean LITERALLY). Wasn't even talking about a fight, just the possibility. You just read some INSTANT MINDRAPE nonsense into it.

ps: Dark Heresy game mechanics and "disciplines" designed for a good RP =\= last word on all 40k psychic ability.

Psychic Suggestion isn't exactly a low level ability, especially if you're trying to use it to control someone strong-willed like Stark.

And while Dark Heresy gameplay mechanics may not be the last word, they stand until you can find something that directly contradicts these mechanics.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-10, 08:05 AM
Based on the war game, I would say there is about a 1/3 chance that the physcer has a power that is of any use, and 1/6 that it can do exactly bupkiss. Seriously, those guys are unpredictable, but a machine curse would really mess up the armor, assuming you can get to use it...

Hang on...

When did this become Iron Man Vs Phycers?

Selrahc
2008-05-10, 08:08 AM
Whoops, you totally missed the point in an impressively tl;dr manner. Oslecamo said that Stark being a complete amoral bastard made him immune to psychic crap. I said that, well, no, he's got no psychic ability of his own so psychic suggestion can play hell with him ("turn his head inside out" doesn't necessarily mean LITERALLY). Wasn't even talking about a fight, just the possibility. You just read some INSTANT MINDRAPE nonsense into it.

It takes a hell of a long time for a psychic to be able to do anything to somebodys mind at all. Most psychics never develop in that direction. When they do develop in that direction, it isn't generally fight winning(No suicidal commands for example), and in order to win the fight with psychic powers the psychic would need to have abilities beyond the scope they normally present.

You claimed that any novice psychic could beat him.



ps: Dark Heresy game mechanics and "disciplines" designed for a good RP =\= last word on all 40k psychic ability.

Which is why I asked if you could provide some fluff backing up your statements. In my reading of warhammer 40K fluff I haven't seen all that many mind battles. When I have, its been an inquisitor or a daemon doing the mind battling, most definitely not a novice.

LBO
2008-05-10, 08:30 AM
And while Dark Heresy gameplay mechanics may not be the last word, they stand until you can find something that directly contradicts these mechanics.
Explain to me what "discipline" Agun Soric falls into, then. Or Inquisitor Kessel. Just as 40k rules have very little to do with the fluff regarding battles for the sake of a game, psychic powers don't fit into those silly boxes and you don't have to be Level Whatever to play a mind trick on someone.


You claimed that any novice psychic could beat him.
...

Wasn't even talking about a fight, just the possibility.



Which is why I asked if you could provide some fluff backing up your statements. In my reading of warhammer 40K fluff I haven't seen all that many mind battles. When I have, its been an inquisitor or a daemon doing the mind battling, most definitely not a novice.
"Rites of Passage" by Gordon Rennie (Inferno #4, I think it might have been reprinted in Status: Deadzone or something. Since I'm probably the only one here to have even seen a copy of Inferno #4, I hope you'll take my word for it.) Four minutes after Jaal the random Orlock realises he has psychic powers he toasts a Spyrer with a psychic shockwave. That's about as "novice" as you can get.

I'll admit "most puny sanctioned psyker" was hyperbole. Whatever. Stark is defenceless against psychic powers. That was my point. Can I consider it made yet?

Selrahc
2008-05-10, 08:56 AM
Explain to me what "discipline" Agun Soric falls into, then.


I've not read "Only in Death", but in his earlier manifestations he was clearly a less powerful psychic manifesting only minor psychic powers.


Or Inquisitor Kessel.

Daemology, with a smattering of power from other disciplines and minor psychic powers.


Just as 40k rules have very little to do with the fluff regarding battles for the sake of a game, psychic powers don't fit into those silly boxes and you don't have to be Level Whatever to play a mind trick on someone.

Except psychic disciplines are an accepted fluff element, not (just) a game mechanic.


"Rites of Passage" by Gordon Rennie (Inferno #4, I think it might have been reprinted in Status: Deadzone or something. Since I'm probably the only one here to have even seen a copy of Inferno #4, I hope you'll take my word for it.) Four minutes after Jaal the random Orlock realises he has psychic powers he toasts a Spyrer with a psychic shockwave. That's about as "novice" as you can get.

Arrogant much? I've seen Inferno 4. I haven't read it, but since my friend has most of them in a box, I have seen it.

As for what he can do... well hes an unsanctioned psyker. They manifest powers on massively diveregent levels, without consistency or focus. Wild raw power.

Sanctioned psykers get lobotomized, and their powers are reigned in considerably. They have to spend most of their life in effort to reach the peaks of power they would have been able to achieve pre sanctioning.

The more powerful and the less powerful(Like poor old Agun Soric) are all brought to about the same level of effectiveness by the sanctioning.


I'll admit "most puny sanctioned psyker" was hyperbole. Whatever. Stark is defenceless against psychic powers. That was my point. Can I consider it made yet?
Fair enough.

Renegade Paladin
2008-05-10, 10:16 AM
Dude... seriously?

You really think that the film makers thought about it as much as this? You think they went over the ruddy calculations for bullet speed and came to these conclusions?

I see no reason to assume it is anything other than cinematic abstraction.
I do: In fictional debates, you have to suspend disbelief for it to work; i.e. what you see is what happened. The "director's intent" is purely meta and does not enter into this at all.

ZeroNumerous
2008-05-10, 10:40 AM
A lone Ultramarine versus Tony Stark in an entirely flat, featureless plane. The Ultramarine loses as he isn't trained for solo operations and there is nothing on the field at all conductive to actual tactical combat. As such, Tony Stark can just fly around pelting the Ultramarine with his flashlights all day.

Now, Tony Stark against half of a Tactical Squad of Ultramarines? He takes a plasma shot to the chest and the suit explodes. Or gets a melta-gun turned on him. Either way, he dies horribly and we're done.

Jorkens
2008-05-10, 10:48 AM
I do: In fictional debates, you have to suspend disbelief for it to work; i.e. what you see is what happened. The "director's intent" is purely meta and does not enter into this at all.
So for instance, if we were discussing Die Hard, you'd work on the assumption that the building has mysterious self-repair properties based on the fact that the terrorists break the same window twice, and evidenty this means that the glass has somehow reformed in between the two shots?

Destro_Yersul
2008-05-10, 11:14 AM
I know a lone marine who, while not typical, could win. A Librarian. Hero level characters, they would have a name and a face, so no faceless mook rule applies. Second, they got psychic powers. These guys can rip holes in the fabric of reality and dump stuff straight into the warp, they can adjust the flow of space time in order to give themselves another shot at everything, and they can blast stuff with pure psychic energy. Maybe Iron Man could avoid it, maybe not. Librarians also have force weapons. Those go through everything like a knife through butter, even without channeling psychic power. Give them a jump pack, they can fly. Admittedly this is skewed in the favour of the librarian, because librarians are seriously badass, but it's not like Stark vs. One marine wasn't skewed.

GoC
2008-05-10, 11:14 AM
So for instance, if we were discussing Die Hard, you'd work on the assumption that the building has mysterious self-repair properties based on the fact that the terrorists break the same window twice, and evidenty this means that the glass has somehow reformed in between the two shots?
And we assume the protagonist in xXx can, when riding a motorbike, make both himself and his motorbike immune to bullets.:smallbiggrin:

Mr.Silver
2008-05-10, 11:21 AM
Hmm...

After having had a better look at the Iron Man side's arguments I'm prepared to concede that the one-on-one fight would probably go to Iron Man, if he stayed airborne and got off a good shot with his missile (which he would, given the lack of cover). If he went hand-to-hand though then the Space Marine would probably win, as he doesn't have to break through Iron Man's armour, just tear a big enough piece of it off to inflict some damage (which, as evidenced by the last fight of the film, is possible).

Against a group with a decent selection of kit though he's toast, no question. Even against one Marine armed with a solid Heavy Weapon (e.g. Plasma Cannon or Lascannon) he'd be in for a real bit of trouble.



It's not just the tank, Stark was supposed to be in significant danger from the fighters as well, which makes it a little hard to buy that he could shrug off (actual) tank shells like that. The planes that Stark had his little run-in with were American, yes? I would also discribe the range as 'close' and hence they would be likely to use a close range missile, like a Sidewinder, which attempts to cut up the target with lots of very fast moving titanium fragments- the frag grenade from hell in other words. Now I unfortunately have been unable to locate really good data on the WDU-17/B warhead used in current US Sidewinder missiles, but I'll bet that they pack less concentrated punch than a tank shell.
Didn't the fighters come after his ground assault though, including the tank incident? I assumed that his suit's defences might have been weakened somewhat after the tank confrontation (note that he dodged the second tank shell, rather than letting it hit him so he may not have the capacity to take multiple hits from one). Then there's the fact that his little flight engines may not be as tough as the rest of his armour, and hence might have been taken-out by the aircraft, which would give him some serious trouble.

warty goblin
2008-05-10, 11:24 AM
I do: In fictional debates, you have to suspend disbelief for it to work; i.e. what you see is what happened. The "director's intent" is purely meta and does not enter into this at all.

Exactly. What happens in the movie is what happens in the movie, not representative of what we are supposed to think happens- particularly in action movies with modern special effects where the stories are pretty non-metaphorical and the creators have the ability to put pretty much whatever they want on the screen. Since the tank shell was shown to fly a particular speed I conclude that this is because the creators wanted it to fly that speed, since they could have shown it moving any speed they wanted.

This is not to say I take all movies 100% literally. I'm perfectly willing to concede that a movie like The Fountain is a giant visual metaphor for...something else, I never figured it out, but Iron Man? That seems to be stretching things a bit, because if it's not a movie about a guy in a gold titanium alloy suit blowing stuff up, what the hell is it? And if it is a movie about a guy in metalic garb blowing stuff up, why should I conclude that the way he actually blows stuff up is different than the way I'm shown it happening?

This seems to be the argument people are making, that the way things actually happened were different than the way they were shown, and the whole movie is actually a metaphor for a guy with a fetish for metal outerwear blowing up actual military grade weaponry.

DemonicAngel
2008-05-10, 11:25 AM
Y'know why Stark would win? he will breath on the marines and they're dead.
he has about 5. alcohol concentration in his blood stream, his breath is probably more toxic then most things known in the 40K universe.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-10, 11:34 AM
Y'know why Stark would win? he will breath on the marines and they're dead.
he has about 5. alcohol concentration in his blood stream, his breath is probably more toxic then most things known in the 40K universe.

um, space marines have managed to survive eating raw tyranid...

They are immune to most poison, I rather think that ethanol would be on the list...

Artemician
2008-05-10, 12:26 PM
Warty:

Very often, directors and technical staff get things wrong. They show stuff that doesn't really follow real life, because they have a limited budget, or because they don't know enough of the subject. They therefore screen what they *think* looks right, which may not be what is really correct. As a layperson, I can say that I too possess the misconception that tank rounds were visible, and that missiles are more damaging than tank rounds.

It's believable that a director or stage manager (whose field of expertise is not in physics or weapon specs) would be just as unknowledgeable in this field as the layperson. It is believable that they simply got some numbers wrong.

It is not believable to say that they deliberately animated the shell slower to make a point, because there's no evidence for it. Granted, there's no evidence for my claim either, but Occam's Razor favors the simpler theory, which is simply that stage managers don't know much about physics, not a conspiracy theory about how every single weapon was animated worse to prove some nonexistent point.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-10, 12:33 PM
As a layperson, I can say that I too possess the misconception that tank rounds were visible, and that missiles are more damaging than tank rounds.

This is also an important reason. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect) Often people know stuff that is in fact wrong. Imagine a gunshot, or a silenced gunshot, or a silenced sniper rifle shot, or the sound of a hoarse. Odds are that you got the sound of at least 3 of them wrong. People often complain if these things are done properly, as they see it as them being done wrong. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic)

Kenori
2008-05-10, 01:20 PM
I could see a fight against one about like this.

Iron Man flies directly at the space marine, gets out of the radius of its gun thing, gives it a big-ole bear hug, then unibeams the **** out of him.

Against 3? Hmm...that would be a bit different, I dont really know that much about space marines, but I'd probably still give it to ironman.

warty goblin
2008-05-10, 01:38 PM
Artemician, thanks for the reasonable and well thought out response.

I'm aware that directors/producers/whoever get things wrong for whatever reason. I find it rather annoying, particularly in this instance, since they were making a movie about a weapons designer and the research is quick and simple, but that's neither here nor there.

What is relevant however is how we take the movie as canon, since that's what we are going off of for this discussion. If the movie is canon, then it seems to me that, for the purposes of our debate, the events of the movie transpired exactly as shown. Why it was shown this way, whether due to high level design level decisions or design incompetance or to produce a particular effect is not, to me at least, relevant. What matters is what is shown, and what is shown is a tank shell moving at a certain speed, hence I conclude that in the movie that's how fast tank shells move. Pretty much everything else works this way, we don't conclude that Iron Man looks different than what's shown in the movie from the movie, we see how he looks and that's how he looks.We see that Tony Stark survives falling out of the sky after his prototype armor stops working. It doesn't matter that he couldn't have survived that fall in real life, in the movie he did, hence he can surive falls like that. I fail to see why the tank is any different. If we take the route that everything is sort of merely suggestive of what happens, so that the tank shell actually travels 250 times as fast as it appears to, then it is equally fair to say that when Stark's prototype armor gave out it was only 1/250th as high up as it appeared, or 250 times as high, and so on. That way nonsense lies.

The way I see it, the only way to have a sensible debate on this is to treat the movie as literal, not suggestive canon, which is the other argument being put forth here.

Anteros
2008-05-10, 01:59 PM
Artemician, thanks for the reasonable and well thought out response.

I'm aware that directors/producers/whoever get things wrong for whatever reason. I find it rather annoying, particularly in this instance, since they were making a movie about a weapons designer and the research is quick and simple, but that's neither here nor there.

What is relevant however is how we take the movie as canon, since that's what we are going off of for this discussion. If the movie is canon, then it seems to me that, for the purposes of our debate, the events of the movie transpired exactly as shown. Why it was shown this way, whether due to high level design level decisions or design incompetance or to produce a particular effect is not, to me at least, relevant. What matters is what is shown, and what is shown is a tank shell moving at a certain speed, hence I conclude that in the movie that's how fast tank shells move. Pretty much everything else works this way, we don't conclude that Iron Man looks different than what's shown in the movie from the movie, we see how he looks and that's how he looks.We see that Tony Stark survives falling out of the sky after his prototype armor stops working. It doesn't matter that he couldn't have survived that fall in real life, in the movie he did, hence he can surive falls like that. I fail to see why the tank is any different. If we take the route that everything is sort of merely suggestive of what happens, so that the tank shell actually travels 250 times as fast as it appears to, then it is equally fair to say that when Stark's prototype armor gave out it was only 1/250th as high up as it appeared, or 250 times as high, and so on. That way nonsense lies.

The way I see it, the only way to have a sensible debate on this is to treat the movie as literal, not suggestive canon, which is the other argument being put forth here.

Right, well following WG's argument, Iron Man takes an eraser and removes the Space Marines from existence forever. After all, they only exist in text, and drawings and it would be ludicrous to assume that the writer wants us to suspend our disbelief (gasp!)

Much more reasonable to believe that they are actually animated figures who are vulnerable to deletion I'd say.

Mr.Silver
2008-05-10, 02:01 PM
I could see a fight against one about like this.

Iron Man flies directly at the space marine, gets out of the radius of its gun thing, gives it a big-ole bear hug, then unibeams the **** out of him.
Unibeams would do jack, and a Space Marine is of around the same strength as film Iron Man (possibly more) so any hand to hand for Stark is a death sentence. He may not know that of course.



Against 3? Hmm...that would be a bit different, I dont really know that much about space marines, but I'd probably still give it to ironman.
How? Given that at least one of them will be carrying something that can melt titanium (Lascannon or Plasma Cannon) Iron Man really can't throw much against them.

Revlid
2008-05-10, 02:05 PM
Stark flies up to the point at which the Mk2 armour iced over.
At this point, he uses his targeting computer and fully-powered armour to blast the marine from (almost) space.

Victory for Stark.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-10, 02:08 PM
Artemician, thanks for the reasonable and well thought out response.

I'm aware that directors/producers/whoever get things wrong for whatever reason. I find it rather annoying, particularly in this instance, since they were making a movie about a weapons designer and the research is quick and simple, but that's neither here nor there.

What is relevant however is how we take the movie as canon, since that's what we are going off of for this discussion. If the movie is canon, then it seems to me that, for the purposes of our debate, the events of the movie transpired exactly as shown. Why it was shown this way, whether due to high level design level decisions or design incompetance or to produce a particular effect is not, to me at least, relevant. What matters is what is shown, and what is shown is a tank shell moving at a certain speed, hence I conclude that in the movie that's how fast tank shells move. Pretty much everything else works this way, we don't conclude that Iron Man looks different than what's shown in the movie from the movie, we see how he looks and that's how he looks.We see that Tony Stark survives falling out of the sky after his prototype armor stops working. It doesn't matter that he couldn't have survived that fall in real life, in the movie he did, hence he can surive falls like that. I fail to see why the tank is any different. If we take the route that everything is sort of merely suggestive of what happens, so that the tank shell actually travels 250 times as fast as it appears to, then it is equally fair to say that when Stark's prototype armor gave out it was only 1/250th as high up as it appeared, or 250 times as high, and so on. That way nonsense lies.

The way I see it, the only way to have a sensible debate on this is to treat the movie as literal, not suggestive canon, which is the other argument being put forth here.

som let me get this straight:

you see a man dodge a round fired from a light tank (or an outdated one. it's being run by taliban fighters), see it pass on the screen, and, rather than assume the 'visable bullets' rule, you assume that the tank was firing a unsusual and ultra low veliocity round?

I think we can end this debate here, with both sides losing, as we are NEVER going to reconcile a difference that fundermental.


now, for the record, I think a half squad of marines with a normalish mix of weaponry could down stark no trouble, but that he can top a single tac marine.

Mr.Silver
2008-05-10, 02:12 PM
Stark flies up to the point at which the Mk2 armour iced over.
At this point, he uses his targeting computer and fully-powered armour to blast the marine from (almost) space.

Victory for Stark.

Does his missile even have that kind of range though? He wouldn't even need that tactic anyway in a one-on-one fight though, plus it's out of character for him.

Renegade Paladin
2008-05-10, 02:24 PM
Right, well following WG's argument, Iron Man takes an eraser and removes the Space Marines from existence forever. After all, they only exist in text, and drawings and it would be ludicrous to assume that the writer wants us to suspend our disbelief (gasp!)

Much more reasonable to believe that they are actually animated figures who are vulnerable to deletion I'd say.
That is the exact opposite of suspending disbelief and you know it. :smallannoyed:

Storm Bringer
2008-05-10, 02:26 PM
That is the exact opposite of suspending disbelief and you know it. :smallannoyed:

I think that was kind of his point, somehow.

warty goblin
2008-05-10, 03:04 PM
Does his missile even have that kind of range though? He wouldn't even need that tactic anyway in a one-on-one fight though, plus it's out of character for him.

It also takes a second or so to detonate after impact (I think that much at least can be agreed upon from the tank scene). Given that we're talking a space marine with a hundred plus years of combat experience, I'd guess he'd just tear it off and throw it right back.

I think I'm falling in with the general concensus of the thread the more I think about it- Stark will probably beat a single Marine in a flat featureless plain, but not a squad armed with plasma guns and missile launchers and so on. Flight is, after all, a pretty potent advantage when you are not in an urban setting full of potential hostages.

Rutee
2008-05-10, 03:21 PM
Isn't Iron Man one of Marvel's heaviest hitters?

Marvel, the universe where the absolute most upper level is defined by effectively being a Q? (Dr. Strange). I'm pretty sure that goes to Iron Man. Or do you mean just the movie Iron Man? :P

Storm Bringer
2008-05-10, 03:25 PM
Isn't Iron Man one of Marvel's heaviest hitters?

Marvel, the universe where the absolute most upper level is defined by effectively being a Q? (Dr. Strange). I'm pretty sure that goes to Iron Man. Or do you mean just the movie Iron Man? :P

at the moment, we're just debating the movie one, as he seems to be the Hot New Things at the moment.

I don't think their is much debate about wether comic book iorn man would be a run for the money of anything this side of a deamon prince.

warty goblin
2008-05-10, 03:25 PM
Isn't Iron Man one of Marvel's heaviest hitters?

Marvel, the universe where the absolute most upper level is defined by effectively being a Q? (Dr. Strange). I'm pretty sure that goes to Iron Man. Or do you mean just the movie Iron Man? :P

OP specified movie version and a flat, featureless plain, which is why we are having this debate at all, I don't think anyone here is actually arguing that the comic Iron Man would even notice a Space Marine.

chiasaur11
2008-05-10, 05:16 PM
Film version seems about the same power level as comic most of the time, by my count
I.E. Only can be taken down by his own suit, and even then only if he's at half power, Can take a tank shell to the chest, faster than a jet, etc.

One scenario that hasn't been considered is longer fights, where Stark has a major edge. He's a genius by any fair standard who can build the world's best power generator out of scraps in a cave. The Imperium for the most part, barely remembers how to give things routine repairs. Stark's tech would be deadlier than ever after taking the good stuff from Las-guns, chainsaw swords, and the like, while the marine(s)'s tech is getting less and less useful. All the armored avenger has to do is wait it out, and he has the edge.

warty goblin
2008-05-10, 06:24 PM
Film version seems about the same power level as comic most of the time, by my count
I.E. Only can be taken down by his own suit, and even then only if he's at half power, Can take a tank shell to the chest, faster than a jet, etc.

One scenario that hasn't been considered is longer fights, where Stark has a major edge. He's a genius by any fair standard who can build the world's best power generator out of scraps in a cave. The Imperium for the most part, barely remembers how to give things routine repairs. Stark's tech would be deadlier than ever after taking the good stuff from Las-guns, chainsaw swords, and the like, while the marine(s)'s tech is getting less and less useful. All the armored avenger has to do is wait it out, and he has the edge.

I think longer fights are actually worse for Stark, because he's only human, and the Space Marine has much better endurance. Being able to stay awake for a week straight is pretty handy, particularly when your opponant can't. It also took a significant amount of time for Stark to build all his stuff in the cave- something like three months in the movie. Space Marines might not be super geniuses, but I'm fairly sure they don't just let their opponant do whatever they want for days and weeks at a time in the middle of an ongoing battle, or at least those that survive their Scout training don't.

Talkkno
2008-05-10, 08:23 PM
Case in point, the imerpial nobility are kept young with drugs made from live human children.

Cite your source?

chiasaur11
2008-05-10, 09:13 PM
I think longer fights are actually worse for Stark, because he's only human, and the Space Marine has much better endurance. Being able to stay awake for a week straight is pretty handy, particularly when your opponant can't. It also took a significant amount of time for Stark to build all his stuff in the cave- something like three months in the movie. Space Marines might not be super geniuses, but I'm fairly sure they don't just let their opponant do whatever they want for days and weeks at a time in the middle of an ongoing battle, or at least those that survive their Scout training don't.

Fair enough, but J.A.R.V.I.S. could probably cover for the sleep hours, and the cave work was entirely new tech, from unrelated parts. Minor upgrades would be much quicker one would think.

GoC
2008-05-11, 11:19 AM
Unibeams would do jack, and a Space Marine is of around the same strength as film Iron Man (possibly more) so any hand to hand for Stark is a death sentence. He may not know that of course.
In case you haven't noticed, this is a vs. thread. You have to back up your statements.


How? Given that at least one of them will be carrying something that can melt titanium (Lascannon or Plasma Cannon) Iron Man really can't throw much against them.
Ironman's suit is made of Marvel supermetals.

chiasaur11: In the movie Ironman only uses missiles guns and things and isn't as tough or as strong as in the comics. In the comics he's got sci-fi weapons comparable to klingon capital ship disruptors.:smallbiggrin:

Shas aia Toriia
2008-05-11, 11:33 AM
Even if Iron Man is made from said "supermetals", I doubt that it is far and away better than regular Power Armor. If we gave the Marine choice of assault weapons, just give him plasma gun or a melta, and Stark is done for.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-11, 11:51 AM
Cite your source?

I forget where I read it originally, and to be fair it is more of an extremely strong implication, rather than a stated fact, although this source (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Warhammer40000) also lists it.

Myshlaevsky
2008-05-11, 12:02 PM
I don't think the universes are that great for comparison, but I would use the Inquisitor rules for comparing Space Marines to Iron Man.

The ruleset is pretty dumb, but it works on a more heroic/less lethal basis and represents a more 'fluffy' marine than the basic game.

Iron Man is pretty much going to win against an sole marine, though. He's individually better and has more options. Four might be more of a threat, but he could just fly and hit-and-run them. A hit with a plasma gun, meltagun or lascannon would probably win it for the marines, though.

If it's Grey Knights, the same thing sort of applies. If Stark goes into combat with them he'll probably die, and if he gets hit by a psycannon or if the grey knights can hit with a squad-based psychic powers he's going to be seriously hurt. He's still has way more options, though. If one of the Grey Knights is a proper psyker I'll give it to them. If the squad gets off a Holocaust everyone will die, I think.

Destro_Yersul
2008-05-11, 12:05 PM
Well, adamantium is a marvel supermetal, right? *points at Wolverine*

Terminator armour is made out of it, I believe. Amongst other things, like Land Raiders. Working from memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong. And if those two items are made out of it, power armour would be made out of something similar, if less uber. Doesn't matter what they call it, because Ceramite and Plasteel don't exist IRL. Chances are Iron Man's repulsor rays won't do much, and his fists won't do much. The rockets might do something, same with the chest beam. But it's inconclusive. Can Iron man kill a Superhuman with triple redundant systems in armour just as fancy, if clunkier, than his, before said superhuman is able to kill him? The opposite also applies, naturally. Both marines and Iron Man are really tough to kill.

Myshlaevsky
2008-05-11, 12:19 PM
I don't think 40K adamantium is nearly as good as Marvel adantium. There are a lot of cases of marine armour being punctured or penetrated by generic enemies. Using the Dark Heresy and Inquisitor rulesets, it's not even enough to stop a powerful lasgun shot - though in fluff it is tougher than this.

Regarding the source about the gauss weapon penetrating the adamantium landraider - I think it's more the fact the weapon penetrates both sides, that it's a gauss weapon (which the Imperium suck at building) and that there's no alteration of the beam course. Landraiders are extremely tough, but not unstoppable - and they have much thicker armour than marine power armour.

I don't know much about Iron Man's weapons systems, but there's bound to be something there that will punch through marine armour. I'm going to say there's not a huge variation in physical strength, but Iron Man is slightly stronger.

Maybe the acidic spit could win it for the marines, though...

Talkkno
2008-05-11, 12:32 PM
Regarding the source about the gauss weapon penetrating the adamantium landraider - I think it's more the fact the weapon penetrates both sides, that it's a gauss weapon (which the Imperium suck at building) and that there's no alteration of the beam course. Landraiders are extremely tough, but not unstoppable - and they have much thicker armour than marine power armour.


You do realize Nercon gauss weapons actually "flay" away their targets by striping away atom by atom instead of what it would conventionally thought of a Gauss weapon.

Talkkno
2008-05-11, 12:33 PM
If the squad gets off a Holocaust everyone will die, I think.

Holocaust only exhausts Grey Knights, not kill them by any measure, as they did it novel of their namesake and none of them died when they pulled it off.

Myshlaevsky
2008-05-11, 12:35 PM
Yep. It might be stupid, but the fluff AM comments attached to the image say what I've said. I don't know how necron skimmer/flier weapons work, but they're described as gauss, and I will assume that means the same gauss as the general armament of the entire necron race.

EDIT: Possibly my comment was in error, but I know that holocaust can kill the Grey Knights. It can kill in WH40K, it can kill in Dark Heresy and it killed the Grey Knights who used it to banish Angron. I think in this case the plot would demand the death of all combatants if the combat was resolved using Holocaust.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-11, 12:37 PM
I don't think 40K adamantium is nearly as good as Marvel adantium. There are a lot of cases of marine armour being punctured or penetrated by generic enemies.

In the fluff a terminator gets trodden on by a Titan and ends up badly beaten up.

Trodden on a multi-story humongous mecha and he winds up BADLY BEATEN UP.

Talkkno
2008-05-11, 12:39 PM
I don't think 40K adamantium is nearly as good as Marvel adantium.
.

It provides adequate protection(on starships anyway) from mutigigaton lance batteries and nova cannons. At a bare minimum.

Myshlaevsky
2008-05-11, 12:44 PM
In the fluff a terminator gets trodden on by a Titan and ends up badly beaten up.

Trodden on a multi-story humongous mecha and he winds up BADLY BEATEN UP.

Terminator armour is considerably superior to standard space marine armour. It was originally developed to work in plasma reactors, I think? I gained the impression that this was heavily influenced by "Rule of Cool" and that the Space Wolf in question survives become he's pushed into the ground and not crushed.

EDIT: I don't know how thick the adamantium in starship armour is compared to standard space marine armour. I imagine it's thicker.

EDIT 2: I've not a Marvel buff by any means but the only incident I know of where Marvel adamantium was broken is the Hulk in full rage breaking an adamantium needle. This is the reason I'm saying 40K adamantium is probably inferior.

EDIT 3: Given this statement:



Given that Iron Man's suit can be seriously damaged by another guy in a suit (e.g. his face mask got crushed in the last fight) I think it's safe to say that it's not going to do too well against a weapon that can one-shot a 40k tank (which are frequently made of supermetals themselves).


The comparison seems to be moot. Space marine armour will be stronger if this is the case, I suspect.

Mr.Silver
2008-05-11, 12:46 PM
In case you haven't noticed, this is a vs. thread. You have to back up your statements.

Film Iron man: can punch through steel and pick up cars. Space Marine: can rip bits off tanks and tear people in half. I'd place that as about equal on strength level. As for his beams, those are just concussive blasts, that aren't likely to be fatal.
....

Unless of course unibeam means the chest blast thing, which with hindsight it probably did.



Ironman's suit is made of Marvel supermetals.
Given that Iron Man's suit can be seriously damaged by another guy in a suit (e.g. his face mask got crushed in the last fight) I think it's safe to say that it's not going to do too well against a weapon that can one-shot a 40k tank (which are frequently made of supermetals themselves).



Film version seems about the same power level as comic most of the time, by my count
I wouldn't know, I don't follow the comics, but can't comics Iron Man function in space? Anyway, this debate is about Film Iron man, which means only the film is used to establish what he's capable of, not everything the comics say about him that the film doesn't explicitly contradict.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-11, 12:57 PM
no, the inhuman reflexes and the decades of combat experience would be the factors that would result in a CC win for a SMurf.


while Iorn man's armour is though, is stated in the movie NOT to be adamantium


(paraphrased) Iorn man. i like it. He's not made of iorn, it actually a gold-titanium alloy ......

I can't remember the EXACT wording, but wiki calls it a gold-titanium alloy.

now, for reference, a plasma gun is able to melt though terminator armour (the heaviest personal armour in the Imperium) on about 2 out every 3 shots (ie when the termie fails his 5+ invunable save). a metla gun can put holes in titan's armour, on demand (assuming you can get close enough)

warty goblin
2008-05-11, 12:57 PM
Fair enough, but J.A.R.V.I.S. could probably cover for the sleep hours, and the cave work was entirely new tech, from unrelated parts. Minor upgrades would be much quicker one would think.

Even minor upgrades still require time, raw materials and tools, as well as (likely) removal of at least some pieces of the armor. Since the thread specified "featureless plain"*, and not Stark + handy workshop chock full of tools and spare parts vs. Space Marine, I doubt this is possible.

*Which strikes me as stupid, I mean, what are ya' gonna do with a featureless plain? Build a subdivision on it? I can see it now, the entire conflict starts when Stark Homes starts undercutting Imperium Human Storage Units, Inc. After that Imperium Human Storage decides to cut losses and blow up the entire project with an orbital bombardment, then start giving away houses rebuilt in the smoking crater and distributing literature telling people how they have been infiltrated by a power armor wearing heretic selling affordable split-levels. In order to make sure people understand the difference between the heretic and a Spare Marine, the Imperium stations one in the housing project. Stark gets suspicious of this new powerhouse in the real estate industry with their non-tradititional methods and willingness to exterminate vast numbers of people in order to gain market dominance, and goes to investigate the project. He takes one look at the Marine, who is probably chainswording somebody who was caught within six hundred feet of a person suspected of maybe being involved with somebody who knew a Chaos cultist, decides he's clearly wearing some derivitive of his prototype armor and goes all short-circuit on the SM's ass.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-11, 01:29 PM
Even minor upgrades still require time, raw materials and tools, as well as (likely) removal of at least some pieces of the armor. Since the thread specified "featureless plain"*, and not Stark + handy workshop chock full of tools and spare parts vs. Space Marine, I doubt this is possible.

*Which strikes me as stupid, I mean, what are ya' gonna do with a featureless plain? Build a subdivision on it? I can see it now, the entire conflict starts when Stark Homes starts undercutting Imperium Human Storage Units, Inc. After that Imperium Human Storage decides to cut losses and blow up the entire project with an orbital bombardment, then start giving away houses rebuilt in the smoking crater and distributing literature telling people how they have been infiltrated by a power armor wearing heretic selling affordable split-levels. In order to make sure people understand the difference between the heretic and a Spare Marine, the Imperium stations one in the housing project. Stark gets suspicious of this new powerhouse in the real estate industry with their non-tradititional methods and willingness to exterminate vast numbers of people in order to gain market dominance, and goes to investigate the project. He takes one look at the Marine, who is probably chainswording somebody who was caught within six hundred feet of a person suspected of maybe being involved with somebody who knew a Chaos cultist, decides he's clearly wearing some derivitive of his prototype armor and goes all short-circuit on the SM's ass.


watcha gonna do with a bloody mountain range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict)?


sometimes wars happen for no good reason.

besides, their could be something worth fighting for underneath the steppes. oil, or mineral ores.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-11, 01:50 PM
sometimes wars happen for no good reason.

This is warhammer. War doesn't need a reason. In the 41st millennium sometimes peace happens for no good reason.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-11, 01:56 PM
This is warhammer. War doesn't need a reason. In the 41st millennium sometimes peace happens for no good reason.

on the contry, the wars happen for the very good reason of survival. the Imperium is as harsh and dogmatic as it is because a less evils state would have fallen mellenia ago.

several accounts indicate that the Emperor was trying to create a progressive society, and look what happened to him! his own son turned agianst him and damm well kicked his arse.

warty goblin
2008-05-11, 02:08 PM
This is warhammer. War doesn't need a reason. In the 41st millennium sometimes peace happens for no good reason.

I get the feeling that war usually happens in WH40K because, well, it just does. Everybody fights everybody because that's what you do to survive. Unless you are orks, in which case you fight 'cus orks is made for fightin', or Necron because the nasty living things give you a headache but taste oh so good with ketchup, or Tyrranid 'cause OMM NOM NOM.

Peace is what happens when everyone is too deceased to fight anymore.

Then the side with the most limbs still attached says "We win" (or OMM NOM NOM or WAAUUGHH!!!) and goes off to breed for a while, before somebody else decides that they really would look better if they had a chainsword instead of a torso.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-11, 02:13 PM
I was trying to be funny by turning the message on it's head.

Never mind.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-11, 02:47 PM
I was trying to be funny by turning the message on it's head.

Never mind.

this is the internet. it's easy to me mistunderstood.

GoC
2008-05-12, 09:43 PM
Can Iron man kill a Superhuman with triple redundant systems in armour just as fancy
I certainly wouldn't call it fancy. Powerful maybe but it lacks the gizmos that make fancy.

Sharikov: I hate to break it to you but acid is actually a very poor weapon once we apply chemistry.


Trodden on a multi-story humongous mecha and he winds up BADLY BEATEN UP.
How impressive tha is depends on how large the mecha's feet are and what the terrain is made of. Dirt? Not very impressive. Adamantium? Jaw-dropping.

Given that Iron Man's suit can be seriously damaged by another guy in a suit (e.g. his face mask got crushed in the last fight)
That last bit is an example of movie inconsistency and Rule of Cool.
If the evil robot could do that why didn't it crush his helmet while Ironman's head was inside it?


Space Marine: can rip bits off tanks and tear people in half.
What's the largest chunk they are consistently able to rip off?

Mr.Silver
2008-05-13, 01:10 AM
That last bit is an example of movie inconsistency and Rule of Cool.
If the evil robot could do that why didn't it crush his helmet while Ironman's head was inside it?

Nonetheless is actually happened on screen. Therefore it's possible. You can't go and dismiss something that explicitly happens in the main information source just because it weakens your argument. That is not how versus threads work.

Verruckt
2008-05-13, 01:50 AM
Before i launch into this diatribe, allow me to state that i did rather enjoy the Iron Man movie and harbor no real disgust for it, i'd just like to find the person who did the weapons effects and beat him about the head with a haddock.
He was fired on at point blank range by the cannon of an F-22, that being this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Vulcan1.jpg/797px-Vulcan1.jpg
essentially something quite capable of making a heavy bolter blush considering the nature of its projectiles (a veritable party mix of APDUT and APHE rounds) and rate of fire, AND HE KEPT MOVING!

From this we can assume either that everyone who shot at him in the movie had their weapons supplied by the NERF division of Stark Industries, or that the weapons physics in this movie are utter bollocks. Since I don't recall there being a NERF division of Stark Ind. we will assume the latter.

However, i think the more interesting question is what Stark would do if he managed to take out a SMurf. I don't want to contemplate what he'd do with a set of MK VII power armor and a godwin pattern bolter, it would not be pretty.

kpenguin
2008-05-13, 02:53 AM
Neither. Both IM and the Space Marine would be features on the featureless plane. Since a featureless plane, by definition, cannot have features, IM and the Space Marine could not be fighting on it, ending this fight before it event starts.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-13, 04:01 AM
Neither. Both IM and the Space Marine would be features on the featureless plane. Since a featureless plane, by definition, cannot have features, IM and the Space Marine could not be fighting on it, ending this fight before it event starts.

but, surely, the fact that the plain is both featureless and a plain are both features it possesses.

Egro, not only are their no combatants, their is no place for them to fight.


yet, at the same time, the fact that thier is nothing thier means that the area has a feature............

I'll stop thier, because paradoxes are not good for the brain.

Raiser Blade
2008-05-15, 02:49 AM
Iron Man can fly at supersonic speeds. Can a space marine (Or even a whole squad) hit a target moving at supersonic speeds?

Storm Bringer
2008-05-15, 03:35 AM
Iron Man can fly at supersonic speeds. Can a space marine (Or even a whole squad) hit a target moving at supersonic speeds?

can iorn man hit a man-sized target on a mach 2 flyby?

Verruckt
2008-05-15, 03:55 AM
yes, and these are the other ten characters that make my message less witty

Blayze
2008-05-15, 03:55 AM
I'll stop thier, because paradoxes are not good for the brain.

There is no paradox. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is therefore impossible to have something that is featureless. Therefore, it is the only truth.

Wraith
2008-05-15, 05:48 AM
How impressive tha is depends on how large the mecha's feet are and what the terrain is made of. Dirt? Not very impressive. Adamantium? Jaw-dropping.

I have also read that story - it was either concrete or asphalt, I believe. Not that it makes much odds, but I like being thorough :smallwink:


essentially something quite capable of making a heavy bolter blush considering the nature of its projectiles (a veritable party mix of APDUT and APHE rounds) and rate of fire, AND HE KEPT MOVING!

I would like to argue against this, in favour of a Boltgun actually being more powerful than it is assumed on this board. I do not have links to support any argument, though hopefully a decade of experience with the game system will help it seem at least halfway plausible. :smallbiggrin:

Anyone ever seen a Boltgun shell? Sounds like a strange question, akin to "Have you ever seen a fictional object that, at best, won't exist for another 30,000 years?" but it has roots in truth, thanks to Games Workshop. At the Warhammer World Museum they have a replica of a cap from the back of a 'spent' boltshell - it has a radius of about 2" and is implied that the actual bolt is some 6"-8" long. Similarly, Bolts supposedly contain their own propulsion rocket and a high-yield explosive in their head.

In short, the fluff decrees that Boltguns - regardless of the games statistics - are in fact fully-automatic RPG launchers as standard, before you add the really cool stuff like Hellfire rounds. Minigun be damned, these things are going to sting even someone like Ironman (seriously, gold-titanium alloy? Mixing a really tough metal with a really soft one to make it better?)

Though I lost the quote, Marines can and do fight alone and are subject to the Inverse Law of Ninjas when they do - see the novels Deus Encarmine and Deus Sanguinius, where a single Marine subverts the ruling class of an entire planet (which comprises of other Marines) and then, one-on-one, takes on and kills a high-ranking Daemon that has empowered the (already superhuman) flesh of another lone Marine.
With that in mind, as well as other examples that could no doubt be found if I looked hard enough, fighting one-on-one with Ironman isn't even remotely as daunting or disorientating as one might imagine, despite their otherwise rigid adherence to a Command structure.

I would also compare even a normal Space Marine to a comic-version Tony Stark. Stark is a genius, with a proven will to succeed and has Wolverine-like healing abilities that make him superior to another human being (and some non-humans, for that matter.) His armour makes him nigh-invulnerable and strong enough to lift "40 tonnes" and he could blast a hole through the Earth's mantle if he chose to, and he had a big enough supply of batteries.

But Space Marines simply aren't "really big and strong humans". They have 2 hearts and 3 lungs. They can immediately and purposefully alter their physiology and their brain chemistry to a variety of situations, giving them complete adrenal control even beyond 'overload'. Their senses are comparable to those of Wolverine, and their own accelerated-healing abilities are certainly no slouch (see the graphic novel Bloodquest, in which one Marine is given grievous injuries to the point of falling into a death-like coma... and he wakes up perfectly healthy 6 hours later).

Their physiology is AT LEAST slightly-above that of Ironman, who - and let's be fair about it - has a pacemaker and is alcoholic.

Add in a fervent willingness to die in order to defeat the enemies of the Emperor, engrained in the very fiber of his physical and psychological make-up, as well as all the "arour is nearly as good" arguments made by other so far, and I'd say that a single determined Marine is very easily a match to Ironman. There's no reason why it couldn't go either way, depending on the circumstance and the whim of the author who chose to create this story.

...And even if Ironman DID win, he'd then have 999 other Space Marines in tanks, with bigger guns, thicker armour, flight capabilities, psychic powers and armoured battle-sarcophagai REALLY unhappy with him.

Moral Victory: The Space Marine. :smallbiggrin:

thorgrim29
2008-05-15, 06:53 AM
Something that has'nt been pointed out, I think, is that Iron man, in the movie, with one of the first versions of his suit, was able to catch a big car (station wagon or something) with 4 people in it, that was thrown to near terminal velocity at him, while running at 15% power. Thats pretty damn impressive. I have no idea what a space marine could do that compares to that frankly, well exept a librarian psychically boosting his body or a primarch. Weapon-wise, I have no idea though.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-15, 07:10 AM
Something that has'nt been pointed out, I think, is that Iron man, in the movie, with one of the first versions of his suit, was able to catch a big car (station wagon or something) with 4 people in it, that was thrown to near terminal velocity at him, while running at 15% power. Thats pretty damn impressive. I have no idea what a space marine could do that compares to that frankly, well exept a librarian psychically boosting his body or a primarch. Weapon-wise, I have no idea though.

it was mentions, at towards the start of the debate (by me no less). in short, the marines have been protrayed doing equally OTT stuff, like jumping though foot-thick conrete walls, and bodily ripping a turret hatch off it's hinges.

Blayze
2008-05-15, 07:25 AM
A friend once mentioned to me a piece of fluff where a single Marine manages to dead-lift a Land Raider.

LBO
2008-05-15, 09:05 AM
Land Raiders are 71 tonnes unladen, which, while little more than (much smaller and far less powerful) modern tanks, is a hell of a lot. I'd like to hear a source.

Mr.Silver
2008-05-15, 12:34 PM
Something that has'nt been pointed out, I think, is that Iron man, in the movie, with one of the first versions of his suit, was able to catch a big car (station wagon or something) with 4 people in it, that was thrown to near terminal velocity at him, while running at 15% power.

It wasn't that big a car, the distance thrown was pretty small and it didn't look to be going at anything like terminal velocity (especially given the fact that his catching it didn't do much to dent it). Catching it also was a pretty difficult thing for him to do, as he nearly dropped it at least once while trying to put it down.

warty goblin
2008-05-15, 12:50 PM
Something that has'nt been pointed out, I think, is that Iron man, in the movie, with one of the first versions of his suit, was able to catch a big car (station wagon or something) with 4 people in it, that was thrown to near terminal velocity at him, while running at 15% power. Thats pretty damn impressive. I have no idea what a space marine could do that compares to that frankly, well exept a librarian psychically boosting his body or a primarch. Weapon-wise, I have no idea though.

As previously mentioned, it wasn't that big a car, wasn't thrown that high, and catching was significantly difficult.

Also note that 15% power does not imply 15% operating capacity. I run my laptop at 15% battery and lower fairly regularly, doesn't mean that the screen is only 15% of maximum brightness or that the processor becomes suddenly arthritic.

Cybren
2008-05-15, 01:30 PM
As previously mentioned, it wasn't that big a car, wasn't thrown that high, and catching was significantly difficult.

Also note that 15% power does not imply 15% operating capacity. I run my laptop at 15% battery and lower fairly regularly, doesn't mean that the screen is only 15% of maximum brightness or that the processor becomes suddenly arthritic.

it could, though, given modern power saving options tone down clock speed and often screen brightness to preserve battery life.

Deadmeat.GW
2008-05-15, 02:03 PM
One marine versus Ironman will loose due to the speed and flying advantage Ironman unless we are talking special character or near that level (Master Librarian, Chapter Master...).

The standard kit for one marine is a mono molecular edged combat knife, a bolt pistol, a boltgun, a grenade dispensor with Fragmentation and Armour cracking grenades the size of small pastilles.

With this basic outfit which you would expect given the basic start given by the OP the marine is only going to win if Ironman acts stupidly and gets within arms range for melee fight.
Otherwise Ironman should win.

He has equal or better firepower, range is about equal (I would actually give him a slightly lower range then the Marine with his Bolter but he has smart missile while the Bolts are not going to be chasing down Ironman), far superiour speed, flying capability, armour that is about as resilient but slightly better versus missiles/solid slugs/bullets (marines have a layer on their armour to help defeat or reduce the effects of any heat or energy based weapons, which incidently is why the high beam of Ironman might actually not do quite as well as people would expect) and a superiour physical strength by a factor of 2 or so (70 odd tons for Ironman versus 35 tons for a marine in his armour as typical feats of strength, and the marines armour is more likely to get damaged if you push it that far).

He has less physical endurance, after a pounding inside the armour Ironman will be hurting more the Marine but as long as he keeps at range and flying fast enough to make drawing a bead on him difficult he will win the fight.

However the moment he starts facing more then one marine the odds drop dramatically, even the comic-book version of Ironman is going to get into a pickle quickly versus several marines, especially as for a fire-team marines do have different weapon payloads on the individual marines and will include at least one weapon that Ironman needs to take out fast or end up in traction fast.

Raiser Blade
2008-05-15, 03:01 PM
can iorn man hit a man-sized target on a mach 2 flyby?

Yes he can. If a squad of space marines cannot hit a target flying at supersonic speeds then they lose.

lord_khaine
2008-05-15, 03:43 PM
even the comic-book version of Ironman is going to get into a pickle quickly versus several marines, especially as for a fire-team marines do have different weapon payloads on the individual marines and will include at least one weapon that Ironman needs to take out fast or

i disagree about that, the comic book version of iron man is in the high tier of super heroes, and while he is no superman, then his armor is still hard enoug to survive a direct hit from a heavy weapon.

warty goblin
2008-05-15, 04:03 PM
it could, though, given modern power saving options tone down clock speed and often screen brightness to preserve battery life.

Good point, and one I wanted to say, but tragically had to run off and take a history exam. Professors these days...

I'm not claiming that Iron Man's suit was running 100% during the last portion of the movie, because it clearly wasn't, what with that whole falling out of the sky bit. What I am tryig to say is that we can't simply conclude that since the suit was at 15% power, what he did represents 15% of his maximum capabilities. Catching the car for example, one could easily imagine the suit taking non-neccessary features offline during heavy lifting, such as say the flight systems or the weapons systems or something, which would mean that even though he couldn't run everything, he could still lift at near maximum capacity.

onasuma
2008-05-15, 04:25 PM
I think people need to understand what type of marine we're using. If its purely on the crunch, iron man gets it. No way he wouldnt.
On fluff terms, a single bolter weilding marine is enough to take out a huge amount of normal men. Thats not even a very good one.
If we elivate this to terminator level, well then there isnt a hope in hell for the man of iron. Never mind taking a tank shell, terminators have been known to survive being trodden on by a titan (Granted only in fluff). Anything thats armour is good enough to survive that, shouldnt have a problem from iron mans puny weaponry.
When fighting marines with special weapons, iron man loses. Plasma will eat straight into him and a krak missile will shatter his armour. I doubt a flamer would do much, but they are marines. They do know what to take for what enermy.
2 or more standard marines, Iron man loses. A bolter round would get into him as if it we're water. I must agree with Wraith. You are all underestimating it.
Really, i doubt Iron man has much hope against any marine whos ready for him. And lets face it, as marines, if they arent ready, they're failing.

warty goblin
2008-05-15, 06:15 PM
I think people need to understand what type of marine we're using. If its purely on the crunch, iron man gets it. No way he wouldnt.
On fluff terms, a single bolter weilding marine is enough to take out a huge amount of normal men. Thats not even a very good one.
If we elivate this to terminator level, well then there isnt a hope in hell for the man of iron. Never mind taking a tank shell, terminators have been known to survive being trodden on by a titan (Granted only in fluff). Anything thats armour is good enough to survive that, shouldnt have a problem from iron mans puny weaponry.
When fighting marines with special weapons, iron man loses. Plasma will eat straight into him and a krak missile will shatter his armour. I doubt a flamer would do much, but they are marines. They do know what to take for what enermy.
2 or more standard marines, Iron man loses. A bolter round would get into him as if it we're water. I must agree with Wraith. You are all underestimating it.
Really, i doubt Iron man has much hope against any marine whos ready for him. And lets face it, as marines, if they arent ready, they're failing.

While I think you might be overstating the Astartes slightly, I think you are actually underestimating the possible effects of the flamer, if you could keep Iron Man in the flame (which would, admittedly, be very difficult if not impossible). Think about it, Iron Man is dressed up in a metal suit- and last I checked metal is a pretty good heat conductor. Granted, it would take some time, but one of the side effects of being covered in sticky burning goo is that it tends to distract you somewhat. There aren't a lot of ways I want to die, but being roasted inside my own armor by a super-human space-Nazi killing machine is pretty high on the "ways I don't want to die" list.

Mr.Silver
2008-05-15, 06:24 PM
Yes he can. If a squad of space marines cannot hit a target flying at supersonic speeds then they lose.

And when in the film exactly did Iron Man pull off a flyby missile attack at supersonic speeds? Because I certainly don't remember him doing so. In fact, it's not even possible because to go fully supersonic he needs to use both his arms for propulsion, which would make it pretty damn difficult to shoot at anything, since his missile is on his arms.

Deadmeat.GW
2008-05-15, 06:32 PM
i disagree about that, the comic book version of iron man is in the high tier of super heroes, and while he is no superman, then his armor is still hard enoug to survive a direct hit from a heavy weapon.

And how many times when he gets hit by advanced weaponry does he take damage or even get into serious trouble?

Don't forget, plasma guns are a tad bit harder hitting then the average weapon we have now.
Lascannons are used against adamantium...and pretty successful.

Ironman is not Ultron.

He will be in trouble against several marines which are equipped with heavy or support weapons.
He might win, the comic book version has tons of gizmo's, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

Talkkno
2008-05-16, 01:14 AM
To be fair, there is also some blurriness on the strength of terminator armor as in Grey Knights, like 12 Grey Knights got ambushed in a valley by a horde of bog standard humans using regular swords and arrows(Note, the Chaos cultists and special weapons were inside the castle at the time, where the Grey Knights later pulled in the Inquister out the hole..) And one of them gets killed after they finally drive them off.

Verruckt
2008-05-16, 01:19 AM
horde isn't quite fair, it was a literal army.

leperkhaun
2008-05-16, 07:09 AM
A friend once mentioned to me a piece of fluff where a single Marine manages to dead-lift a Land Raider.

I dont know about dead lifting it, but in one series a space marine in terminator armor, charges a tank coming towards his unit. He hit it with his power fist and knocks it out of his path.

In other series they rip through tanks armor with thier weapons like the tank is a soda can.

Ill try going through my books tonight to find out exactly where.

I wouldnt say a regular space marine VS iron man is fair. Go for something like a wolf guard in terminator armor.

GoC
2008-05-16, 10:51 AM
mono molecular edged combat knife
More Warhammer 40K stupidity?


He hit it with his power fist and knocks it out of his path.
Horray for non-newtonian physics!
Perhaps the OP should specify what universe this battle takes place in.
Does basic physics apply?


Never mind taking a tank shell, terminators have been known to survive being trodden on by a titan (Granted only in fluff). Anything thats armour is good enough to survive that, shouldnt have a problem from iron mans puny weaponry.
I hate how people thing that because it sounds more dangerous it is.:smallannoyed:
Surviving being trodden on by a 200 ton titan is less impressive then surviving a tank round without a very impressive dent. You'll just sink into the ground when trod on but a bullet moves too fast for that.
In other news: Non-superspeed punches are always less powerful than guns.


A bolter round would get into him as if it we're water.
That's something you'll have to prove.

Solo
2008-05-16, 11:02 AM
Surviving being trodden on by a 200 ton titan is less impressive then surviving a tank round without a very impressive dent. You'll just sink into the ground when trod on but a bullet moves too fast for that.
Stark was never confirmed as having been hit by a tank shell.


More Warhammer 40K stupidity?
Worse than a suit that allows cripples to fight supervillians?


Horray for non-newtonian physics!
Perhaps the OP should specify what universe this battle takes place in.
Does basic physics apply?

There is no Newtonian Physics, there is only WAR!

LBO
2008-05-16, 11:02 AM
More Warhammer 40K stupidity?
As opposed to gold-titanium alloy which can withstand APDS (or not) rounds? :smalltongue:

Mr.Silver
2008-05-16, 11:10 AM
More Warhammer 40K stupidity?

Yes, because the entire concept of Iron Man is perfectly plausible in the real world :smallwink:
Seriously, come on name-calling isn't going to win this for anyone.



Horray for non-newtonian mechanics!
Power Fists are massive glove surrounded by an energy which endows a hit with a kinetic energy burst of enough power to shatter metals. They are pretty much your best bet as an anti-tank melee weapon.

Perhaps the OP should specify what universe this battle takes place in.
The one where a guy in a metal suit without any obvious breathing apparatus is able to operate at high altitude with no ill-effects whatsoever?:smallwink:
I think the OP was assuming that all gear and equipment would function as it usually does otherwise it would kind of render the whole thing pointless.



Surviving being trodden on by a 200 ton titan is less impressive then surviving a tank round without a very impressive dent. You'll just sink into the ground when trod on but a bullet moves too fast for that.
That largely depends on the terrain, on solid rock there is simply nowhere to sink to.



In other news: Non-superspeed punches are always less powerful than guns.

See above on Powerfists.

Cybren
2008-05-16, 11:10 AM
Good point, and one I wanted to say, but tragically had to run off and take a history exam. Professors these days...

I'm not claiming that Iron Man's suit was running 100% during the last portion of the movie, because it clearly wasn't, what with that whole falling out of the sky bit. What I am tryig to say is that we can't simply conclude that since the suit was at 15% power, what he did represents 15% of his maximum capabilities. Catching the car for example, one could easily imagine the suit taking non-neccessary features offline during heavy lifting, such as say the flight systems or the weapons systems or something, which would mean that even though he couldn't run everything, he could still lift at near maximum capacity.
The fact that he falls to one knee right after it says "19% power" i think we're meant to construe he is gradually weakening, but that's certainly open to interpretation

warty goblin
2008-05-16, 11:21 AM
Stark was never confirmed as having been hit by a tank shell.
[QUOTE]
Also note that the shell which may or may not have hit him was shot by the Little Tank that Couldn't. See earlier calculations
[QUOTE]
There is no Newtonian Physics, there is only WAR!
Physics were declared heretical and killed.

LBO
2008-05-16, 12:13 PM
Physics were declared heretical and killed.
These... laws of yours that you claim govern all life and reality? These laws that dispute the fact that there is no law but the Emperor's law? These laws, the creations of mortal men, brought about and... and updated, through open-minded debate, questioning, doubt and change?

...By the Throne, we're going to need a whole new kind of flamethrower for this one.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-16, 05:16 PM
The laws of physics, what a quaint little concept, my plans advance...

God that took forever.

Raiser Blade
2008-05-16, 05:36 PM
And when in the film exactly did Iron Man pull off a flyby missile attack at supersonic speeds? Because I certainly don't remember him doing so. In fact, it's not even possible because to go fully supersonic he needs to use both his arms for propulsion, which would make it pretty damn difficult to shoot at anything, since his missile is on his arms.

Oh we're only going by the movie? Well that's hardly fair. If the spacemarine's get to use fluff but Iron Man is restricted to one source.

Deadmeat.GW
2008-05-16, 06:03 PM
More Warhammer 40K stupidity?


I hate how people thing that because it sounds more dangerous it is.:smallannoyed:
Surviving being trodden on by a 200 ton titan is less impressive then surviving a tank round without a very impressive dent. You'll just sink into the ground when trod on but a bullet moves too fast for that.
In other news: Non-superspeed punches are always less powerful than guns.


Except that 200 tons is a lot less then that titan weighed and he was on a plascrete (yay for 40k pseudo stuff) floor.

He had broken legs effectively but survived being stepped on by a Warlord titan.

A baneblade is a lot more more then 200 tons, the Warlord is a lot bigger...

The revised story had him being stepped on by an Emperator Titan which was a silly change as that thing would have been a small City stepping on you.
I keep with the old story where it was a 'mere' Warlord titan.

As for the power left in his suit, he started off with 40% power and this was said to be the power available to his generator.
It was just an old model which was being drained rapidly while using the suits abilities.

He was not running at 19% strength or such, he just had 19% left of his battery life (and in his case life actually) and it was kind like a low power warning on your mobile.

Mr.Silver
2008-05-16, 06:08 PM
Oh we're only going by the movie?
Yes, yes we are.

If the spacemarine's get to use fluff but Iron Man is restricted to one source.
1: VS. Threads are always about fluff rather than hard rules (as these are invariably based on arbitrary numbers)
2: More sources does not necessarily make for a stronger character.
3: Comics Iron Man and Film Iron Man are distinct enough to be entirely separate entities. Your basic Space Marine is, on the other hand, depicted fairly consistently overall.

Raiser Blade
2008-05-16, 06:27 PM
2: More sources does not necessarily make for a stronger character.

But in this case for Iron Man it does.


3: Comics Iron Man and Film Iron Man are distinct enough to be entirely separate entities. Your basic Space Marine is, on the other hand, depicted fairly consistently overall.

Then why do people say that fluff marines are more powerfull?

Mr.Silver
2008-05-16, 07:05 PM
Then why do people say that fluff marines are more powerfull?
More powerful than what, exactly? Iron Man? Because the general consensus is that one and one he'd beat a marine, just not a group of them.

NEO|Phyte
2008-05-16, 07:07 PM
Then why do people say that fluff marines are more powerfull?

Because the tabletop game rules are written with something known as 'balance' in mind.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-16, 07:13 PM
And fluff was written with something called awesome in mind.

Destro_Yersul
2008-05-17, 12:19 AM
They did actually make a list using fluff based Marines. Each one cost 100 points and had four wounds, toughness 6 and re-rollable 3+ armour saves. They also got 3+ invulnerable, and bolters were strength 6, assault 4 rending weapons.

Fluff marines are BADASS

Dervag
2008-05-17, 02:13 AM
Remember, according to the fluff the total number of Space Marines in the galaxy is actually rather small, almost certainly less than a million.

Compare that to the size of the area they're operating over and you see the problem. For that to work, individual Space Marines have to be so insanely badass that you can send them out on a "One war, one Space Marine" basis. Sort of like Texas Rangers and riots.

Come to think of it, the number of gaming Space Marine miniatures probably exceeds the 'canonical' number of Space Marines in the entire Milky Way by now.

So fluff Marines are total badasses.

Basically, to get a Space Marine you take someone with the aptitude to become a legendary war hero- an Audie Murphy or something.

Then you give them genetic enhancements that turn their bodies into superhuman freaks of nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-seed). To the point where they spit molecular acid, have a skeleton of bulletproof ceramics, clot their blood near-instantly so they can't bleed to death, and eat poison with a smile. Among a LOT of other things.

Then you give them some of the best infantry weapons systems in the known galaxy.

The result, according to fluff, is a guy who individually threatens small armies. Sure, if they all shot him at once he'd die. But... there's a story, possibly apocryphal for all I know, that during the civil war that turned Rhodesia into what is now Zimbabwe, a team of five commandoes managed to take down an entire regiment of rebel infantry. I don't know how or if they did it, but the point is that a couple of Space Marines should be able to do that according to fluff. Over and over, without having to rely on luck. Space Marines are supposed to be %(&#@ scary.
________________

In the game, there simply isn't that much room for variance. A Space Marine with that kind of killing power would be worth more than an armored vehicle, which would make it practically impossible to field Space Marine armies in the game. To make the point system balanced, each Marine would have to be a single unit worth more than most infantry squads (and even some infantry platoons). That's appropriate, given the fluff, but for gameplay purposes it's a terrible idea. It's too hard to design game mechanics to make that fun.

So Marines get significantly better stats than ordinary human soldiers. They're stronger. They're better shots. They carry more powerful weapons. They are physically tougher, which makes them significantly less likely to be killed by small arms fire. Moreover, their armor is about twice as likely to stop enemy fire as an Imperial Guardsman's armor, and it allows them to resist a variety of weapons that Guard body armor is completely useless against (such as the Marine's own bolter).

But one Marine, fully kitted out, is no match for a squad of Guardsmen, let alone a platoon or a company as the fluff would suggest.

Talkkno
2008-05-17, 02:30 AM
But one Marine, fully kitted out, is no match for a squad of Guardsmen, let alone a platoon or a company as the fluff would suggest.

To be fair, the Crimson Tears novel states that a Space Marines worth ten times their numbers in guardsmen. And backing this, Primarch Regal Dorn of the Imperial Fists stated this
"Give me 100 space marines or failing that give me 1000 other troops."

Keep in mind Guardsmen tend to be rather well trained if un-augmented troops, its just no matter how well trained human looks pretty weak in comparison to the various terrors of the Milky Way.

Verruckt
2008-05-17, 07:10 AM
These... laws of yours that you claim govern all life and reality? These laws that dispute the fact that there is no law but the Emperor's law? These laws, the creations of mortal men, brought about and... and updated, through open-minded debate, questioning, doubt and change?

...By the Throne, we're going to need a whole new kind of flamethrower for this one.

Ahem, Battle brother LBO, may I suggest this? *Hands Man Portable Inferno Cannon*



The revised story had him being stepped on by an Emperator Titan which was a silly change as that thing would have been a small City stepping on you.
I keep with the old story where it was a 'mere' Warlord titan.

Warlords are Imperators, with bigger guns. According to Lexicanum and the old epic handbook warlords are the "Brainchilds of mad techpriests, clanking mountains of guns and cannon."

LBO
2008-05-17, 08:41 AM
Send it back to the forge world and have it used on the designer; not NEARLY painful enough. :smallamused:

But no. Warlords, massive and insane though they are, are the bog standard Battle Titan, one up from Reavers and a lot down from Imperator/Warmonger (different loadouts of the Emperor-class chassis). Goes:

Warhound (wimp scout titan, two lighter weapon hardpoints) < Reaver (faster and cheaper than Warlord, three weapon hardpoints) < Warlord (backbone, four weapon hardpoints) < Imperator (OMFGWTFH XBOX HUEG, standardised loadout of plasma annihilator the size of a Warhound, hellstorm cannon like a Warlord's gatling megablaster but more so, defence laser - yes, the kind that shoot down starships - and giant battle cathedral bits everywhere.)

Destro_Yersul
2008-05-17, 10:09 AM
What's the one with Gatling Earthshaker cannons? I always forget that one.

Deadmeat.GW
2008-05-17, 12:46 PM
Warlord Siege version or bigger titans for those guns :).

And no, the Warlord is not the Emperator titan, the Emperator is about twice the height and far more massive then the Warlord :).

Lets keep it with a 'mere' Warlord :).

GoC
2008-05-17, 03:32 PM
As opposed to gold-titanium alloy which can withstand APDS (or not) rounds? :smalltongue:
Point. To Mr.Silver and Solo too.


That largely depends on the terrain, on solid rock there is simply nowhere to sink to.
Assuming the suit is made out of materials far stronger than rock (implied because Ironman has them) it'll still be less impressive.


Except that 200 tons is a lot less then that titan weighed and he was on a plascrete (yay for 40k pseudo stuff) floor.
Well how hard is plascrete?
And how large are the feet of the big robot?
Is terminator armor made of a stronger material or the same type?

LBO:How large are Imperators?

Destro_Yersul
2008-05-17, 03:45 PM
Imperator Titan:
http://uk.games-workshop.com/gamesday/2007-season/images/arena/imperator-close.jpg

I'm pretty sure those little dots are bikes. with Space Marines on them.

EvilDMMk3
2008-05-17, 04:07 PM
And plascrete is used in the super structure of Hive Cities. That is to say structures miles high and weighing insane amounts, but terminator armour is stronger.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-17, 04:11 PM
that's a warlord you've linked to, Destro. but yhea, a warlord titan is about a hundred feet high. their ground pressure is low enough they can cross quite soft surfaces (flood plains/ect) without worry (or at least no more worry than a tank would have).



Well how hard is plascrete?
And how large are the feet of the big robot?
Is terminator armor made of a stronger material or the same type?

1) how hard is a gold titanium alloy? to answer the question, It'd prob not that much harder than standard reinforced concrete.
2)warlord feet are......roughly tank sized, i'd guesstimate. this is based on memory, so YMMV.
3) termie armour a layered composite armour, but is likey made of simillar stuff to a titans armour.

LBO
2008-05-17, 05:48 PM
Imperator Titan:
http://uk.games-workshop.com/gamesday/2007-season/images/arena/imperator-close.jpg

I'm pretty sure those little dots are bikes. with Space Marines on them.
Wrong. That's a Warlord. Warlord, (http://pagesperso-orange.fr/bruntz/lpt/images/modelisme/concours_epic_fr/engins_guerre/nfaivre_warlord.jpg) Imperator. (http://www.lanceradvanced.com/Models/Images/Titan.jpg) Top of the Warlord's carapace comes up about to the Imperator's head iirc (maybe a little above).

Destro_Yersul
2008-05-18, 12:02 AM
Well, it came up when I googled Imperator, so there. At any rate, I found another picture somewhere, and a space marine comes up to around the top of those little toe things on the bottom of an Imperator's feet. I'm 5'7, and a space marine miniature comes up to around the top of my toes.

Suffice it to say, Imperators are really, really big.

Dervag
2008-05-18, 12:42 AM
2)warlord feet are......roughly tank sized, i'd guesstimate. this is based on memory, so YMMV.
3) termie armour a layered composite armour, but is likey made of simillar stuff to a titans armour.The real operative question is what the ground pressure of a Titan is. The Terminator suit does not bear the full weight of the Titan, but is instead shoved into the (softer) ground underneath. The pressures involved are such that the worst the Terminator experiences is pressure sufficient to deform the concrete (or whatever) underneath it, which is almost certainly quite a bit less than it would experience if the Titan had it trapped on something nigh-invulnerable such as a solid diamond plate.

Yes, that's very strong. No, it isn't quite as strong as it sounds.


Stark was never confirmed as having been hit by a tank shell.There's a big bang, he slews sideways by a considerable margin, and it's pretty obvious that the shot came from the tank.

I say he got hit with an HE round from the tank; even I have a hard time believing that his armor could be physically thick enough or exceptionally strong enough to resist an armor-piercing round.


Send it back to the forge world and have it used on the designer; not NEARLY painful enough. :smallamused:But... painful means non-instantly-obliterating temperatures! A suitably well-protected heretic might even survive!


To be fair, the Crimson Tears novel states that a Space Marines worth ten times their numbers in guardsmen. And backing this, Primarch Regal Dorn of the Imperial Fists stated this
"Give me 100 space marines or failing that give me 1000 other troops."

Keep in mind Guardsmen tend to be rather well trained if un-augmented troops, its just no matter how well trained human looks pretty weak in comparison to the various terrors of the Milky Way.Point, but I get the impression that the fluff descriptions of individual Marines tends to counter that unless the description is closely tied to game performance.

Maybe I'm working on insufficient data.

That said, even a 10-to-1 quality factor would be unbalancing in the game- one squad of Space Marines could obliterate something like two platoons of Guards.

Solo
2008-05-18, 12:44 AM
There's a big bang, he slews sideways by a considerable margin, and it's pretty obvious that the shot came from the tank.

I say he got hit with an HE round from the tank; even I have a hard time believing that his armor could be physically thick enough or exceptionally strong enough to resist an armor-piercing round.
You are going to cling to this despite the fact that tanks are never employed as anti-aircraft weapons?

Destro_Yersul
2008-05-18, 01:40 AM
There's a big bang, he slews sideways by a considerable margin, and it's pretty obvious that the shot came from the tank.

I say he got hit with an HE round from the tank; even I have a hard time believing that his armor could be physically thick enough or exceptionally strong enough to resist an armor-piercing round.


I'd say it missed, and all he got hit with was the shockwave. Something that fast passing by that close is bound to upset local air currents.

Verruckt
2008-05-18, 08:07 AM
Send it back to the forge world and have it used on the designer; not NEARLY painful enough. :smallamused:

But no. Warlords, massive and insane though they are, are the bog standard Battle Titan, one up from Reavers and a lot down from Imperator/Warmonger (different loadouts of the Emperor-class chassis). Goes:

Warhound (wimp scout titan, two lighter weapon hardpoints) < Reaver (faster and cheaper than Warlord, three weapon hardpoints) < Warlord (backbone, four weapon hardpoints) < Imperator (OMFGWTFH XBOX HUEG, standardised loadout of plasma annihilator the size of a Warhound, hellstorm cannon like a Warlord's gatling megablaster but more so, defence laser - yes, the kind that shoot down starships - and giant battle cathedral bits everywhere.)

aha, see, I always forget the warlord class, confuse them with warmongers, ces't la vie.

And, though I ought not to have this, I can hardly help but keep hold of it as a souvenir. *Rummages around for his haemunculi destructor* It's been known to cause blood vessel explosion or implosion; pharyngeal contraction; extensive haemolysis; skeletal disintegration; sclerotic corrosion; intercostal spasms; hyper-reacted thermoreceptors and chemoreceptors; Eustachian damage; retinal scarring; cardiac and respiratory atrophy and aqueous humor deprivation. You did say you wanted painful...

Dervag
2008-05-18, 10:50 AM
You are going to cling to this despite the fact that tanks are never employed as anti-aircraft weapons?Well, unless you count Flakpanzers, you have a point.

Not an all-triumphant one, though. My impression is that the tank in question was a Stark Industries weapon (like most of the other stuff those guys had). Can't you just see Tony Stark thinking "Wouldn't it be cool if I designed a tank with an air defense mode? Let's see, I'll need to install blah blah blah..."

And the next thing you know you have a tank capable of tracking and engaging low-flying aircraft. Probably it would be a proximity-fuzed shrapnel shell (like the ones the US military used in large-caliber AA guns during World War II), or some kind of flechette round that burst into a large number of (guided?) submunitions.

Either of which would be much easier for the Iron Man armor to withstand than a direct hit from a HEAT or 'silver bullet' round.

Except for the Raptors, and I think at one point an M-4 carbine, almost every weapon in that movie is supposed to be Stark Industries and therefore fictional.

Verruckt
2008-05-18, 11:06 AM
either that, or as we can see by examples 31a-40, weapons physics in the movie are absolute crap. One moment the starkified g-36's are making swiss cheese out of an up-armored humvee, the next they are pinging of something he welded together out of some missile casings. Plus the tank which fires rounds slow enough that they make blaster bolts look quick. Don't even get me started on how powerful those repulsors would need to be to push something as un-aerodynamic as Iron Man through the sound barrier.

Storm Bringer
2008-05-18, 11:09 AM
I think stark was supposed to have build the F-22s as well, at least in the flilms continuality. thier IS a statue of one mounted outside Stark Industies HQ, so he's involved in some way, even if just building them.

Verruckt
2008-05-18, 11:16 AM
yeah, that statue say YF-22 on the uprights as well, meaning the experimental model, so that implies some hand in the design, so oogie boogie stark f-22s, oh my.

Toad-Killer-Dog
2008-05-18, 11:54 AM
Ah, now see I know I should not get involved in this, but I have had such a horrible damn week I just don't care.

Here is my argument, and you can all yell and scream your fluff at me as I walk away from this thread and never return.

I was around when 40k was ONE DAMN BOOK and have played for quite a while now.

So here is my argument, ork's, yeah just ork's. Now they are tough, really tough, but in the books and in the games normal humans ( Imperial guards, normal cultist and the like ) can defeat them in NON-POWERED hand-to-hand combat. That establishes something yes?

Ork grunts ( not heroes or other special types ) just grunts, can, have, do and in the future will kill Space Marines in hand-to-hand combat with NON-POWERED melee weapons. So That establishes the SPACE NAZI'S...er I mean marines can be killed by a exceptionally strong man ( remember we are not talking ork heroes here just grunts ) WITH AN AXE!

So, no, just no, marine armor is not that great really.

This thread should really be about a lone space marine vs Tony Stark hopped up on PCP and too many screwdrivers with a machete.

As a side not, any fans of 40k here, get your hands on the original Rogue Trader and try your hardest to ignore the horrific train wreck that 40k has become in the last few years. Consider it a blow struck for good writing, good gaming and good taste.


Note: Nothing below this line has any direct relation to the thread.....except when it does.

Good god GW when we knew you in the eighties who ever would have thought that you would sink into the filthy mire of over-simplified, ret-conning, power-gaming, K00L! spewing, waste that has about as much to do with real war-gaming as a nice fast paced game of candy-land. You have ripped out your own heart and trod it into the dirt for the sake of a mediocre empire living on the past tatters of your originality and becoming more debased and commercial all the time. Once you were great, you just make me sad.

Sorry, like I said it's been a really bad week. You guys really should have seen them when. Love the best of what has passed and hope for a brighter tomorrow ( the same thing goes for Iron Man...at least the comics ).

konfeta
2008-05-18, 12:40 PM
So here is my argument, ork's, yeah just ork's. Now they are tough, really tough, but in the books and in the games normal humans ( Imperial guards, normal cultist and the like ) can defeat them in NON-POWERED hand-to-hand combat. That establishes something yes?

Ork grunts ( not heroes or other special types ) just grunts, can, have, do and in the future will kill Space Marines in hand-to-hand combat with NON-POWERED melee weapons. So That establishes the SPACE NAZI'S...er I mean marines can be killed by a exceptionally strong man ( remember we are not talking ork heroes here just grunts ) WITH AN AXE!

Ork Grunts attack aren't "just really strong chops", their melee power grows accordingly with the strength of their Waaagh!. Choppa cuts through Marine armor with ease because the Ork believes it will cut through the Marine. It's the same racial power that makes their mechanics works, allows the "red onez go fasta" effect, and so on.

"Normal" Chaos cultists are kinda related to that weird thing called Chaos, Chaos Gods, and the Warp. Gee, isn't that the thing that specifically forces physics to drop the soap? And like empowers it's followers to do all sorts of scary and nasty thing?

Never heard of normal (non-plot armored; a sufficiently plot armored human can beat of Superman) humans killing marines in close combat. If you are talking from the perspective of the actual game and gameplay, that is not fluff/lore/whatever. A freaking Grot can kill a Terminator in the game with a couple lucky dice rolls. The TT game nerfs and buffs various armies from the lore to make the game playable.

Caracol
2008-05-22, 06:52 PM
That's something you'll have to prove.

And how? These are fictional power, and I challenge you (or everybody else) to demonstrate their point about something:

- it doesn't exist IRL, and therefore cannot be studied;
- that is a part of a fictional world, where laws of phisics or common sense don't work, where what really matters is the "coolness factor" of something.

Anyway, you seriously need to take things less seriously when arguing about this stuff, and also to NOT use somebody else's lack of demonstrations to prove your point (Morbo says: SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!)

Iroman suit is umbeatable when the plot needs it, and has malfuncionments when the action and the suspense requires it. This could be applied to EVERY fictional character, story, ability or such (space marine's included).

I don't know much about space marine's weaponry or abilities, but this is actually not necessary. Arguing about the effectiveness or the superiority of this or that equipment is fun (to somebody, at least), but doesn't really demonstrate anything (since it's all fictional pseudo-scientific technology).

What we can argue about, istead, it's the psycology and behaviour of our contendants. You all seem to forget that there are two people in those suits, and how you use your armor is as much as important as what your suit can do (other than being the only thing that we can actually talk about).

Given this statement, I think that Iroman would win. While a space marine is a super-equiped phisically altered brainwashed soldier, with the kill everything command stamped in his mind, (also, they fight in squadrons, so if one of them is so strong why would the Imperium need a whole army of them?) Tony Stark is one of the most intelligent and cunning marvel heroes ever. He builds his own stuff, he comes up with strategic plans and he doesn't win fights only by beating harder (go see the movie to see what I'm talking about).

How he would win? I don't know, but he would probably come up with something that caughts the marine off-guard and beat him.

Also, the LAWS OF FICTION states that:

- In a one-one fight, the Good Guy wins. If he loses, he will win later in a more badass way.

Tony Stark is defenately Good. A soldier of an invading imperial army? Don't think so...

GoC
2008-05-22, 07:26 PM
And how? These are fictional power, and I challenge you (or everybody else) to demonstrate their point about something:

- it doesn't exist IRL, and therefore cannot be studied;
- that is a part of a fictional world, where laws of phisics or common sense don't work, where what really matters is the "coolness factor" of something.
We can just compare a .50 caliber explosive round with whatever Ironman gets hit by and come to a conclusion based on that.


Anyway, you seriously need to take things less seriously when arguing about this stuff, and also to NOT use somebody else's lack of demonstrations to prove your point (Morbo says: SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!)
The burden of proof lies with the person proposing the theory.

Caracol
2008-05-23, 03:06 AM
We can just compare a .50 caliber explosive round with whatever Ironman gets hit by and come to a conclusion based on that.

Are you a firearm expert? Are you a physician? Do you know how a gold-titanium armor absorbs hits? Better, can you say that something like that exists?

Sorry, you can't prove anything without some datas. Show me some datas, do some experiments, and then you can probably reach some conclusion.

Nothing (that isn't a total astraction) can be proved without some empirical datas. It could be the most flawless logic in the world: if you can't prove it IRL, it's useless.



The burden of proof lies with the person proposing the theory.

That in case you have a previous well-proven theory that states something different. Wich you don't.

Cybren
2008-05-23, 04:54 AM
You are going to cling to this despite the fact that tanks are never employed as anti-aircraft weapons?

The cinematography is such that it is obvious that the shot came from the tank. There is no clinging.

Film is a visual media, but it needn't be a blunt one. The director tells his story (and it is the directors story, not the physics or military consultants) using shots that show or imply action. In the case of the scene showing the the tank aiming and firing would have betrayed the purpose of it.
Iron man flying -> gets hit and falls to the ground -> There's a tank with its turret aimed up

GoC
2008-05-23, 09:29 AM
Are you a firearm expert? Are you a physician? Do you know how a gold-titanium armor absorbs hits? Better, can you say that something like that exists?

Sorry, you can't prove anything without some datas. Show me some datas, do some experiments, and then you can probably reach some conclusion.

Nothing (that isn't a total astraction) can be proved without some empirical datas. It could be the most flawless logic in the world: if you can't prove it IRL, it's useless.



That in case you have a previous well-proven theory that states something different. Wich you don't.
Just to clarify: we are still talking about the claim that bolters "would go straight through Ironman as if he was made of water"?

Destro_Yersul
2008-05-23, 01:16 PM
I claim that bolters would make exceptionally large holes in his suit. They're not designed to go through stuff, they're designed to penetrate to around 2 inches and then explode. :smalltongue:

Given that Iron Man's suit is apparently made of a combination of gold and titanium, this shouldn't be all that unbelievable.

warty goblin
2008-05-23, 02:45 PM
I claim that bolters would make exceptionally large holes in his suit. They're not designed to go through stuff, they're designed to penetrate to around 2 inches and then explode. :smalltongue:

Given that Iron Man's suit is apparently made of a combination of gold and titanium, this shouldn't be all that unbelievable.

Point.

For a better bracket for Iron Man's armor durability, let's look at the following. I'm going to ignore the tank case because it makes very little sense when taken with the other pieces of information, and is to disputed to be useful.

1) It is completely resistant to small arms fire, up to and including assault rifles. This means that it is capable of dissapating around 1,775 joules of energy (that's the energy of the 5.56x45 NATO round, used in M-16's).

2) Going higher yet, it can take the fire of the mini-guns mounted on the Iron Monger suit. Miniguns, as a rule, are chambered for something like the 7.62x51 NATO round, which has an energy of 3,352 joules.

3) The missiles used by the airplanes are somewhat harder to call. The warhead mass of a Sidewinder seems to max out at about 10kg of high explosive. Using PETN, which is one of the more explosive high explosives known, this would at first indicate the he is only threatened by weapons that can produce at least 69,454,400 joules of energy, which is, to put it mildly, a lot. This however is the total energy of the blast, which Iron Man would only actually experience if he stuffed the warhead down his pants (not recommended). Even a direct impact would only dissapate half this much energy into Iron Man, and he was knocked out of the sky by the missile that blew up on his tail, well short of a direct impact and also when he was presenting a very small surface area, again minimizing the amount of energy he absorbed.

If Iron Man was say 3 meters away from the explosion of the missile, the shockwave could be modeled as the surface of a sphere with radius three meters, for a surface area of ~150 square meters. Since he was essentially lying in the air, and the missile exploded directly behind and on a plane with him IIRC, this reduces the surface area he presents a lot less surface area. Using myself as a reference, I take up a rectangle roughly 8 inches thick and perhaps 36 wide, for an area of ~.2 square meters, or one thirtieth of the total surface area of the sphere represented by the expanding shockwave. A thirtieth of the missile energy is 2,315,146 joules, although at this point I am way outside my league when it comes to physics, so I'm not sure how meaningful the above number is.

Anyway, going from that, we have something like an upper bound on what Iron Man's armor can in fact survive when at full power even. Make of it what you will.

Anteros
2008-05-24, 02:05 AM
Except for the fact that you don't get to ignore the tank case. It's part of the canon. You can split hairs and claim it's invalid all you want if you feel that it's the only way you can win...which is obviously the case. But you don't get to ignore evidence because it's inconvenient.

Destro_Yersul
2008-05-24, 03:16 AM
Of course, it's not clear that the tank actually HIT Iron Man in the first place. There was a bang and he falls out of the sky and sees a tank. The tank could very well have missed, and it was the turbulence caused by the shell's passage that caused him to fall.

Eita
2008-05-24, 02:24 PM
1: GoC, how about you take a 5 ton weight, put yourself in some Medieval armor, lay on the grass, and have a guy drop the weight on you and see what happens. I guarantee that you still won't be alive, or at the very least will be doing far worse then our Space Marine friend did.

2: There are actually probably more then one million Marines at a time. There are supposed to be a thousand Chapters, each with a thousand Marines. 1000 * 1000 = 1000000. This is not taking into account non-Codex Chapters which have far more Marines and everyone else in the Chapter (only Tactical, Devastator, and Assault Marines are included in the tally).

Dode
2008-05-24, 04:40 PM
Imperator Titan:
http://uk.games-workshop.com/gamesday/2007-season/images/arena/imperator-close.jpg

I'm pretty sure those little dots are bikes. with Space Marines on them.

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/ultimoim1.jpg

Meh. Iron Man could take it.

LBO
2008-05-24, 04:43 PM
2) Going higher yet, it can take the fire of the mini-guns mounted on the Iron Monger suit. Miniguns, as a rule, are chambered for something like the 7.62x51 NATO round, which has an energy of 3,352 joules.
Those did not look like 7.62 miniguns; they looked more like M61 Vulcans. Also, he got shot up a bit by an F-22 (with way more sustained fire than they're actually capable of, but what the hell), which also carries a Vulcan. 20mm rounds.


http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/ultimoim1.jpg

Meh. Iron Man could take it.

As we say on /tg/: Cheese.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/LBO_photos/FALCONMADEOFCHEESE.jpg

Innis Cabal
2008-05-24, 04:51 PM
if we are going off of Movie Iron man as people seem to be quoting, he gets forced out of the air by aircraft, since we dont have a list of what weapons the SM has, he could for all we know have a weapon on par with that, id get the link to all the weapons they use but people seem to ignore it.

Also, if we are pitting the best of the Emperor against Iron man, that'd be a terminator, and Iron man would lose.

warty goblin
2008-05-24, 10:40 PM
Except for the fact that you don't get to ignore the tank case. It's part of the canon. You can split hairs and claim it's invalid all you want if you feel that it's the only way you can win...which is obviously the case. But you don't get to ignore evidence because it's inconvenient.
No, canonically he took a hit from, and then dodged something moving the speed of a baseball, because that was what was shown on screen. Any other interpretation is just that, an interpretation, and hence not provable from the film.

Saying that Iron Man can survive the energy of a APFSDS round when what was shown was moving 1/250th the actual speed of one is an error of truly overwhelming porportions. Here's how bad an error it is- kinetic energy, holding the mass constant, varies as the square of the velocity, so something going 1/250th the velocity of a APFSDS round will have a kinetic energy 1/62,500 as great. In decimal that's .000016 times the actual kinetic energy. Wait, it gets even better- Iron Man has a running time of 126 minutes, of which the tank sequence takes perhaps four, or .03 of the total movie. It is literally 3,750 times as accurate to say that the entire tank sequence never happened as it is to say that he dodged and survived fire from an actual tank shell. It would be equally accurate to say that the movie only lasted .12 seconds as it is to say that Iron Man did what people are claiming he did.

If we are willing to accept that magnitude of error in the name of cinematic abstraction, than I interpret this thread to pit Iron Man against 62,500 Space Marines, because the OP clearly wanted to do that, but didn't feel like typing a number that big.

Artemician
2008-05-24, 10:46 PM
Here we go again

Like I said earlier. I would think it's pretty obvious that the directors wanted to show him shrugging off a tank shell. They (incorrectly) showed that on screen with a visible tank shell. You can perform calculations all you want, but we'll just go on saying that your argument is nonsensical.

warty goblin
2008-05-24, 11:21 PM
Like I said earlier. I would think it's pretty obvious that the directors wanted to show him shrugging off a tank shell. They (incorrectly) showed that on screen with a visible tank shell. You can perform calculations all you want, but we'll just go on saying that your argument is nonsensical.

I agree that's pretty obviously what they wanted to show him doing- but that's not what they showed him doing. I find it far more productive to go from what is actually put on screen than what we think they wanted to show. This is after all the same standard of evidence applied to everything else, pretty much, like, ever. We go by what is shown, written, drawn or otherwise demonstrated to have happened, not by what we think the director/author/illustrator/whatever wanted to show.

Put another way, if I wanted to tell a story about a super-human badass with massive physical powers and so on, but at one point while at the height of his powers, gets totally pwnz0d by a perfectly ordinary six year old girl in hand to hand combat, one would accept this completely non super-human badass occurance as canon, and not argue that the girl was actually a super-powerful demon in disguise despite the complete lack of textual evidence for this. Suppose this character then became involved in a vs. thread. Would you accept an argument that he should win against a more or less equivilent foe who happens to not get schooled by schoolchildren, simply because I intended to tell a story of super-human badassery? I really hope not. My intent to tell a story of super-human badassery is irrelevant, meaningless and devoid of all worth, all that matters is what I actually showed to have happened.

GoC
2008-05-25, 11:06 AM
If Iron Man was say 3 meters away from the explosion of the missile, the shockwave could be modeled as the surface of a sphere with radius three meters, for a surface area of ~150 square meters. Since he was essentially lying in the air, and the missile exploded directly behind and on a plane with him IIRC, this reduces the surface area he presents a lot less surface area. Using myself as a reference, I take up a rectangle roughly 8 inches thick and perhaps 36 wide, for an area of ~.2 square meters, or one thirtieth of the total surface area of the sphere represented by the expanding shockwave. A thirtieth of the missile energy is 2,315,146 joules, although at this point I am way outside my league when it comes to physics, so I'm not sure how meaningful the above number is.

Anyway, going from that, we have something like an upper bound on what Iron Man's armor can in fact survive when at full power even. Make of it what you will.
Actually only one 565th of the total energy hits him.
That is not however an upper bound but a lower bound because he wasn't killed or damaged much from the impact.


1: GoC, how about you take a 5 ton weight, put yourself in some Medieval armor, lay on the grass, and have a guy drop the weight on you and see what happens. I guarantee that you still won't be alive, or at the very least will be doing far worse then our Space Marine friend did.
Medieval armor is too thin.
2 inch thick hardened steel and I'd do it.
Also, I'll make sure to be lying on a material softer than my armor like recently tilled soil and have the 5 ton weight have an area of 100ft^2 and be made of wood.
My safety is now more or less guaranteed.:smallbiggrin:

warty goblin: There are many inconsistencies in Space Marine literature too.

warty goblin
2008-05-25, 11:24 AM
Actually only one 565th of the total energy hits him.
That is not however an upper bound but a lower bound because he wasn't killed or damaged much from the impact.


warty goblin: There are many inconsistencies in Space Marine literature too.
Good catch on the energy load there. Like I said, I was sort of out of my league with the physics. The missile was however, unless I'm much mistaken, enough of a threat to knock him out of the air.

Agreed there are certainly inconsistancies with Space Marines- but probably not 6,250,000% inconsistancies. What I'm saying is that, for purposes of this thread, any interpretation that requires that sort of error in order to work is pretty much worthless, since you can do some pretty egregious things by multiplying numbers by 62,500.

Verruckt
2008-05-25, 11:27 AM
Things Terminators carry that can kill Iron Man:

Thunder Hammer
Power Fist
Chain Fist
Lightening Claws
Multi Melta

Things Iron Man carries that can kill Terminators:

huh...

well maybe those, no...

yup, he's ****ed

Dode
2008-05-25, 01:09 PM
Things Iron Man carries that can kill Terminators:


http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/images/warmachine-comic.jpg

http://www.dailyraider.com/comics/blackpatherannual2008/ironman.jpg

Destro_Yersul
2008-05-25, 01:59 PM
Does he got those in the Movie? No? Doesn't count. This here thread is about the movie Iron Man.

And I repeat, there is no evidence that the tank actually hit him with that shot.

Dode
2008-05-25, 02:05 PM
Does he got those in the Movie? No? Doesn't count. This here thread is about the movie Iron Man.Oh okay, as long as we acknowledge that this is a pretty handicapped Iron Man compared to what's in the comics and that the actual Iron Man would take this pretty easily. :smallsmile:



And I repeat, there is no evidence that the tank actually hit him with that shot. Yeah it just spontaneously exploded in mid-air without hitting anything... it could happen, people

Caracol
2008-05-25, 02:36 PM
And I repeat, there is no evidence that the tank actually hit him with that shot.

It was obviously hit by the tank. What evidence I have? None.
What evidence do you have to prove all the stuff you said before? None too.

Somebody before cited some datas about the energy of some weapons used by actual armies. That's better than the ones that said "it's this powerful" "it could totally do this", but you should report the source of your datas to be taken seriously.

Now, we have some data about Ironman's suite resistance. Now, let's look at the datas about a Space Marine's weapo- oh wait, they don't exist. Surprise! Of course, we can still talk how much you think they could pwn, citing obscure reference pretending them to be actual proof about something that is fictional technology that (probably) is not even possible to be created, even in the future.

That's the reason I would like to insist about the psicological approach to this fight.

Eita
2008-05-25, 07:53 PM
Things Terminators carry that can kill Iron Man:

Thunder Hammer
Power Fist
Chain Fist
Lightening Claws
Multi Melta

Things Iron Man carries that can kill Terminators:

huh...

well maybe those, no...

yup, he's ****ed

I think Veteran Marines can equip a multi-melta...

creyzi4zb12
2013-08-21, 10:39 AM
Umm..so, anybody seen Ironman 3?

kpenguin
2013-08-21, 10:41 AM
The Modguin: Threadomancy? Threadlock