View Single Post
Old 2010-09-09, 13:41   Link #1002
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhangelsk View Post
What's so hard to understand that a HEAT round, which has a different mode of destruction, can destroy targets that a HE round cannot. Some targets are better engaged with HE (like soft, fleshy humans/mages and weak Kampfwagens) and others with HEAT (like better defended targets).
Yeah, on one hand we have an HE round that can take out a tank. And on the other we have an HEAT that can take out a tank. Wow, big difference there. ;p

Quote:
As for the HE round, the very fact that a small caliber HE round can do the job says much about the tank, because while a HE round has a larger blast radius and thus may be loosely be called "more destructive", its omnidirectionality limits intensity and the nature of its blast makes it weak against hard targets. Not that the weakness of the tank does anything to save a mage's reputation, because a mage apparently won't have survived that round.
Of course! It's so obvious now that the mariage was referring to a paper mache tank! Your insights are brilliant, because obviously any hardened, armored, mobile object must certainly be using paper mache for protection. Thus, we have an HE round that can take out a tank, but not a cyborg!

Hmm, of course, we're left with the problem that a normal unshielded human would be able to survive against such an attack, too, since it take destroy paper. Darn it....

Quote:
Besides, I don't think my answer is necessarily more complicated. I've decided on a layered scheme. The BJ with individual variation is basically useless (kinetically) so it can be blamed for all the weak spots. Active defenses with individual variation are more useful. It is not only very simple, but it layered structure allows its to capably cover all the situations w/o further discomfort PLUS it allows the maximum possible adherence to scientific principles.
Good thing we're dealing with science and not magic, then! Oh wait....

Quote:
Your answer is to say that the the AB/BJ is integral. Now that you have already concluded it can guard against most mass-based weapons, an explanation has to be come up with for each time it does not, even when it actually is contradictory to the information available.
Of which there is exactly two. A scientist must ask themselves: "Is there anything unique or different about these two cases, considering mages have come away unharmed from every other kinetic impact?"

The answer is yes. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise, is being disingenuous.

Quote:
That's not called one explanation that covers both, because then you have the very obvious question for WHY the AB/BJ was weakened, and you had to use two explanations, which would have been disadvantageous, but not an instant killer if not for the fact that one of them doesn't even fit the facts as given (so technically, your "one explanation" leaves 1 unexplained), and neither considered the problem of magnitude. IN short, your theory didn't even make the starter's gate, let alone to Occam's Razor.
Just a word of advice. You really don't want to invoke a rule that is already working against you; if anything, you should be trying to argue why it's not applicable. Occam's Razor is already working against your 1001 explanations, since 1 explanation is simpler than 1001. But hey, if you want to invoke it, then I have no argument. It just means all your arguments go out the window. =)

Quote:
Except they move at reasonably normal speeds in their lives. Next.
Do they? They do seem slower at a lot of other things, come to think of it. Such as thinking slowly about things. I mean, I've seen some thoughts take up several seconds, in and out of combat. I should know, because I've timed it! They seem to run slower, and everyone goes slow enough to allow people to speak things during combat. I mean, it's so convenient for people to have their enemies moving slow enough that they can chant out a spell, or yell something, and NOT fly away quickly enough to get out of range.

Or maybe everyone is just nice and kind and patient to their opponents? Hmmm....

Oh, stupid me, I totally forgot that one of your many explanations is that everyone is an idiot, deliberately using slow attacks (magic AND mass-based!) all the time! That's our lovable resident genius here ark, here. Naturally, since you're pretty smart, if you were in the series then you wouldn't give people a chance to speak because they'd all be moving like molasses compared to you, ya?

Ah, it's so much fun coming up with baseless theories! I'm really starting to love your modus operandi! You're right; one unified theory is no fun at all. It's much better to come up with 1001 of them!

Quote:
Originally Posted by itanshi1 View Post
They were not talking about a specific tank, but tanks in a general sense, were they not?
Yep. No specific tank is mentioned. That's part of ark's problem, because he wants to put words in the mariage's mouth that she was referring to a paper mache tank, when nothing of the sort was said. That's the big problem he's having a real hard time explaining away. His theory depends on the fact that a highly advanced killing machine using weaponry that can't defeat Earth's primitive ground units. His theory really falls apart even if we assume the mariage was referring the lightest armed tank in existence. A highly explosive round that could take out the lightest tank, will still fuck up a cyborg. Why? Because scientifically speaking, the cyborg has less much less mass. There is considerably more physical material in a tank, and thus the explosion is spread over more material. Each part takes less damage.

It's the difference in taking out 6-12 tons of material, vs. several hundred pounds. Anything that can take out 4 tons of material, is going to simply vaporize the smaller, less-dense object. Simple math.

Last edited by Kaijo; 2010-09-09 at 14:02.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote