Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: BaronIveagh on April 02, 2011, 02:17:54 PM
-
As of Codex: Grey Knights, Orbital bombardment once again comes in 'Lance' flavor when using the Orbital Strike Relay wargear. Though exactly what's firing is clouded again by, as the IN is included in the list of things that might be shooting from orbit. Third, after GK's own ships, and other Space Marine ships.
Of course, this is also the Codex that gives Landraiders their own small Geller Fields, and so I'm taking it with a grain of salt.
-
GW always giving Marines the best things. Now bugger of GW. :)
Or.. it is the IN firing. No doubt. First, second, third or seventh. The lance is IN. :)
-
Baron, the codex was written by Matt "Ultramarine Fanfiction" ward.
I am surprised he didn't give the Grey Knights soulstones, and assault 3 large blast rail guns.
-
Regardless, GK don't exactly fit under the purview of toys given to other Space Marines.
-
My God. You know there is a saying here in the States, 'beating a dead horse'.
-
Baron, the codex was written by Matt "Ultramarine Fanfiction" ward.
I am surprised he didn't give the Grey Knights soulstones, and assault 3 large blast rail guns.
I know, that's why I said I'm taking it with a grain of salt. It's from Ward, so I half expected it to be about how Grey Knights were the secret love Children of a time traveling Calgar (A new take on blue Boxes!) and the Emperor.
The only reason I brought it up was that the IN being mentioned directly conflicts with the rest of the fluff in the book. GK could very well have (real) lances. After all, it's made plain in the new fluff they sneer at the AdMech's rules, as well as physics, the four Chaos gods, and existing canon.
That and I found it hilarious.
-
The Grey Knights are the most heretical chapter now.... the 40k fluff took a massive beating the other day....
-
Let's face it, none of the 40k authors are even aware of the role of lances in BFG. They just look for a "precise" weapon to use in their fluff. Since some of the lance wielding SM fluff predates BFG then perhaps the way lances operate in-game should have been changed, such that they're accurate against stationary targets like WBs, etc.
However, since they weren't made that way, and the way they did function was as pure anti-ship weapons, the SM fleet was designed with an alternative. Moreover, fluff was added to stipulate that SMs should not get lances on their ships. This makes sense, as they're not meant to be a warfleet.
40k fiction lance = precise orbital bombardment
BFG game lance = anti-ship weapon
The similarity of name should not confound the desire for the first in fiction with the acceptance of the second in game. Now, we know that laser batteries are used as WBs. Presumably they be used for precision strikes (despite attenuation for atmosphere). As for the nomenclature used in fiction describing lance attacks by SMs, well that can be rationalised to say reflect the type of attack rather than type of weapon. Ie, when precision is called for, they call for a lance strike (focussed rather than area saturation). On the scale of BFG, a lance strike means something else, and so specialised weaponry and targeting systems are called for.
I don't say all this to reopen the debate. Obviously those SM, er, "fans" that want lances on SM ships will still want them. They'll likely find the above unconvincing. However, it does mean that no amount of incidental 40k fiction using the word "lance" will impact on the game rules of BFG. Does that mean that fiction is not counted as evidence? No, it means that for it to be counted as evidence it would have to first account for all the fiction. This includes the stipulation against SM warships and the Nova fluff. There would also have to be a perceived need for them, to justify the trouble. Given that SMs have precise orbital strikes with their WBs (read lasers) and have bombardment cannon *I* can't see this happening. It seems to me that this would be lances for the sake of lances. Of course, again, those that want them wouldn't find my opinion of any value. It's like the existence of God. Arguments for or against are unconvincing for those not of like mind.
So, the real point of this post is to highlight what is required for a convincing argument. That is: fiction showing SMs with lances which accounts for previous attitudes (no SM warships, which lances equate to); and a clear need. To my knowledge the first doesn't presently exist and the second is not currently exigent either. Perhaps some new race will pop up that has fast nimble warships with high armour that the IN can't deal with ...
-
Let's face it, none of the 40k authors are even aware of the role of lances in BFG. They just look for a "precise" weapon to use in their fluff. Since some of the lance wielding SM fluff predates BFG then perhaps the way lances operate in-game should have been changed, such that they're accurate against stationary targets like WBs, etc.
However, since they weren't made that way, and the way they did function was as pure anti-ship weapons, the SM fleet was designed with an alternative. Moreover, fluff was added to stipulate that SMs should not get lances on their ships. This makes sense, as they're not meant to be a warfleet.
40k fiction lance = precise orbital bombardment
BFG game lance = anti-ship weapon
The similarity of name should not confound the desire for the first in fiction with the acceptance of the second in game. Now, we know that laser batteries are used as WBs. Presumably they be used for precision strikes (despite attenuation for atmosphere). As for the nomenclature used in fiction describing lance attacks by SMs, well that can be rationalised to say reflect the type of attack rather than type of weapon. Ie, when precision is called for, they call for a lance strike (focussed rather than area saturation). On the scale of BFG, a lance strike means something else, and so specialised weaponry and targeting systems are called for.
I don't say all this to reopen the debate. Obviously those SM, er, "fans" that want lances on SM ships will still want them. They'll likely find the above unconvincing. However, it does mean that no amount of incidental 40k fiction using the word "lance" will impact on the game rules of BFG. Does that mean that fiction is not counted as evidence? No, it means that for it to be counted as evidence it would have to first account for all the fiction. This includes the stipulation against SM warships and the Nova fluff. There would also have to be a perceived need for them, to justify the trouble. Given that SMs have precise orbital strikes with their WBs (read lasers) and have bombardment cannon *I* can't see this happening. It seems to me that this would be lances for the sake of lances. Of course, again, those that want them wouldn't find my opinion of any value. It's like the existence of God. Arguments for or against are unconvincing for those not of like mind.
So, the real point of this post is to highlight what is required for a convincing argument. That is: fiction showing SMs with lances which accounts for previous attitudes (no SM warships, which lances equate to); and a clear need. To my knowledge the first doesn't presently exist and the second is not currently exigent either. Perhaps some new race will pop up that has fast nimble warships with high armour that the IN can't deal with ...
Sig, again I'll point out that your argument would be more convincing if these 'non-lance' lances ever appeared anywhere in fluff, but they don't. I've looked. I gave your idea serious consideration the last time you brought it up, and scoured fluff for some entry or paragraph that supports it and there is none. So far, lance=lance=lance. The new rules make it very clear that it is, in fact, the same lance. Again, however, it's Mat Ward, so I'm surprised that a single Ultramarine strike cruiser isn't the equal of the entire IN.
-
Sig, again I'll point out that your argument would be more convincing if these 'non-lance' lances ever appeared anywhere in fluff, but they don't. I've looked. I gave your idea serious consideration the last time you brought it up, and scoured fluff for some entry or paragraph that supports it and there is none. So far, lance=lance=lance. The new rules make it very clear that it is, in fact, the same lance. Again, however, it's Mat Ward, so I'm surprised that a single Ultramarine strike cruiser isn't the equal of the entire IN.
Well, yes, I'll stipulate that you won't find my arguments convincing. However, it is currently the case that SMs don't have lances, and this is a deliberate action, not an oversight. Therefore the onus is on those so inclined to convince the rest that SMs and lances are not antithetical. Also, I don't understand why you're scouring fluff for mentions of differences in lances. One is a fictional reference and the other a game mechanic. Why would you find evidence of a game mechanic in fluff?
The biggest flaw in using the incidental appearance of the term "lance" from fluff to support the argument that SMs in Battlefleet Gothic should get lance category weaponry is that you're essentially using evidence of orbital strike weaponry to justify anti-ship weaponry. If lances got as sucky against ships aspect and armour as Weapon Batteries did then you wouldn't even be making an argument for lances.
For example, the fluff says that the SMs aren't equipped to fight ship to ship battles. Fine. Fluff has shown SM ships with lances. Fine. The way the rules for BFG were written makes lances purely anti-ship weapons. Uh oh. So, to reconcile these inconsistencies we can simply say that lances mentioned in fluff are not the same as the lance type weaponry used in the game Battlefleet Gothic. There is no harm in doing so, it creates no problems and it reconciles the inconsistencies between these two stances.
-
Sig, again I'll point out that your argument would be more convincing if these 'non-lance' lances ever appeared anywhere in fluff, but they don't. I've looked. I gave your idea serious consideration the last time you brought it up, and scoured fluff for some entry or paragraph that supports it and there is none. So far, lance=lance=lance. The new rules make it very clear that it is, in fact, the same lance. Again, however, it's Mat Ward, so I'm surprised that a single Ultramarine strike cruiser isn't the equal of the entire IN.
Well, yes, I'll stipulate that you won't find my arguments convincing. However, it is currently the case that SMs don't have lances, and this is a deliberate action, not an oversight. Therefore the onus is on those so inclined to convince the rest that SMs and lances are not antithetical. Also, I don't understand why you're scouring fluff for mentions of differences in lances. One is a fictional reference and the other a game mechanic. Why would you find evidence of a game mechanic in fluff?
The biggest flaw in using the incidental appearance of the term "lance" from fluff to support the argument that SMs in Battlefleet Gothic should get lance category weaponry is that you're essentially using evidence of orbital strike weaponry to justify anti-ship weaponry. If lances got as sucky against ships aspect and armour as Weapon Batteries did then you wouldn't even be making an argument for lances.
For example, the fluff says that the SMs aren't equipped to fight ship to ship battles. Fine. Fluff has shown SM ships with lances. Fine. The way the rules for BFG were written makes lances purely anti-ship weapons. Uh oh. So, to reconcile these inconsistencies we can simply say that lances mentioned in fluff are not the same as the lance type weaponry used in the game Battlefleet Gothic. There is no harm in doing so, it creates no problems and it reconciles the inconsistencies between these two stances.
Except now fluff states that the Mechanic of the Lance orbital strike and the Ship Weapon lance are one and the same. There in lays the problem, as saying that 'they are two separate weapons' itself directly conflicts with fluff AND mechanics. I might point out that in particular page 133 of Battlefleet Koronus, which explains the effects of firing various shipboard weapons at ground targets. A lance is stated to have an initial impact area of no more then a few hundred meters, though the ensuing explosion will do damage for a kilometer (which matches fluff in Cains Last Stand and more or less matches fluff in Planetstrike. Macrobatteries function as a saturation weapon, flattening everything for ten kilometers, with Bombardment cannons following the same rules only flattening everything for 20 kilometers and dealing bonus damage to anything on the ground, which matches fluff in Nightbringer.
While I grant that the lance is an anti-ship weapon, the logic of them not having it does not mesh with fluff or mechanics. And, again, the Space Marines ships are inferior, lances or no, and no threat to the IN, because A) the rules were created when IN had lots and lots of carriers and long range weapon systems, and much larger ships then strike cruisers that moved every bit as fast and B) Frankly, the BC is just as powerful against ships as a lance, and is actually even MORE powerful against ships from the period the rules were laid down then the lance is. It's sort of like saying 'Rifles are too powerful for you, take this AT gun instead.'
-
Except now fluff states that the Mechanic of the Lance orbital strike and the Ship Weapon lance are one and the same. There in lays the problem, as saying that 'they are two separate weapons' itself directly conflicts with fluff AND mechanics.
No, you're missing the point. What fluff calls a lance can be used for orbital strikes and for shooting at ships. This is fine. However, this could simply be one of the many different types of weapons that constitute "Weapon Batteries". A game mechanic is a game mechanic. Let's say that what we call a lance in BFG was actually called, I don't know, super spiffy ship cutters. You wouldn't argue from the description of lances in SM fluff that SMs should get super spiffy ship cutters. You might say, "well, why don't they get them?" to which the reply would be that "super spiffy ship cutters are dedicated anti-ship weaponry and SMs aren't meant to have that sort of thing."
I might point out that in particular page 133 of Battlefleet Koronus, which explains the effects of firing various shipboard weapons at ground targets. A lance is stated to have an initial impact area of no more then a few hundred meters, though the ensuing explosion will do damage for a kilometer (which matches fluff in Cains Last Stand and more or less matches fluff in Planetstrike. Macrobatteries function as a saturation weapon, flattening everything for ten kilometers, with Bombardment cannons following the same rules only flattening everything for 20 kilometers and dealing bonus damage to anything on the ground, which matches fluff in Nightbringer.
Yet none of these descriptions match the in-game effects of an orbital strike. There is always going to be a discontinuity between fluff and game mechanics. The game mechanics should be based on fluff of course, but it doesn't have to match up 1 to 1.
While I grant that the lance is an anti-ship weapon, the logic of them not having it does not mesh with fluff or mechanics. And, again, the Space Marines ships are inferior, lances or no, and no threat to the IN, because A) the rules were created when IN had lots and lots of carriers and long range weapon systems, and much larger ships then strike cruisers that moved every bit as fast and B) Frankly, the BC is just as powerful against ships as a lance, and is actually even MORE powerful against ships from the period the rules were laid down then the lance is. It's sort of like saying 'Rifles are too powerful for you, take this AT gun instead.'
I think that the logic of the SMs not having a dedicated anti-ship weapon matches up perfectly with fluff and mechanics. You're getting hung up on a name. When the rules for BFG were created, as it happened, they made lances to be purely anti-ship weaponry. This creates problems with the fluff due to SMs being designed specifically to not be able to fight fleet engagements (the only reason for a lance) and yet having lances. The law of unintended consequences. So, they made a boo-boo. However, you can't then just use the argument:
P1 Fluff shows SMs have lances
P2 Game rules of BFG show lances as anti-ship weapons
C1 Therefore SMs have anti-ship weapons
It's disingenuous. If you think that SMs should have dedicated anti-ship weaponry in BFG then you should show the fluff that says that SMs have dedicated anti-ship weaponry. Not the fluff that shows that SMs have a weapon system of the same name as what BFG uses for dedicated anti-ship weaponry.
The Bombardment Cannon is fine for SMs because it is not designed as an anti-ship weapon like a lance, it is much better against stationary defences and performs worse against ships, particularly abeam ships. So this satisfies the "no dedicated anti-ship weapons" proforma. If the Bombardment Cannon is just as powerful against ships as lances are then this implies and inequality of weights firstly, since the BC is clearly better against defences. However, presuming that, due small numbers and rounding this works out to be the case, then it seems to me that this is another argument against SMs getting lances. Why would they need them if their current weaponry is just as good?
Switching out BCs to lances speaks to intent. Even if in the long run they're on a par, it says that the SMs intend to hunt ships, and that they're specifically trying to improve their performance against ships in battle. This is certainly a threat to the IN.
-
No, you're missing the point. What fluff calls a lance can be used for orbital strikes and for shooting at ships. This is fine. However, this could simply be one of the many different types of weapons that constitute "Weapon Batteries". A game mechanic is a game mechanic. Let's say that what we call a lance in BFG was actually called, I don't know, super spiffy ship cutters. You wouldn't argue from the description of lances in SM fluff that SMs should get super spiffy ship cutters. You might say, "well, why don't they get them?" to which the reply would be that "super spiffy ship cutters are dedicated anti-ship weaponry and SMs aren't meant to have that sort of thing."
No, I'm not missing the point. Sig, they make a very clear point that a lance strike on the ground can only be done if you have a lance weapon on your ship being the lance weapon you fire at other ships. In fact, there are only two types of weapon that may be used for orbital bombardment (other then torpedoes, which one would hope are self explanatory) lances and weapon batteries. (Since Bombardment Cannons count as a macrobattery.) It's, for once, made very clear that the lance fired is a 'ship' lance, not part of a weapon battery. Since it's in a book for RPG weasels, it's, for once, very clear, and air tight. (I can't believe I'll say this, but thank god for Rules Lawyers) Andy Chambers, author guy that he is, even wrote most of both books. I defer to his 'lance=lance'.
Yet none of these descriptions match the in-game effects of an orbital strike. There is always going to be a discontinuity between fluff and game mechanics. The game mechanics should be based on fluff of course, but it doesn't have to match up 1 to 1.
Other then the TT 40k orbital strike, no, it exactly matches the mechanic for orbital strikes in this case. Both the fluff and mechanic jibe for once. It is what it says on the tin.
I think that the logic of the SMs not having a dedicated anti-ship weapon matches up perfectly with fluff and mechanics. You're getting hung up on a name. When the rules for BFG were created, as it happened, they made lances to be purely anti-ship weaponry. This creates problems with the fluff due to SMs being designed specifically to not be able to fight fleet engagements (the only reason for a lance) and yet having lances. The law of unintended consequences. So, they made a boo-boo. However, you can't then just use the argument:
P1 Fluff shows SMs have lances
P2 Game rules of BFG show lances as anti-ship weapons
C1 Therefore SMs have anti-ship weapons
A quick interruption: in BFG, every weapon is an anti-ship weapon. and people that are far less trustworthy then Space Marines now have access to Virus Bombs, Vortex torps, and Nova cannons.
I would suggest that if IN is not concerned that people far less trustworthy then space marines are getting their hands on Nova Cannons and Virus Bombs (you cannot get much more threatening then that) then the idea that Space Marines would suddenly all rise up with their lances and defeat IN who would then only outnumber them something like 2k to one is not likely to cause them to loose much sleep.
It's disingenuous. If you think that SMs should have dedicated anti-ship weaponry in BFG then you should show the fluff that says that SMs have dedicated anti-ship weaponry. Not the fluff that shows that SMs have a weapon system of the same name as what BFG uses for dedicated anti-ship weaponry.
The Bombardment Cannon is fine for SMs because it is not designed as an anti-ship weapon like a lance, it is much better against stationary defences and performs worse against ships, particularly abeam ships. So this satisfies the "no dedicated anti-ship weapons" proforma. If the Bombardment Cannon is just as powerful against ships as lances are then this implies and inequality of weights firstly, since the BC is clearly better against defences. However, presuming that, due small numbers and rounding this works out to be the case, then it seems to me that this is another argument against SMs getting lances. Why would they need them if their current weaponry is just as good?
Switching out BCs to lances speaks to intent. Even if in the long run they're on a par, it says that the SMs intend to hunt ships, and that they're specifically trying to improve their performance against ships in battle. This is certainly a threat to the IN.
Sig, the entirety of the traitor legions, who all have super speedy long range lance warships, are not really a threat to IN other then by surprise, or in fairly small areas, such as a single sector. Saying that Space Marines putting lances on ships is a threat to IN is like saying that the Royal Navy is a significant threat to a fleet 75 times the size of the one used by the Former Soviet Union and the USA combined. You're literally talking about being outnumbered several thousand to one.
Granted, with Matt Ward writing it, a single Space Marine would use a heavy bolter to destroy all 28k sector fleets before emptying the rest of his clip into the eye of terror and eliminating CSMs forever.
-
No, I'm not missing the point. Sig, they make a very clear point that a lance strike on the ground can only be done if you have a lance weapon on your ship being the lance weapon you fire at other ships. In fact, there are only two types of weapon that may be used for orbital bombardment (other then torpedoes, which one would hope are self explanatory) lances and weapon batteries. (Since Bombardment Cannons count as a macrobattery.) It's, for once, made very clear that the lance fired is a 'ship' lance, not part of a weapon battery. Since it's in a book for RPG weasels, it's, for once, very clear, and air tight. (I can't believe I'll say this, but thank god for Rules Lawyers) Andy Chambers, author guy that he is, even wrote most of both books. I defer to his 'lance=lance'.
Then they shouldn't have written that. Or the rules for lances should not be as they are. The two are mutually exclusive.
Other then the TT 40k orbital strike, no, it exactly matches the mechanic for orbital strikes in this case. Both the fluff and mechanic jibe for once. It is what it says on the tin.
No, they don't match up. You don't see orbital strikes in 40k with a 100m radius. Obviously what is an orbital strike in fluff is significantly different from what constitutes an orbital strike in game.
A quick interruption: in BFG, every weapon is an anti-ship weapon. and people that are far less trustworthy then Space Marines now have access to Virus Bombs, Vortex torps, and Nova cannons.
No, every weapon can be used against ships. Against mobile targets weapons fare worse. Bombardment cannon fare worse. Even torps fare worse. Lances however, do not fare worse. In fact, they fare worse than the alternatives against stationary targets. The only point to taking them in place of the other weapon systems is to use specifically against ships.
I would suggest that if IN is not concerned that people far less trustworthy then space marines are getting their hands on Nova Cannons and Virus Bombs (you cannot get much more threatening then that) then the idea that Space Marines would suddenly all rise up with their lances and defeat IN who would then only outnumber them something like 2k to one is not likely to cause them to loose much sleep.
No one is less trustworthy than SMs. This is because they are more powerful than anyone else. They are far far harder to control. And when they rebel they are far harder to put down and are far more likely to be able to exert influence over Imperial forces. If you throw on top of that no restrictions on their fleets then they are for all intents and purposes uncontrollable.
Virus bombs and Nova cannon are meaningless in the hands of people easily conquered, assassinated or controlled.
Sig, the entirety of the traitor legions, who all have super speedy long range lance warships, are not really a threat to IN other then by surprise, or in fairly small areas, such as a single sector. Saying that Space Marines putting lances on ships is a threat to IN is like saying that the Royal Navy is a significant threat to a fleet 75 times the size of the one used by the Former Soviet Union and the USA combined. You're literally talking about being outnumbered several thousand to one.
What? Of course the traitor legions are a threat. It's absurd to think otherwise. As for the "oh noes, we're outnumbered" idea, they're Space Marines, they're used to fighting against superior numbers. In fact, they're expected to. Also, that overwhelming Imperial Navy is spread out all over the galaxy. If SMs are no threat at all to the Imperium then they're also no use to it. They're numbers are too insignificant to make them worth mentioning. Delete the fleet.
The fact is that that the Imperium wants is to be able to soundly defeat any SM fleet on a 1 for 1 basis. Not on a 2000 to 1 basis. It is natural for Imperial commanders to grow concerned over any steps by the SM in the direction of battlefleet. This includes putting lances on ships.
-
Also, a side note, BI, I take it you're a writer of some sort? Well can you look up the word "than" for me. Utterly irrelevant for this thread, or any other, but thought you might benefit. It is a pet peeve of mine, and I notice it mainly from non-English speakers, such as Germans, Italians, Americans, etc.
-
Then they shouldn't have written that. Or the rules for lances should not be as they are. The two are mutually exclusive.
Sorry. 40k is full of things that are mutually exclusive, I've found.
No, they don't match up. You don't see orbital strikes in 40k with a 100m radius. Obviously what is an orbital strike in fluff is significantly different from what constitutes an orbital strike in game.
That's because there are only two blast templates in 40k, and it's obviously not going to be the small one. Also, Space Marines are individually capable of killing an entire 1500 point IG force in fluff, so I just think of it being nerfed to scale. IIRC in Apoc they use the XL blast template instead, which is about 100m.
No, every weapon can be used against ships. Against mobile targets weapons fare worse. Bombardment cannon fare worse. Even torps fare worse. Lances however, do not fare worse. In fact, they fare worse than the alternatives against stationary targets. The only point to taking them in place of the other weapon systems is to use specifically against ships.
Or against precise targets on the ground, given their much smaller area of mass destruction compared to Weapon batteries. 1km vs 10-20km of damage. The area that armor and cover saves do not apply is fairly small with a lance. Here's what seems to be eluding you. Marines are surgical strike experts. A Bombardment canon deals damage comparable to a nuke, demolishing things for 20km. A lance more comparable to a MOAB, but with better armor penetration on the target. Which is better for close support?
No one is less trustworthy than SMs. This is because they are more powerful than anyone else. They are far far harder to control. And when they rebel they are far harder to put down and are far more likely to be able to exert influence over Imperial forces. If you throw on top of that no restrictions on their fleets then they are for all intents and purposes uncontrollable.
Wait... Space Marines are less trustworthy then Rogue Traders? The paragons of humanity's defenders are less trustworthy then a group that sells out the Imperium on a regular basis, and has, on occasion, destroyed entire Sectors or successfully led them in rebellion against the Imperium. That head up the Inquisitions list of 'the usual Suspects' hot on the heels of Xenos and the Ruinous Powers? That finance and occasionally lead the Crusades that the Imperium uses to conquer sectors. Those guys?
Virus bombs and Nova cannon are meaningless in the hands of people easily conquered, assassinated or controlled.
Assassinating a Rogue Trader is not easy. A lord Sector would actually be simpler. The reason is that it's hard to know where one might turn up next, and most of them are highly paranoid about just that, having survived their own siblings attempts to eliminate them during their rise to power. Considering that Rogue Traders recruit their assassins from the same Death Cults that the Inquisition does, and may, in fact, have their own private death cult on board their ship on the look out for other assassins... well...
The other option is to deploy a navy task force to hunt a rogue trader, but this can also prove difficult. Rogue Traders spend much of their time in areas with little or no Imperial presence to report intelligence on their movements. More frightening, on occasions, IN task forces sent to eliminate a rogue trader have been destroyed, vanished, or worst, been taken by said rogue trader and added to their private fleet.
What? Of course the traitor legions are a threat. It's absurd to think otherwise. As for the "oh noes, we're outnumbered" idea, they're Space Marines, they're used to fighting against superior numbers. In fact, they're expected to. Also, that overwhelming Imperial Navy is spread out all over the galaxy. If SMs are no threat at all to the Imperium then they're also no use to it. They're numbers are too insignificant to make them worth mentioning. Delete the fleet.
The fact is that that the Imperium wants is to be able to soundly defeat any SM fleet on a 1 for 1 basis. Not on a 2000 to 1 basis. It is natural for Imperial commanders to grow concerned over any steps by the SM in the direction of battlefleet. This includes putting lances on ships.
Well, one, most SM fleets are also spread throughout the Imperium. The 'SM fleet' as exists in BFG would be an average chapter amassing their entire fleet in one spot. Which in fluff is nearly unheard of. Most commonly, one or two strike cruisers might be gathered together. Granted, there are chapters such as the Black Templars or Space Wolves which have much larger fleets, but the Armada SM fleet is an anomaly. The Crusade and Dominion fleets make sense in the context of fluff, though Crusade might have some lances, and Dominion should DEFINITELY have 'real' lances, as they are doing the job that normally is preformed BY IN, in regions that IN has no jurisdiction.
OT: as far as 'than' and 'then' when typing on forums or in reviews, I tend to type in the same manner I speak. This does include such verbal oddities as misusing 'than', as in the region I hail from, 'than' and 'then' sound pretty much the same when spoken. You should count yourself fortunate that I mentally edit out such other peculiarities as 'dan tan' for 'down town' and 'warsh' for 'wash'. I hesitate to imagine your suffering in an area where one might be asked to 'red up' or go watch the 'Stellers' play across the 'Mon' while downing an 'imp and arn'.
-
Sorry. 40k is full of things that are mutually exclusive, I've found.
Well, let's hand waive away examples for the moment. Does that mean that we should do the same in BFG? It is my opinion that these fluff authors, and yes, even rules authors, make rules that are inconsistent because they're just not aware of the implications. Law of unintended consequences. In BFG they realised that giving SMs lances would be counter to the main canon fluff. So they tried to rectify the situation by giving them an alternative weapon system and wrote fluff to illustrate the problem (re: the nova).
That's because there are only two blast templates in 40k, and it's obviously not going to be the small one. Also, Space Marines are individually capable of killing an entire 1500 point IG force in fluff, so I just think of it being nerfed to scale. IIRC in Apoc they use the XL blast template instead, which is about 100m.
Or against precise targets on the ground, given their much smaller area of mass destruction compared to Weapon batteries. 1km vs 10-20km of damage. The area that armor and cover saves do not apply is fairly small with a lance. Here's what seems to be eluding you. Marines are surgical strike experts. A Bombardment canon deals damage comparable to a nuke, demolishing things for 20km. A lance more comparable to a MOAB, but with better armor penetration on the target. Which is better for close support?
I find that a little convenient. You're using the fluff to argue for a specific weapon system on SM ships, citing as evidence the rules of a different (related) game system which themselves don't match the fluff. But this discrepancy is fine because there are a lot of other discrepancies in the same game. Not terribly convincing.
As for whether or not SMs have access to pinpoint orbital barrage weaponry, I'm willing to stipulate that they do. But we know that weapon batteries are not made up of a single system, there are in fact many different weapon types in this category. While in BFG they are used for area saturation and can also be used for area saturation in orbital strikes I don't see what makes it impossible to dial back both the number of guns and the intensity of the gun for more precise orbital strikes. I imagine that laser batteries would easily be able to do this. Targeting wouldn't be much of a problem from a geosynchronous orbit. Pretty much simply a matter of striking a stationary target. The point here is that SMs having precise orbital strikes does not necessarily entail lances. The same can be achieved from weapon batteries.
Wait... Space Marines are less trustworthy then Rogue Traders? The paragons of humanity's defenders are less trustworthy then a group that sells out the Imperium on a regular basis, and has, on occasion, destroyed entire Sectors or successfully led them in rebellion against the Imperium. That head up the Inquisitions list of 'the usual Suspects' hot on the heels of Xenos and the Ruinous Powers? That finance and occasionally lead the Crusades that the Imperium uses to conquer sectors. Those guys?
Yes. If you were asking either a Space Marine or a Rogue Trader to babysit for you, the SM would likely be the most trustworthy of the two. However, since you're leaving your children in the hands of the SM then they're the ones that you're going to place a lot more restrictions on. They're the ones you're going to watch out for. Particularly as they've been known to molest children.
This metaphor is pretty much the state of play for the Imperium. They rely upon the SMs. They need them. If they didn't need them they'd have rid themselves of them a long time ago. The SMs are elite, and because of this, and the Imperiums need of them, they're very very hard to control. They are a force unto themselves and do pretty much as they please. The Inquisition has little to no control over them. The only real control the Imperium has over their "child-molesting babysitter" is the IN.
Assassinating a Rogue Trader is not easy. A lord Sector would actually be simpler. The reason is that it's hard to know where one might turn up next, and most of them are highly paranoid about just that, having survived their own siblings attempts to eliminate them during their rise to power. Considering that Rogue Traders recruit their assassins from the same Death Cults that the Inquisition does, and may, in fact, have their own private death cult on board their ship on the look out for other assassins... well...
The other option is to deploy a navy task force to hunt a rogue trader, but this can also prove difficult. Rogue Traders spend much of their time in areas with little or no Imperial presence to report intelligence on their movements. More frightening, on occasions, IN task forces sent to eliminate a rogue trader have been destroyed, vanished, or worst, been taken by said rogue trader and added to their private fleet.
Well I'll have to take your word for al this. But even taken as read, so what? RTs still make up a tremendous minority of threats to the Imperium, and they're dealt with in the same manner any other insurrection. The IN, IG, SM and other imperial bodies respond and eventually put them down. If RTs were that much of a threat then the Imperium would end up placing more restrictions upon them and monitor them more closely.
Well, one, most SM fleets are also spread throughout the Imperium. The 'SM fleet' as exists in BFG would be an average chapter amassing their entire fleet in one spot. Which in fluff is nearly unheard of. Most commonly, one or two strike cruisers might be gathered together. Granted, there are chapters such as the Black Templars or Space Wolves which have much larger fleets, but the Armada SM fleet is an anomaly. The Crusade and Dominion fleets make sense in the context of fluff, though Crusade might have some lances, and Dominion should DEFINITELY have 'real' lances, as they are doing the job that normally is preformed BY IN, in regions that IN has no jurisdiction.
Well, presumably, if a SM chapter were to rebel they would muster their fleet rather than leave it spread. As for the Dominion fleet needing lances, no. SM ships are purpose designed. If they wish to use them for other purposes (such as fleet engagements) then that is up to them. The restrictions against doing so would not be waived simply because the SM have a need. If they really need warships then they requisition IN support. If, for some reason, the IN has no ships spare to aid them, then they make do with the ships they've got.
The restrictions upon SM ships are designed to make them bad at fleet engagements and area control. This is because of Imperium fears of these being used against them. The Imperium isn't afraid of these being used against enemies or for the good and stability of the Imperium so they're "allowed' to make the attempt. They're just not allowed the proper equipment for the job. The IN is their to be called upon should they require assistance in either of these spheres.
OT: as far as 'than' and 'then' when typing on forums or in reviews, I tend to type in the same manner I speak. This does include such verbal oddities as misusing 'than', as in the region I hail from, 'than' and 'then' sound pretty much the same when spoken. You should count yourself fortunate that I mentally edit out such other peculiarities as 'dan tan' for 'down town' and 'warsh' for 'wash'. I hesitate to imagine your suffering in an area where one might be asked to 'red up' or go watch the 'Stellers' play across the 'Mon' while downing an 'imp and arn'.
Heh, well I have encountered the error a lot from yanks on forums and other online sources. This lead me to believe it was a systemic fault, rather than a passing momentary mistake that we all make. I was unsure whether it was an education fault or the result of accent. I thought it might be more an accent thing and this seems to confirm that. What the hell does 'red up', 'Mon' and 'imp and arn' mean? I imagine the Stellers to be some sort of sport team, baseball or gridiron or something so that's not too unintelligible. But the rest ...
-
Off Topic: 'Than' is for comparison. For example, 'Greater than'.
'Then' is for time succession. For example, 'I will paint my models, then I will play a game.'
On Topic: I'd take anything written in the GK codex with a bucket full of salt. The part where the Grey Knights slaughter a bunch of Sisters, smear the blood over their armor before going off to kill demons?.... The semantics of 'lance' are the least of your worries.
-
As for whether or not SMs have access to pinpoint orbital barrage weaponry, I'm willing to stipulate that they do. But we know that weapon batteries are not made up of a single system, there are in fact many different weapon types in this category. While in BFG they are used for area saturation and can also be used for area saturation in orbital strikes I don't see what makes it impossible to dial back both the number of guns and the intensity of the gun for more precise orbital strikes. I imagine that laser batteries would easily be able to do this. Targeting wouldn't be much of a problem from a geosynchronous orbit. Pretty much simply a matter of striking a stationary target. The point here is that SMs having precise orbital strikes does not necessarily entail lances. The same can be achieved from weapon batteries.
While I grant there are a large number of weapon battery variants in fluff, and it might be possible one of them does what you suggest, the problem is that it's not the one officially on a strike cruiser (who's stats lead me to believe it's a mars pattern macrocannon).
This metaphor is pretty much the state of play for the Imperium. They rely upon the SMs. They need them. If they didn't need them they'd have rid themselves of them a long time ago. The SMs are elite, and because of this, and the Imperiums need of them, they're very very hard to control. They are a force unto themselves and do pretty much as they please. The Inquisition has little to no control over them. The only real control the Imperium has over their "child-molesting babysitter" is the IN.
The problem with that is, historically, the IN is the first Imperial organization to go over to the Space Marines when a large scale local insurrection of space marine chapters takes place. (See the Horus Heresy and Badab War). Point of fact, IN has rebelled against the Imperium or joined the Ruinous Powers MORE frequently than (fixed) space marines have.
Well, presumably, if a SM chapter were to rebel they would muster their fleet rather than leave it spread. As for the Dominion fleet needing lances, no. SM ships are purpose designed. If they wish to use them for other purposes (such as fleet engagements) then that is up to them. The restrictions against doing so would not be waived simply because the SM have a need. If they really need warships then they requisition IN support. If, for some reason, the IN has no ships spare to aid them, then they make do with the ships they've got.
Which has on occasion bitten the IN really hard, and directly lead to the near annihilation of Battlefleet Bakka during the First Tyrannic War. It's implied, though not stated, that Ultramar now has it's own defense fleet now, which more or less reports to Calgar, as Ruler of Ultramar, rather than (fixed) Chapter Master of the Ultramarines. In the Imperium, it helps to have several hats, particularly if one is 'Lord Sector'.
The restrictions upon SM ships are designed to make them bad at fleet engagements and area control. This is because of Imperium fears of these being used against them. The Imperium isn't afraid of these being used against enemies or for the good and stability of the Imperium so they're "allowed' to make the attempt. They're just not allowed the proper equipment for the job. The IN is their to be called upon should they require assistance in either of these spheres.
Again, this has never stopped them from simply co-opting the IN sector fleet. This has happened several times in fluff, even though 'officially' they have no or limited authority over IN.
Heh, well I have encountered the error a lot from yanks on forums and other online sources. This lead me to believe it was a systemic fault, rather than a passing momentary mistake that we all make. I was unsure whether it was an education fault or the result of accent. I thought it might be more an accent thing and this seems to confirm that. What the hell does 'red up', 'Mon' and 'imp and arn' mean? I imagine the Stellers to be some sort of sport team, baseball or gridiron or something so that's not too unintelligible. But the rest ...
I welcome yins farginers to da 'Burgh. ;D
Pittspeak fer beginnaz:
Yins guys will learn yas that 'Red up' is 'clean up' or 'straighten up' or, more rarely, 'get ready' (similar to 'ready up' which seems to have been a common slang term for get ready anyplace there was a major train depot) . The 'Mon' in the Monongahela River. 'Chipchop'ed 'am' is very thinly sliced chipped ham in the sanwich at da deli 'n at. An 'imp and arn' is a shot of Crown Imperial and a 'pint' of Iron City. If anyone offers yins an Allergayney Whitefish, do not offer to taste it, it's a condom floating down the river, and they're jerking yer chain, the jagoffs.
And since yins is feelin nebby, the 'Stellers' are, very obviously, the Pittsburgh Steelers. ;)
The sad part is that I haven't lived there for ten years and I still slip up.
-
While I grant there are a large number of weapon battery variants in fluff, and it might be possible one of them does what you suggest, the problem is that it's not the one officially on a strike cruiser (who's stats lead me to believe it's a mars pattern macrocannon).
Well if the choice comes down to giving SMs weaponry they're not supposed to have or hand waiving that they've got the right type of weapon battery to suit their needs, I'll take the latter, as the lesser of two evils.
The problem with that is, historically, the IN is the first Imperial organization to go over to the Space Marines when a large scale local insurrection of space marine chapters takes place. (See the Horus Heresy and Badab War). Point of fact, IN has rebelled against the Imperium or joined the Ruinous Powers MORE frequently than (fixed) space marines have.
No doubt they do. This is likely due to the awesome presence of the SMs themselves. But this is the point. If the SMs are so influential that they can sometimes bring a superior force to their side then what chance would a loyal navy commander have if he were going up against equal or superior ships? As for IN rebellions, whilst all rebellions of any sort are a threat that needs to be put down, they are not of the magnitude of a SM rebellion, because the SMs are superior troops. It is easier to put down human rebellions than SM rebellions.
Which has on occasion bitten the IN really hard, and directly lead to the near annihilation of Battlefleet Bakka during the First Tyrannic War. It's implied, though not stated, that Ultramar now has it's own defense fleet now, which more or less reports to Calgar, as Ruler of Ultramar, rather than (fixed) Chapter Master of the Ultramarines. In the Imperium, it helps to have several hats, particularly if one is 'Lord Sector'.
While I don't doubt that leaving the SMs to do the job of the IN with SM ships could end in catastrophic results, this seems an argument to have the IN take over sector defence more than anything else. Also, the Tyrannic war isn't the best example to bring up, since WBs and BC are actually better against Nids than lances anyway.
Again, this has never stopped them from simply co-opting the IN sector fleet. This has happened several times in fluff, even though 'officially' they have no or limited authority over IN.
Yep, and this is a failure of the commanding officers of the IN forces. Not a failure of policy. If the IN were not able to defeat the SMs on a 1 to 1 basis then this would be a failure of policy. This means that for their rebellion to be successful the SMs depend upon regular humans. This is the point. For a rebellion to be successful it requires more than just the actions of 1 man. Spreading the power makes rebellions much harder. Who knows how many rebellions have been stopped before they started because the SMs doubted their ability to convert/destroy the local IN force?
I welcome yins farginers to da 'Burgh. ;D
Pittspeak fer beginnaz:
Yins guys will learn yas that 'Red up' is 'clean up' or 'straighten up' or, more rarely, 'get ready' (similar to 'ready up' which seems to have been a common slang term for get ready anyplace there was a major train depot) . The 'Mon' in the Monongahela River. 'Chipchop'ed 'am' is very thinly sliced chipped ham in the sanwich at da deli 'n at. An 'imp and arn' is a shot of Crown Imperial and a 'pint' of Iron City. If anyone offers yins an Allergayney Whitefish, do not offer to taste it, it's a condom floating down the river, and they're jerking yer chain, the jagoffs.
And since yins is feelin nebby, the 'Stellers' are, very obviously, the Pittsburgh Steelers. ;)
The sad part is that I haven't lived there for ten years and I still slip up.
Wow. That's, er, weird.
-
No doubt they do. This is likely due to the awesome presence of the SMs themselves. But this is the point. If the SMs are so influential that they can sometimes bring a superior force to their side then what chance would a loyal navy commander have if he were going up against equal or superior ships? As for IN rebellions, whilst all rebellions of any sort are a threat that needs to be put down, they are not of the magnitude of a SM rebellion, because the SMs are superior troops. It is easier to put down human rebellions than SM rebellions.
Except that historically, with the exception of the Horus Heresy and the Badab War, it's been the other way around. It's Space Marine rebellions that have been quickly and easily squashed, and not by the IN at all, but by their fellow Space Marines, and it's been IN rebellions that have been vastly more successful, to the extent that the Nova Terra Interregnum lasted the better part of a thousand years when the entire Segmentum Pacificus broke from the Imperium. Space Marines were largely uninvolved.
While I don't doubt that leaving the SMs to do the job of the IN with SM ships could end in catastrophic results, this seems an argument to have the IN take over sector defence more than anything else. Also, the Tyrannic war isn't the best example to bring up, since WBs and BC are actually better against Nids than lances anyway.
The point was that there are locations such as Ultramar that are, effectively, not part of the Imperium, for one reason or another. The Emperor set aside Ultramar for all intents and purposes as a smaller, allied, kingdom. The Inquisition has found this infuriating, as it technically means that they have no authority there, and have placed such surveillance equipment as they can in orbit around the planets of that region, since they're apparently forbidden to have actual agents there without the Ultramarines invitation.
Yep, and this is a failure of the commanding officers of the IN forces. Not a failure of policy. If the IN were not able to defeat the SMs on a 1 to 1 basis then this would be a failure of policy. This means that for their rebellion to be successful the SMs depend upon regular humans. This is the point. For a rebellion to be successful it requires more than just the actions of 1 man. Spreading the power makes rebellions much harder. Who knows how many rebellions have been stopped before they started because the SMs doubted their ability to convert/destroy the local IN force?
If fluff is to be believed, None. You're forgetting that Space Marines are conditioned against feeling doubt.
Let me give you a scenario: In secret a chapter goes bad. It's been made very plain in the past that Space Marines have full access to the IN's facilities, ostensibly for repair and refit. Two or three squads of space marines have, in the past, proven more then able to take over an entire cruisers.
The standard IN procedure during what passes for peace in a sector is a series of years long patrols where only a handful are in port at any given time, and only use a handful of depots and ports.
What's to stop the space marines from taking over each ship, one at a time, as they reach dock, either taking command themselves or replacing the command crew with chapter serfs? Particularly since fluff has a Master of the Fleet having command access on the same level as a Lord Admiral. Theoretically, they could replace almost the entire fleet's officers before anyone would suspect a thing.
Wow. That's, er, weird.
Like any other language, English has regional dialects. At least it's not as bad as Spanish where whole verb conjugations get dropped or Chinese where, before the modern era, some dialects were so thick that they were only bound by a common written language.
-
I wouldnt actually blame the new codex for contradicting fluff.
I haven't seen or read the new GK codex but it sound like they have got the ideas from previous sources.
Back in early 2003 there was a short story in White Dwarf written by Graham McNeill called rise of the zombies. It was about an inquisitor, his retinue and a Thunderhawk complement's of grey knights all trying to destroy/banish some demon and a mass grave's worth of zombies.
When the mission went belly up and they had to retreat and withdraw from the area the Inquisitor called for a lance strike from starship that had brought them there. Since they had deployed by Thunderhawk the implication is that it was marine ship.
Interestingly in that very same WD is an excellent specialist games article about a game called BFG. Something called "To Cleanse the Stars" (sound familiar?) and it was all about space marine fleets. Exactly the same BFG fluff we are used to (i.e only Novas get lances etc etc)
Now whether this lance is exactly the same lance as the anti ship lances or a sub set of another weapon system is open to debate - its only a name
-
That's not too bad. A couple times I've seen them put two totally contradicting statements on the same page from the same author, let alone in the same publication with two different ones.
-
I welcome yins farginers to da 'Burgh. ;D
Pittspeak fer beginnaz:
Yins guys will learn yas that 'Red up' is 'clean up' or 'straighten up' or, more rarely, 'get ready' (similar to 'ready up' which seems to have been a common slang term for get ready anyplace there was a major train depot) . The 'Mon' in the Monongahela River. 'Chipchop'ed 'am' is very thinly sliced chipped ham in the sanwich at da deli 'n at. An 'imp and arn' is a shot of Crown Imperial and a 'pint' of Iron City. If anyone offers yins an Allergayney Whitefish, do not offer to taste it, it's a condom floating down the river, and they're jerking yer chain, the jagoffs.
And since yins is feelin nebby, the 'Stellers' are, very obviously, the Pittsburgh Steelers. ;)
The sad part is that I haven't lived there for ten years and I still slip up.
That. Is. Awesome.
-Zhukov
-
I live right outside the region where people inside really talk like the Saturday Night Live "DAAAAAAA bears..." people. Chicago has a pretty hideous accent. At least I'm not from WisCAAAnsin... Or England *ducks*
JK :-X
....or Pittsburg
-
LOL Don diss da city of Chaaampians.
-
Taking 2 specialist games Epic and BFG, lances can kill ships or Titans, they don't or can't aim them at a rhino, squad of men or garden shed!
Occassionally the 'Orbital strike relay' or equivelent has been described more sensibly as a marker light for low/sub Orbital bombers.
A lance strike would hit an entire 40K board. Forget the template! ;)
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Taking 2 specialist games Epic and BFG, lances can kill ships or Titans, they don't or can't aim them at a rhino, squad of men or garden shed!
Occassionally the 'Orbital strike relay' or equivelent has been described more sensibly as a marker light for low/sub Orbital bombers.
A lance strike would hit an entire 40K board. Forget the template! ;)
Cheers,
RayB HA
Ray, I can't say I've ever read that sub orbital bombers description anywhere.
The problem is that now we have 4 different explanations, including the one where you're radioing co-ordinates to an orbiting starship which make a bakers dozen skill checks and then pulls the trigger (FFG) that there's a magic same name weapon that never gets mentioned elsewhere (Sigoroth), that the ship is firing with a reduced yield (Ultramarines, Planetstrike), or that it's a weapon battery being mistaken for a lance strike by the authors.
Personally, I want to know, how, on any of them, attenuation is so bad that a weapon 50m in diameter fires a beam 500m in diameter?
-
50m does not necessarily have to translate to a 500m diameter at the end although lenses could increase the diameter by the tie the lance strike hits land.
However, the more realistic answer is the effect of the lance strike can cover 500m area and this includes the explosion generated by said strike.
-
BaronIveagh,
After a fair while searching through my codexes I think I hit upon where I read the description. Planetstrike! So 'that' really is low orbital aircraft strikes rather than low orbit strikes from a space ship. It is what it is.
Strikes from a ship in low orbit are too broad to be represented in 40K except as a time limit for the game or prior to deployment!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
BaronIveagh,
After a fair while searching through my codexes I think I hit upon where I read the description. Planetstrike! So 'that' really is low orbital aircraft strikes rather than low orbit strikes from a space ship. It is what it is.
Strikes from a ship in low orbit are too broad to be represented in 40K except as a time limit for the game or prior to deployment!
Cheers,
RayB HA
Ray, if you might pick up that copy of planetstrike, it also has, on page 64, three strike cruisers firing lances at a single greater daemon of nurgle.
D'Art: The description literally says that the beam is 500m in width at point of impact, with additional damage for a km. (Though it is not clear if it's due to an explosion or the thermal effects of the beam) Though again, why would there be an explosion at all? Logically, it would just leave a pool of molten rock and fires from thermal effects, though I know mushroom clouds look cooler to animators, it really doesn't compute unless the atmosphere is a lot higher in oxygen then the standard mix.
-
You know... art and all... artists sometimes have no clue.
In the Rogue Trader Corebook they have this cool image of two Tau Protectors (in the Koronus Expanse? lol) attacking an Imperial vessel. All well.... but the Tau Protectors are firing laser/beams/guns/direct fire from their keel LAUNCH BAY.
Such a great image ruined by stupidity of the artist.
-
BaronIveagh,
I think I'm gonna be sick! ;)
I'm going to have to translate 'lance strike' as something similar to a single BC shot with limited yeild or something similar. 'Lance strike' and 'Lance' are obviously 2 different things! :)
The 'blast wave' from a lance could easily be the atmosphere being heated up so rapidly that it is a blast wave. Just like with really huge nukes! (although they have blast waves anyway).
horizon,
That's the Mantas firing on their way out of the launch bay! Mantas are just that good! ;D
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
You know... art and all... artists sometimes have no clue.
In the Rogue Trader Corebook they have this cool image of two Tau Protectors (in the Koronus Expanse? lol) attacking an Imperial vessel. All well.... but the Tau Protectors are firing laser/beams/guns/direct fire from their keel LAUNCH BAY.
Such a great image ruined by stupidity of the artist.
LOL again, don't blame that one on FFG, that was all BL's doing. FFG just recycled the art without bothering to go 'Wait a min...' (Besides, The Expanse has kroot and a warpgate to the Jericho Reach. There might very well be a handful of Tau that have snuck into the Expanse before the portal was found and fortified by the Imperium. There are kroot warspheres,why not tau?)
Ray, hate to break it to you, but FFG beat you to the punch. A 'lance strike' is defined as a star ship firing it's lance weapon at a planet in support of ground troops (and they actually have separate rules for BCs and WB fire, moving the ship into position, and how much damage the primary strike and secondary blast do to both individual targets and entire regiments.)
Eh, if it was something with a longer duration, I'd agree on the heat effect, but this would be more like a thunderclap that deals damage as a frag missile to everything for half a km.
GW licensing the right to make ship fluff to a 3rd party is going to make things odd for a long time, I think.
-
BaronI, I don't blame it on FFG (well maybe a bit ;) ) but more on the artist.
-
Wait FFG makes canon?! Really? GW can't possibly have dedicated the resources to proof read RPG's, I don't think the care.... :-\
-
Yup, GW has stated FFG = Canon.
-
Yup. FFG may only publish GW IP if GW approved of it. Alan Merrit wrote the foreword to Rogue Trader RPG.
Funnily enough he writes that the first game GW though about all those years ago was about huge ships fighting in space. But that miniature making was the problem. Citadel came along with space marines and the rest is history...
-
Scary stuff, I'll have to buy RT so I can add my scriblings.
Cheers,
RayB HA