Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[Vaaish]

Is the no-lance policy in the Codex Astartes?  I thought it as just an Imperial policy.
A current lack of options doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.

We can't base arguments on what might happen in the future. However we can say that since the codex astartes list, as it's called in Armada, doesn't have access to lances, lances are not an option available to SC based on the codex astartes.

We all agree it wouldn't be a common SC build, but thats like saying Imperials don't have nova cannons because epic doesn't give them an option to lob one down from orbit, or 'marines have only one fist, because they don't have two melee attacks per model'.

Incorrect. Epic is a source. the fact that they aren't given pinpoint attacks reinforces the fact that the codex list in armada doesn't have access to them either. Saying, they might, is pure conjecture that doesn't heed the facts we have.

So the line of thought here is 'because there are more gladius than novas, there would be no lances on SM capital ships'?

No. The line of thought is this: what make the nova different from the galdius. Since the gladius is a very common craft the IN must not have issue with it. So what's the difference? The nova has a lance and a slight bit more speed. Since the difference between an uncomfortable IN and one that take no issue with the gladius is for all intents and purposes the lance we have to conclude that the IN is uncomfortable with lances in the possession of the marine fleet. This is reinforced by the nova entry itself where it says that the lance is one of the defining points of the Nova being a gunboat. Following that, if the IN take issue with lances on marine escorts, why would they accept them on capital ships, especially capital ships they are building to give to Marine chapters? Capital ships are a much greater threat because they are much more difficult to eliminate than an escort.

Now with the crusade list we, grudgingly, have an option for a lance. Given that most chapters follow the codex and most chapters are equipped with SC built by the admech to codex specifications, we can safely conclude that such an option should be rare and expensive if necessary at all in the scope of BFG. That's what we have now. A single lance that costs 20 points and replaces s3 BC. Now you say that's too much, it's not worth it. But think about this, if you take 6 strike cruisers, you've used over half your points in a 1500 point list. That means you can take three lances which costs you another 60 points. At the end of the day, all it costs you is about the price of a single escort to break as far from codex as you can with extra lances. Maybe not the most competitive, but the option is there if you insist on it.

[horizon]

Did LS just really posted he did not see a single argument?

Sand in your eyes! Jeeee.....

[Sigoroth]

In otherwords: 'I refuse to acknowledge any evidence, even if it exists, that my view is flawed.  I will go to Orwellian extremes of doublethink to not admit it exists."

NO! It is you who refuse to accept evidence. You think that the only possible evidence is fluff! You ignore the fact that what you posit would be internally inconsistent with canon and so if it were to be true would make a mockery of the ENTIRE 40k universe!

Since accepting this fluff would make all fluff worthless then the only logical choice remains to reject the fluff. Therefore there is no fluff you can provide that can prove your case. You would have to reconcile the inconsistencies first, which you have not done.

Sigoroth, while I respect Vaaish for making a reasonable, though I don't agree with his stance, argument against my position, this entire rant here is just the forum equivalent of stomping your feet, pouting, and calling people dirty names.  It does not advance your cause.

That you mistake a call to think for pouting just shows that you're unclear as what is required. Let me establish what you would need in order to win this argument:

Evidence of game imbalance
Clear evidentiary support for the concept
Rationalising the possibility against known Imperial policy

For the first of these lances are not needed to achieve. Therefore your argument is up shit creek to begin with. For the second of these you've shown unclear support, from dubious sources using inference and playing upon the author's ignorance of what constitutes a lance in BFG.

You have actually insisted that a weapon fired by a space ship in orbit is not the same as the same weapon fired by the same space ship at another space ship.  Epic makes it very clear that these are the same weapons.  This argument of yours is invalid, and has been for some time.

So you're saying that the authors of these books and rules decided that Space Marines had to have anti-ship guns in order to be able to properly execute an orbital strike? If so, then who gives a flying fuck what these monkey brained morons decided!? All fluff and sources stating that SMs have lances on their Strike Cruisers and Battlebarges is henceforth rejected as retarded. Done.

Now, if they didn't say that SMs need an anti-ship gun for an orbital bombardment and what they actually decided was that SMs need a precision bombardment then this can be achieved via existing weaponry. No need to add lances.

The FACT is that lances are not a weapon, but a category of weapon. It is even a term that spans the different scales of 40k, from giant shipboard weapons in BFG to man portable weapons on the ground. The term 'lance' simply means pinpoint attack. What constitutes a pinpoint attack on the scale of BFG would not be the same as that in 40k.

So while it may be possible for SMs to make a pinpoint orbital strike in just what manner should this transfer across to pinpoint anti-ship attacks? Because of the nomenclature used? Don't you find this to be the biggest stretch ever? Try it from this point of view, replace all instances of the word 'lance' in all fluff and rules with 'pinpoint attack'. A rose by any other name ... as the saying goes. So, now do you think that what constitutes a pinpoint attack on the scale of 40k (ie, a handheld weapon) is the same thing as a pinpoint attack from orbit (which is a shipboard weapon)? Similarly, does firing a pinpoint attack against a target measured in the metres or, at most, tens of metres a few hundred kilometres away amount to the same as a pinpoint attack against a target up to 5km long some 30,000 kms away? Again, the scale is simply too different. If you fired one of these weapons as an orbital strike you'd vaporise a building, if not a city block, not a single man or vehicle.

And I play IN.  Can't say I actually own a single space marine... anything, come to think of it, since I sold that Emp Champ on ebay.  I have a nice IG army, and I think tolerable IN and Chaos fleet, but I am am not fond of two things: FAI and gimping other people's armies out of a sense of pique.  I get that you hate space marines, in a 'Two minutes' hate' sort of way.  I follow this.  

I actually do own a Space Marine army and a Space Marine fleet. I have argued to try to improve the SM fleet. I campaigned for greater variety and extra survivability. I also argue for cheaper escorts. So how am I a SM 'hater'? The fact is that SMs are not gimped by the absence of lances. You have also argued using false pretences. You've argued that SMs should get lances for fluff reasons. In actual fact you want them simply so that they get more efficient gunnery. This is unfluffy and unnecessary.

But you're wrong.  You may not wish to admit it (even if the Emperor and Rick Preistly both came to your house with an engraved tablet that said so), but the facts do not support your hypothesis.

Logic does not support your hypothesis, therefore yours is wrong. it's inescapable. If Rick Priestly came on here and stated that SMs have lances then he would be wrong. This is because it is incompatible with what he has already said. So he was either wrong then or wrong now, so either way he's wrong. If I make up a universe that runs according to a set of rules and then introduce something that breaks those rules then others are just as capable of pointing out my mistake as I am of doing the same in this case.  

[Sigoroth]

You know, I've just figured out a way to give SMs lances. What we do is create a WB type weapon called a "Lance" and then rename the lance category of weaponry to something else. Then SMs can have "lances".

The fact is that there is no evidence at all that Space Marines have this category of purely anti-ship weaponry.

[BaronIveagh]

If the WH codex rules haven't been changed then you can't reconcile the differences. You can't deny epic is official and it specifically states that the pinpoint attack can't target anything smaller than a WE. Since the new FAQ has removed the lance strike you have to fall back on epic as being correct and the WH codex rules representing something other than such a strike since they now represent a generic bombardment.

Side note: the inaccuracy rule has been removed but it has been replaced with 2d6 deviation from the designated point which makes it more inaccurate most times.

Not sure I'm following, the C:WH FAQ didn't change it's options, so one orbital strike is still the lance strike, unlike the Damocles.  This is due to the WH's ability to call down Pske-out warheads, so their ability was left alone to avoid breaking it.  Since they're still calling in co-ordinates to an orbiting starship, I do not see how that invalidates my position.  And, converted to real world terms, it would scatter about ten yards on average

It was a random number for ease of calculation. 1% assumes that at least 50 chapters deviate from the codex and operate at least two lance armed strike cruisers.

I would dispute that 12% is anywhere near accurate. What may constitute 12% of the descriptions doesn't represent 12% of the total SC force. We have very few actual SM SC firing lances in descriptions, assuming they all are speaking of lances, in relation to the total number of SC we estimate to exist. Even if they factor highly in every novel with each having a different vessel described we are still an extremely small percentage of that estimated 10k SC.

True, as I said, the results are being skewed by a small sample.  We have very few descriptions of SC at all, when you get down to it.  Emperor's Finest and Soulhunter provide about the best descriptions.

The only interesting item of note is that the Blood Angels have at least one SC the same class as the Covenant, the Malevolent.  One of the Blood Angels that board her in Soulhunter mentally comments on how he is able to navigate the ship from memory, having just left the Malevolent and makes a comparison.  "On board the Malevolent, this room was a chapel to the Emperor of Mankind. On the Covenant, it looked to be some kind of communal haven for slaves." - Soulhunter, chapter 20

Known loyalist variant strike cruisers from fluff:

Llyan (Storm Warriors, Lance) [The Emperor's Will, Inferno]
Tigris (Storm Warriors, Lance) [The Emperor's Will, Inferno]
Malevolant (Blood Angels, probable lance) [Soul Hunter]
Fidelis (Blood Angels, specialized mine layer system [LB alt?]) [Blood Angels Omnibus]
Vae Victus (Ultramarines, additional weapon: forward torpedoes) [Ultramarines Omnibus]
Aurora (Imperial Fists, Lance) [Rynns World]
Verde (Imperial Fists, Lance)[Rynn's World]
Vulcan's Wrath (Salamanders, planetary landing capability[clarification: not drop pods, the ENTIRE SHIP landing, though it crashes in the novel, it is stated to be able to take off again, under normal circumstances]) [not unknown in fluff for 40k ships, surprisingly, though uncommon in a ship the size of a light cruiser.]  [Salamander]
Three unnamed strike cruisers (Marines Vindicant, Lance) [Planetstrike]


From canvassing fluff, the only one I haven't found any sign of is the carrier variant with extra LBs.  

Did LS just really posted he did not see a single argument?

Sand in your eyes! Jeeee.....

Vaaish presents some logical argument.  Sigoroth... well, it's easy to miss Vaaish in Sigoroths ranting walls of text.  

So you're saying that the authors of these books and rules decided that Space Marines had to have anti-ship guns in order to be able to properly execute an orbital strike? If so, then who gives a flying fuck what these monkey brained morons decided!? All fluff and sources stating that SMs have lances on their Strike Cruisers and Battlebarges is henceforth rejected as retarded. Done.

You know, you're just digging yourself deeper.  Since it's those 'monkey brained morons' that decide what is and is not canon.  Not you.  Not me.  And they're the same guys that decide what does and does not get approved for BFG.  

Further, refusing all evidence of lances and item 3 in your earlier statement makes your whole argument circular logic.  

The FACT is that lances are not a weapon, but a category of weapon. It is even a term that spans the different scales of 40k, from giant shipboard weapons in BFG to man portable weapons on the ground. The term 'lance' simply means pinpoint attack. What constitutes a pinpoint attack on the scale of BFG would not be the same as that in 40k.

So while it may be possible for SMs to make a pinpoint orbital strike in just what manner should this transfer across to pinpoint anti-ship attacks? Because of the nomenclature used? Don't you find this to be the biggest stretch ever? Try it from this point of view, replace all instances of the word 'lance' in all fluff and rules with 'pinpoint attack'. A rose by any other name ... as the saying goes. So, now do you think that what constitutes a pinpoint attack on the scale of 40k (ie, a handheld weapon) is the same thing as a pinpoint attack from orbit (which is a shipboard weapon)? Similarly, does firing a pinpoint attack against a target measured in the metres or, at most, tens of metres a few hundred kilometres away amount to the same as a pinpoint attack against a target up to 5km long some 30,000 kms away? Again, the scale is simply too different. If you fired one of these weapons as an orbital strike you'd vaporise a building, if not a city block, not a single man or vehicle.

Um, Siggy, a lance in tabletop 40k DOES vaporize a building sized area.  You're confusing eldar lances with Imperial lances. In 40k, an Imperial lance strike a large template weapon and, despite attenuation from the atmosphere, is still a str 10 ap 1 hit.  

[Vaaish]

Not sure I'm following, the C:WH FAQ didn't change it's options, so one orbital strike is still the lance strike, unlike the Damocles.  This is due to the WH's ability to call down Pske-out warheads, so their ability was left alone to avoid breaking it.  Since they're still calling in co-ordinates to an orbiting starship, I do not see how that invalidates my position.  And, converted to real world terms, it would scatter about ten yards on average

Basically we have two contradictory rule sets. Epic is still an official rule set which very specifically states that pinpoint attacks just can't target anything smaller than a war engine similar in size to a baneblade. You also have WH which says you can just send up the coordinates and have a lance strike wherever you wish. Both are somewhat inaccurate. Epic giving you 16% odds or so of a miss and only 33% odds of doing full damage while WH just scatters 2d6. Since neither is more official than the other we can't easily reconcile the differing methods. There is a possibility that what you have happening is the epic strikes are more accurate because the cogitators are capable of locking a target while the WH strikes are more representative of what happens when you can't actually lock a target causing the strikes to be more scattered. 30 feet is a pretty good ways to miss a target by.

The only interesting item of note is that the Blood Angels have at least one SC the same class as the Covenant, the Malevolent.  One of the Blood Angels that board her in Soulhunter mentally comments on how he is able to navigate the ship from memory, having just left the Malevolent and makes a comparison.  "On board the Malevolent, this room was a chapel to the Emperor of Mankind. On the Covenant, it looked to be some kind of communal haven for slaves." - Soulhunter, chapter 20

All I can say is that Blood Angels are one of the old legions so it's not unlikely they would be operating similar craft at the time. This whole thing only came into effect after the heresy. Whether the ship is still in service is another issue and if so, such a craft would likely fall under the purview of the VBB rules. In fact, a good portion of those examples you list belong to the original legions. My point in all this is that while there could be the possibility these older chapters would have lance armed strike cruisers they won't be a strike cruiser in the sense of what BFG uses and fall neatly under the VBB category. Anything else would be so rare as to be virtually non-existent in wider picture which is something the 20 point price ensures.

[BaronIveagh]

Basically we have two contradictory rule sets. Epic is still an official rule set which very specifically states that pinpoint attacks just can't target anything smaller than a war engine similar in size to a baneblade. You also have WH which says you can just send up the coordinates and have a lance strike wherever you wish. Both are somewhat inaccurate. Epic giving you 16% odds or so of a miss and only 33% odds of doing full damage while WH just scatters 2d6. Since neither is more official than the other we can't easily reconcile the differing methods. There is a possibility that what you have happening is the epic strikes are more accurate because the cogitators are capable of locking a target while the WH strikes are more representative of what happens when you can't actually lock a target causing the strikes to be more scattered. 30 feet is a pretty good ways to miss a target by.

Ok, that makes sense then.  Neither is totally irreconcilable, it's just two different methods of targeting.  A man on the ground feeding targeting co-ordinates isn't going to be as accurate as a cogitator the size of a city block at calculating relative speed and position.

And, when you're firing a ten foot bullet, 30 feet isn't a big miss.  Though the men on the ground might feel differently. 

All I can say is that Blood Angels are one of the old legions so it's not unlikely they would be operating similar craft at the time. This whole thing only came into effect after the heresy. Whether the ship is still in service is another issue and if so, such a craft would likely fall under the purview of the VBB rules. In fact, a good portion of those examples you list belong to the original legions. My point in all this is that while there could be the possibility these older chapters would have lance armed strike cruisers they won't be a strike cruiser in the sense of what BFG uses and fall neatly under the VBB category. Anything else would be so rare as to be virtually non-existent in wider picture which is something the 20 point price ensures.

Ok, that still wouldn't make sense though because the Imperial Fists had no ships left after the Heresy.  The ones not destroyed in the defense of Terra were taken by the Black Templars when Dorn's legion broke up, other then the Phalanx.  The Marines Vindicant had the most, and they aren't a second founding chapter, and they don't appear in any other sources.  It can be conjectured, due to their having a landraider Redeemer, that they may be a chapter that is urban combat oriented from a later founding.  Which would explain the lances, as flattening the area just means more cover for the enemy when fighting an entrenched army.

[Vaaish]

And, when you're firing a ten foot bullet, 30 feet isn't a big miss.  Though the men on the ground might feel differently. 

tell that to the squad of terminators that it scatters off. 30 feet is more than enough to miss whatever is at the coordinates. In fact 30 feet is almost enough to miss a warhound or baneblade.

Ok, that still wouldn't make sense though because the Imperial Fists had no ships left after the Heresy.  The ones not destroyed in the defense of Terra were taken by the Black Templars when Dorn's legion broke up, other then the Phalanx.  The Marines Vindicant had the most, and they aren't a second founding chapter, and they don't appear in any other sources.  It can be conjectured, due to their having a landraider Redeemer, that they may be a chapter that is urban combat oriented from a later founding.  Which would explain the lances, as flattening the area just means more cover for the enemy when fighting an entrenched army.

I was referring to the total number of variants not just suspected lance boats. Marines vindicant are still suspect to me. No information means they could just as well be one of the unnamed 2nd founding utramarine chapters and lances wouldn't make sense on them if they want to flatten areas. Bombardment cannons and weapons batteries do a much better job of that kind of thing.

What I wrote does still apply. The modern strike cruiser doesn't just magically appear one day. There had to be some development of the class preheresy culminating in the specialized ship we see becoming standard after the heresy ended. Since during the heresy the class had lances, it seems reasonable that some of these made it to chapters before the codex became accepted eventually becoming venerated if they survived. The IF had to get more ships from somewhere if the BT ran off with the entire fleet (which seems rather petty of them to not leave some vessels for their parent chapter) so it's possible that they had a couple of older style craft transferred from other chapters or a few left when the BT took the fleet.

[BaronIveagh]

I was referring to the total number of variants not just suspected lance boats. Marines vindicant are still suspect to me. No information means they could just as well be one of the unnamed 2nd founding utramarine chapters and lances wouldn't make sense on them if they want to flatten areas. Bombardment cannons and weapons batteries do a much better job of that kind of thing.

What I wrote does still apply. The modern strike cruiser doesn't just magically appear one day. There had to be some development of the class preheresy culminating in the specialized ship we see becoming standard after the heresy ended. Since during the heresy the class had lances, it seems reasonable that some of these made it to chapters before the codex became accepted eventually becoming venerated if they survived. The IF had to get more ships from somewhere if the BT ran off with the entire fleet (which seems rather petty of them to not leave some vessels for their parent chapter) so it's possible that they had a couple of older style craft transferred from other chapters or a few left when the BT took the fleet.

I was going to suggest Salamanders or Imperial Fists.  They paint their armor black to seek death in battle at one point, have a landraider that's a very very recent pattern, making it less then a century old, and the hunt-and-slay pattern point to those two founding chapters.
Personally, I figure that, since they were at Terra, having Mars build them new ones while they repaired the defenses would make sense.  And Dorn pretty much gave away the farm when he finally agreed, giving each of the successors pretty much whatever they wanted, including his own side arm at one point, apparently.

My theory is that the current SC was common among the Ultramarines.  If their ships follow the pattern of the rest of their equipment, a successor chapter tries to emulate their parent chapter's equipment as closely as possible.  Since the HLoT tend to favor using Ultramarines for new foundings, logically the majority of those chapters would embrace patters favored by the Ultramarines. 

Personally, I always liked the idea of, if not chapter specific fleets, fleet lists based on first founding chapters.  This would allow for a lot of interesting variants without treading too hard on the fluff.

[Sigoroth]

Vaaish presents some logical argument.  Sigoroth... well, it's easy to miss Vaaish in Sigoroths ranting walls of text.  

What!? My arguments are based entirely upon logic. It's just that you aren't qualifying logic as a valid argument!

You know, you're just digging yourself deeper.  Since it's those 'monkey brained morons' that decide what is and is not canon.  Not you.  Not me.  And they're the same guys that decide what does and does not get approved for BFG.  

Further, refusing all evidence of lances and item 3 in your earlier statement makes your whole argument circular logic.  

You obviously have no idea what circular means. An example of a circular argument would be: I know God exists because the bible tells me so. I know the bible is true because it's the word of God. Note, this does not mean that God does not exist, merely that the argument is unconvincing.

The fact is you refuse to accept other forms of evidence. You only accept fluff, regardless of the implications of that fluff, though you sure do pad your own argument on a whole lot of inference. Logic is of greater importance.

Oh, and no, those monkey brained morons do not get to decide what is canon. To qualify as canon, fluff has to be from an authoritative source to begin with. This discounts the vast bulk of the fluff you present. Novels are not authoritative sources. On top of this however, the fluff has to be plausible and also internally consistent with pre-established fluff. An example of implausible fluff is the death of Eldrad Ulthran. So even if an authoritative source backed your stance then it would still be wrong.

I'll give you an example. If I wrote a fictional universe setting wherein I laid down a ground rule of two particular races being genetically incompatible and then, some point down the track forget this and had a half-breed character then that would be flat out wrong. That is to say, you can't hold them both to be true at once. "Ahah! This canonical fluff says that they can't interbreed, so there are no half-breeds" "Ahah! This canonical fluff says that there is a half-breed". Therefore fluff coming from an authoritative source does not, in itself make it canonical. It is a necessary requirement, but not a sufficient one.

So when I reject your continual presentation of bad fluff then I am rejecting a nonsensical argument. All you're doing is asserting (poorly) the "half-breeds exist" argument.

Um, Siggy, a lance in tabletop 40k DOES vaporize a building sized area.  You're confusing eldar lances with Imperial lances. In 40k, an Imperial lance strike a large template weapon and, despite attenuation from the atmosphere, is still a str 10 ap 1 hit.

That "large template" is about the size of land raider. Hardly building smashing. But either way, any other weaponry could be used to this effect. So why should other weaponry be used rather than lances? Because in the rules for Battlefleet Gothic a lance is an anti-ship weapon. Space Marines should not have anti-ship weapons. If we called lances, I don't know, space squirrels, and made 'lances' a form of weapon battery type weapon then Space Marines could have 'lances'. They could not have 'space squirrels' however. There is no fluff to suggest that Space Marines should have pure anti-ship weapons, so your entire argument is one of nomenclature.

All of this on top of the fact that your argument is terribly dubious to begin with, even if you bought into the premise that you could hold two pieces of contradictory fluff to be simultaneously true.

[barras1511]

Let us say the people who want lances get their way, what would you want to give up? I have to say as a Dark Angel player I can see the fluff allowing some chapter variance within in the Imperium. I can also see heresy being declared against any chapter who are seen as a chaotic threat who threaten the main stream and have to be made examples of. Changes within the armies of the Space Marines allows versitility on the battle ground and can be seen from a generals perspective as a tactical necessity. For the Imperium to ignore the SM navy building up in its strength from a transportation navy to it having true antiship capacity would be seen as a viable threat and would be dealt with in a most infamous fashion as that chapter is burnt from the pages of the Imperiums histories so that others would never again make the same mistake. The Imperials will never again allow the SM from rebelling again even at the cost of the Empire.
 

[BaronIveagh]

The fact is you refuse to accept other forms of evidence. You only accept fluff, regardless of the implications of that fluff, though you sure do pad your own argument on a whole lot of inference. Logic is of greater importance.

Oh, and no, those monkey brained morons do not get to decide what is canon. To qualify as canon, fluff has to be from an authoritative source to begin with. This discounts the vast bulk of the fluff you present. Novels are not authoritative sources. On top of this however, the fluff has to be plausible and also internally consistent with pre-established fluff. An example of implausible fluff is the death of Eldrad Ulthran. So even if an authoritative source backed your stance then it would still be wrong.

I'll give you an example. If I wrote a fictional universe setting wherein I laid down a ground rule of two particular races being genetically incompatible and then, some point down the track forget this and had a half-breed character then that would be flat out wrong. That is to say, you can't hold them both to be true at once. "Ahah! This canonical fluff says that they can't interbreed, so there are no half-breeds" "Ahah! This canonical fluff says that there is a half-breed". Therefore fluff coming from an authoritative source does not, in itself make it canonical. It is a necessary requirement, but not a sufficient one.

So when I reject your continual presentation of bad fluff then I am rejecting a nonsensical argument. All you're doing is asserting (poorly) the "half-breeds exist" argument.

Actually, I might point out that back in first edition, halfbreeds were possible and did exist, and there are actually 2 examples of it.  It's AFTER that they Eldar and humans became incompatible.  Chronology is backwards there.

Further: your statement was: evidence will not be accepted - evidence must be provided.  Ahem: prove to me your prime directive is not your prime directive. And in that you are correct, it's a paradox, not circular logic. 

If novels are not authoritative sources, and codecies are not authoritative sources and rulebooks are not authoritative sources, then there are no authoritative sources on 40k, and therefor there are no authoritative sources that lances are prohibited.

That "large template" is about the size of land raider. Hardly building smashing. But either way, any other weaponry could be used to this effect. So why should other weaponry be used rather than lances? Because in the rules for Battlefleet Gothic a lance is an anti-ship weapon. Space Marines should not have anti-ship weapons. If we called lances, I don't know, space squirrels, and made 'lances' a form of weapon battery type weapon then Space Marines could have 'lances'. They could not have 'space squirrels' however. There is no fluff to suggest that Space Marines should have pure anti-ship weapons, so your entire argument is one of nomenclature.

All of this on top of the fact that your argument is terribly dubious to begin with, even if you bought into the premise that you could hold two pieces of contradictory fluff to be simultaneously true.

Sigoroth, punching a 20 foot hole through a building from top to bottom is pretty building smashing, even on a good sized building that might not immedaitly collapse from it.

As far as SM having lances: the fact that they should not is your opinion, backed by a single piece of fluff and you idea of what the Imperium MUST be.  This does not necessarily align with other people's ideas of what the Imperium MUST be.  I might point out that the Imperium according to you would quickly cease to exist because if the high lords were that paranoid about Space Marines, they'd have declared them all heretics and had them eliminated millennia ago.

Let us say the people who want lances get their way, what would you want to give up? I have to say as a Dark Angel player I can see the fluff allowing some chapter variance within in the Imperium. I can also see heresy being declared against any chapter who are seen as a chaotic threat who threaten the main stream and have to be made examples of. Changes within the armies of the Space Marines allows versitility on the battle ground and can be seen from a generals perspective as a tactical necessity. For the Imperium to ignore the SM navy building up in its strength from a transportation navy to it having true antiship capacity would be seen as a viable threat and would be dealt with in a most infamous fashion as that chapter is burnt from the pages of the Imperiums histories so that others would never again make the same mistake. The Imperials will never again allow the SM from rebelling again even at the cost of the Empire.

barras, I still have yet to see anyone show that strike cruisers trading a BC (which is a hideously powerful anti-ship weapon) for a lance (which is a less powerful but more accurate anti-ship weapon) is going to suddenly change the fact that IN outnumbers them.

According to canon, there are about 28,000 sectors in the Imperium.  Each sector fleet is said to average around 40 ships. 

This means that there are about 1,120,000 IN warships as opposed to 10,000 space marine ships, approx.  This means they are out numbered 100 to 1.  In fact, I might point out that this means there is approx one IN warship for every loyalist space marine in existence, if all 1000 chapters were at full strength.

For some reason people seem to be equating swapping the BC for lances with swapping the BC for a non-scattering novacannon with no minimum range mounted F/L/R

[Sigoroth]

Actually, I might point out that back in first edition, halfbreeds were possible and did exist, and there are actually 2 examples of it.  It's AFTER that they Eldar and humans became incompatible.  Chronology is backwards there.

Is this meant to be some clever argument by analogy or are you just lost?

Further: your statement was: evidence will not be accepted - evidence must be provided.  Ahem: prove to me your prime directive is not your prime directive. And in that you are correct, it's a paradox, not circular logic. 

Again we run into the problem of what you consider evidence. I said that fluff would not be accepted. Not that evidence would not be. I then stipulated that the onus was on you to prove that SMs should get lances. If you consider this an impossible task, then that's fine. I do too.

No amount of fluff can do what you suggest. Without reconciliation with pre-established fluff then all such evidence is immediately tainted. So, the evidence you provide would have to be logical in nature as to why the SMs could and should get lances in BFG. On top of this there would have to authoritative souces for such fluff.

If novels are not authoritative sources, and codecies are not authoritative sources and rulebooks are not authoritative sources, then there are no authoritative sources on 40k, and therefor there are no authoritative sources that lances are prohibited.

Firstly, since SMs don't have any lances on their ships in the BFG rules you would require more than "not prohibited" as an argument for change. Secondly, novels are not authoritative sources. Neither is Forgeworld stuff nor White Dwarf. Codices and rulebooks are. However, as I said, to be canonical requires more than being just authoritative. That is required, but not sufficient. It also has to be plausible and consistent with pre-established fluff.

So for a start, throw out every piece of fluff that you've got from a novel. It's worthless. So that leaves codex descriptions of such and such fleet with such and such ship, blah blah, and rules on top.

Sigoroth, punching a 20 foot hole through a building from top to bottom is pretty building smashing, even on a good sized building that might not immedaitly collapse from it.

The large template is woefully small to represent an actual lance. It'd be at least 2 to 3 times that size. As Barras points out too, it'd shear through the ground and create a rather large hole. Also, apparently the powers that be realised their mistake and changed it from a lance strike to an orbital bombardment. But so what? This is all nitpicking.

Let us assume that the authors of these rules meant lances. Let's assume that the authors of the fluff pieces in codices and rulebooks also meant lances. Why did they give them lances? I put it to you that 'lances' are the easiest weapon to write into a piece of fiction or as a simple name for a rule. The alternatives are "weapon batteries". 'Weapon' is a generic term that covers a slew of options and sounds bad. 'Lance' is also a generic term that covers a slew of options but it is more evocative. So it's the natural choice for someone looking to incorporate a ship based weapon into 40K or Epic rules.

In itself it means nothing. It doesn't tell us if the authors really thought that Space Marines had to have anti-ship weapons. If we assume that they intended SMs to have lances then they'd have chosen lances. If we assume that they were clueless then they'd have chosen lances. It tells us nothing.

As far as SM having lances: the fact that they should not is your opinion, backed by a single piece of fluff and you idea of what the Imperium MUST be.  This does not necessarily align with other people's ideas of what the Imperium MUST be.  I might point out that the Imperium according to you would quickly cease to exist because if the high lords were that paranoid about Space Marines, they'd have declared them all heretics and had them eliminated millennia ago.

It's not an "opinion" it's a reasoned argument. The "fluff" that it is based upon is the entire premise of the 40K universe. This is supported by a piece of fluff that is superior to all the fluff you have provided. It is superior because it is from the actual game system in question and shows the rules framers intentions clearly in the field of SMs getting anti-ship weapons (you've only come at it obliquely from a non-BFG standpoint using tertiary evidence of orbital bombardment and a rather tenuous link between that weapon and BFG weaponry!). It is also superior because it is consistent with the rest of the 40k universe.

And yes, the Imperium would have annihilated the SMs millennia ago if they didn't need them. So they are left with having this great rabid dog defending them. Are they going to just let it off the leash to do whatever it wants? No. If they have to have it they're going to do the best they can to control it! What you are suggesting is tantamount to letting the dog off the leash and letting your kids play with it. After already having lost one baby to the dog in the first place!

barras, I still have yet to see anyone show that strike cruisers trading a BC (which is a hideously powerful anti-ship weapon) for a lance (which is a less powerful but more accurate anti-ship weapon) is going to suddenly change the fact that IN outnumbers them.

According to canon, there are about 28,000 sectors in the Imperium.  Each sector fleet is said to average around 40 ships. 

This means that there are about 1,120,000 IN warships as opposed to 10,000 space marine ships, approx.  This means they are out numbered 100 to 1.  In fact, I might point out that this means there is approx one IN warship for every loyalist space marine in existence, if all 1000 chapters were at full strength.

For some reason people seem to be equating swapping the BC for lances with swapping the BC for a non-scattering novacannon with no minimum range mounted F/L/R

Why do you compare the overall numbers of IN ships to SM ships? No one war involves the entire IN. Those IN ships have a whole lot more area to cover. You say a sector fleet numbers around 40 ships? Well a single chapter, which could very easily be located in a single sector, could match that ship for ship. Not to mention their influence over IG and IN commanders. A single sector fleet should be able to handle a renegade chapter, with minimal reinforcements called in from surrounding sectors.

Now, you mention the BC. Remember, we made a balance concession to make SM ships viable in games of BFG. They shouldn't be this good. A SM player should basically be playing IN with a few SM ships thrown in for specific scenarios. However, even when we are overpowering the SM we can do it in a fluffy way. We can accentuate their strengths. Survivability, boarding, blockade running, anti-defence weaponry. Against defences WBs + BC is superior to WBs + lances. Against ships WBs + lances is superior, due to BM interference.

Let's face it, the SMs only got the BC because they don't have lances. Why are you even trying to give them lances on top of this? Why do SMs need lances? Why should they get "a more accurate anti-ship weapon"? They shouldn't! This is exactly what we don't want them to have!

[barras1511]

The BC is for all purposes was built as an anti plantet weapon system. Do you agree with this statement? The fact that it can be used in an anti shipping role is secondary to it's purpose. Placing lances on board a SM vessel is declaring in a loud and provocative manor that we, US, the mightiest warriors of the galaxy are preparing to improve our navy. As a paranoid politician I ask to ask why would you be trying to do this? It this a military build up toward later expansion? And if nothing else I would send out the inquisitors to investigate this breach of the Codex.

I will give you an example. The 88mm flack gun of the german army.
Primary role - AA gun.
It found a secondary role as an awesome anti tank gun under certain circumstances.
When the Germans began arming tanks with this gun it became a whole different monster of a gun all together.
There were alot of flaws in the German war machine but the Tiger I tank is arguably one of the best tanks of the war with its only true flaw being production costs which limited its numbers. The cannon it fired was and will never be one of its flaws. though it did contribute to them.
Now think of Germany in 1920s and early 30s. The allies have the military build up of 1945. Do you really think the allies would allow the Germans the Tiger I tank with all this excess of military hardware? Do you really think the Germans would violate the Treaty of Varsallies if this was the senario.

Now the SM are a defeated people. They are under a superpowers treaty conditions who believe them to be a reluctant ally at best and at worst a traitio waiting to be exposed. Seen as the enemy waiting to show their true colours can you really see the SM doing anything to bring down the wrath of this overseeing juggernaut?

[Sigoroth]

This scenario is a fairly accurate one, with the exception that the SMs don't see themselves as traitors, defeated people, etc. This is why they chafe under the constrictions of the codex, because they see the restrictions as being unnecessary, insulting, etc. However, small infractions of the codex to let off some steam and assert their own personality is a far cry from loading up on anti-ship weapons. The SMs might resent being suspected of perfidy, but they have the track record for it and they know it. They'd be sensitive to their own appearances. They'd know what message they'd be sending if they did this. They'd also know the consequences.