Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[Vaaish]

LS, it's not just "shrugged off" if you even read my post you can see that it doesn't align with the rest of the canon descriptions of lance strikes or gameplay depictions. Now, what that tells us is if the use of one word in a single sentence in a single piece of fluff doesn't align with the body of evidence about what a lance does or how it targets, then that single piece of fluff is most likely incorrect.  It's the simplest solution regardless of where it comes from.

Now there's a bit of play back and forth as to the size of the daemon which could help the case, but again, even with the tossing of a land raider or using a tree as a club, that's not really an indication of size when Chaos is involved.

[BaronIveagh]

LS, it's not just "shrugged off" if you even read my post you can see that it doesn't align with the rest of the canon descriptions of lance strikes or gameplay depictions. Now, what that tells us is if the use of one word in a single sentence in a single piece of fluff doesn't align with the body of evidence about what a lance does or how it targets, then that single piece of fluff is most likely incorrect.  It's the simplest solution regardless of where it comes from.

Now there's a bit of play back and forth as to the size of the daemon which could help the case, but again, even with the tossing of a land raider or using a tree as a club, that's not really an indication of size when Chaos is involved.

Since the captain calls in coordinates, how is that different from how a lance targets?  If I'm understanding the description in epic of how an orbiting starship hits targets in epic, they're using a ships on-board sensors to target a WM, since that's the smallest target they can see from orbit.  In this he calls in a map reference, which wouldn't really require them to be able to see it, just to fire on that point on the map.

It is getting funny how any small tidbit is turned into: Marine capital ships should get lances.

Horizon, the argument against them having them is supposedly based on fluff. 

I have seen exactly ONE piece of fluff that might vaguely indicate that lances are restricted, from nearly a decade ago. 

I've seen MANY brought forward of a much more recent vintage that state that they do allow lances, and the best defense I've seen mustered was 'well the authors made a mistake' or 'well, they don't really mean lances' or 'well, the lances on board a strike cruiser in 28mm 40k are not the same as the lances onboard a strike cruiser in BFG and Epic.'

I'm seeing a whole lot of fancy verbal footwork on this last one, to the point I'm waiting for Sigoroth to claim that "Well, it depends on what the definition if 'is' is..."

"An Astartes strike cruiser was a powerful ship, excelling in actions of surface bombardment and blockade-running. In void warfare it was a dread enemy, for while it lacked the offensive capability of a battle-barge or heavy cruiser of the Imperial Navy, because of its armaments and dense shielding, it would make short work of most vessels of a similar size. Had the Exalted joined the orbital battle above Solace by lending the fury of the Covenant’s lances and weapons batteries..." - Soulhunter, pg 45

[Sigoroth]

Well, let's see... it's a space marine strike cruiser... or three... firing their lances...  at a ground target...  which is vaporized.  

Eldar did not pop out of the woodwork to fire brightlances.  The text is VERY (for once) clear that this is a lance strike, fired by strike cruisers, not allied IN, not mysterious unknown escorts, and not a BC, and not the property of traitor marines.  AND it's ENTIRELY SANCTIONED THE INQUISITION.  It is not Black Library. It IS an offical canon GW rulebook.  A NEW one even.

And since when are SCs equipped with plasma weapons (since a single plasma battery is a str 5 [at least] weapon? [And, more when was the last time a plasma weapon was used as a planetary bombardment weapon?  Since according to fluff they're disrupted by a planets EM field, IIRC])

BTW: there is no lance strike for specifically for Planetstrike.

Wow. You're missing the point. What they called down they may describe as a lance strike. 'Lance' is an adjective meaning 'precise'. So they want a pinpoint hit on a certain target. Weapon batteries consist of a good deal of different weapon types, including plasma, laser, projectile, etc. Then there's bombardment cannon on top of these, even more weaponry. Any of these could have been used for the bombardment you mention.

It doesn't mean that space marines have anti-ship guns. In fact, the fact that they don't have lances on their ship says that those bombardments are not performed by BFG scale lances. They're performed by weapon batteries instead. Weaponry that acts like a lance strike in BFG would be far too powerful to perform such a similar action in the scale of 40k.

Also, where do you get that a single plasma battery is minimum str 5? What does that even have to do with anything? Surely they'd just fire 1 gun from the battery.

[Vaaish]

Since the captain calls in coordinates, how is that different from how a lance targets?  If I'm understanding the description in epic of how an orbiting starship hits targets in epic, they're using a ships on-board sensors to target a WM, since that's the smallest target they can see from orbit.  In this he calls in a map reference, which wouldn't really require them to be able to see it, just to fire on that point on the map.

Since the largest thing the sensors can pick out is a WE and can't fire into point on the map, I'd gather from that there is some reason why the lance batteries are unable to pick out coordinates and can only target object. It's not spelled out, but the lack of being able to input a set of coordinates to target like you do with the battery barrages seems to indicate the lance targeting systems work in a different and incompatible method. It could have something to do with the batteries affecting an area of space and targeting a set of coordinates while the lances lock onto and track objects. It's just not explained and could be any number of reasons.  


There's not a lot of fancy footwork. just look at all the described sources and then look at what you posted from planetstrike. Planet strike is the odd man out. BTW, isn't that quote you just posted in reference to the Black Legion or Nightlords controlled ship? That would put it outside the realm of this discussion and could very well be retrofitted with lances. It's just not clear if the covenant is the strike cruiser or if it is a chaos vessel capable of intercepting the strike cruiser.

Regardless of newer fluff in relation to possible lances being right or wrong, there is one thing that NOTHING you've posted can refute: standard pattern Strike Cruisers are not equipped with lances. We know this because the fluff is in the BFG books and that both epic and bfg do not equip lances on marine vessels by default. If lances do exist on strike cruisers, they are very rare because all the fluff references you post still refer to just a handful of ship compared to thousands controlled by the Marines. Now from a gameplay perspective, we know people like lances and tend to take them when they can so to make sure these lances stay rare on strike cruisers there are only a few ways to do this. First you can set a limit (0-1) which isn't very good because it makes the upgrade better at low point games and worse at high point games. You can also limit them by ratio which we have now and scales to high or low point games. None of those discourage people from taking as many as they can though, so upping the cost to be less competitive remains to keep the lances rare since most people will avoid them.

[horizon]

Horizon, the argument against them having them is supposedly based on fluff. 

I have seen exactly ONE piece of fluff that might vaguely indicate that lances are restricted, from nearly a decade ago. 

I've seen MANY brought forward of a much more recent vintage that state that they do allow lances, and the best defense I've seen mustered was 'well the authors made a mistake' or 'well, they don't really mean lances' or 'well, the lances on board a strike cruiser in 28mm 40k are not the same as the lances onboard a strike cruiser in BFG and Epic.'

I'm seeing a whole lot of fancy verbal footwork on this last one, to the point I'm waiting for Sigoroth to claim that "Well, it depends on what the definition if 'is' is..."

"An Astartes strike cruiser was a powerful ship, excelling in actions of surface bombardment and blockade-running. In void warfare it was a dread enemy, for while it lacked the offensive capability of a battle-barge or heavy cruiser of the Imperial Navy, because of its armaments and dense shielding, it would make short work of most vessels of a similar size. Had the Exalted joined the orbital battle above Solace by lending the fury of the Covenant’s lances and weapons batteries..." - Soulhunter, pg 45

The only SC lances have come from BL books with bad editors. I think it is to a point of: they really don't care. What is worse: letting such a thing slip or simply don't care enough?

And yes, Marines can do a pin point orbital attack: They call in the Nova or a Venerable Battle Barge with lances.

Since the fluff war won't be won due heavy entrenchments I call this:
Why on earth give Marines lances from a game balance point of view: NONE AT ALL.

Giving them and Bombardmant and regular batteries and resilient ordnance (assault boats and bombers!!!) and hit&run bonus and boarding bonus and good leadership and fast ships and manouevrable AND LANCES.... is a Marine fanboi thing come true.

The kewl cool Marines get everything....! yeyayayay

[Plaxor]

Horizon does have a point. I wonder what they were thinking when they designed the fleet?

"Lets make marines in space, they'll be the fastest, most heavily armored, have tough ordinance, have the best boarding modifier, and a new special weapon that's a lance, but does crits like crazy."

"What about the engines moving heavy armor?"

"Well the SMs remembered that engines powerful enough to move 6+ armor on every side exist, because they win at memory."

I don't get the argument that Endeavors with a 6+ prow needs 45' turns because they are too massive, when a CL with 6+ all around has it.

[Sigoroth]

Horizon does have a point. I wonder what they were thinking when they designed the fleet?

"Lets make marines in space, they'll be the fastest, most heavily armored, have tough ordinance, have the best boarding modifier, and a new special weapon that's a lance, but does crits like crazy."

"What about the engines moving heavy armor?"

"Well the SMs remembered that engines powerful enough to move 6+ armor on every side exist, because they win at memory."

I don't get the argument that Endeavors with a 6+ prow needs 45' turns because they are too massive, when a CL with 6+ all around has it.

QFT

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Horizon, the argument against them having them is supposedly based on fluff. 

I have seen exactly ONE piece of fluff that might vaguely indicate that lances are restricted, from nearly a decade ago. 

And I have seen ZERO response in answer to the question of whether SM NEEDS lances from a game balance point of view.

[BaronIveagh]

The only SC lances have come from BL books with bad editors. I think it is to a point of: they really don't care. What is worse: letting such a thing slip or simply don't care enough?

And yes, Marines can do a pin point orbital attack: They call in the Nova or a Venerable Battle Barge with lances.

Since the fluff war won't be won due heavy entrenchments I call this:
Why on earth give Marines lances from a game balance point of view: NONE AT ALL.

Planetstrike isn't a BL book, it's a GW 40k expansion rulebook.  So, your assertion that it only comes from BL books is untrue.  (One would hope the editing standards are higher)

As far as why SM need lances: As many people have complained: BC use the gunnery table.  Lances do not.  All hail the blast marker.

 

Since the largest thing the sensors can pick out is a WE and can't fire into point on the map, I'd gather from that there is some reason why the lance batteries are unable to pick out coordinates and can only target object. It's not spelled out, but the lack of being able to input a set of coordinates to target like you do with the battery barrages seems to indicate the lance targeting systems work in a different and incompatible method. It could have something to do with the batteries affecting an area of space and targeting a set of coordinates while the lances lock onto and track objects. It's just not explained and could be any number of reasons.  

Except that the old Damocles command rhino fluff describes it working exactly that way, feeding information to orbiting starships from the SM commander.  Since it also states that they use it for heavy support 'as a last resort...reserved for the most dangerous of foes...' I would state that it's almost a textbook example of it.

There's not a lot of fancy footwork. just look at all the described sources and then look at what you posted from planetstrike. Planet strike is the odd man out. BTW, isn't that quote you just posted in reference to the Black Legion or Nightlords controlled ship? That would put it outside the realm of this discussion and could very well be retrofitted with lances. It's just not clear if the covenant is the strike cruiser or if it is a chaos vessel capable of intercepting the strike cruiser.

The Covenant of Blood is a NL strike cruiser.  It and it's sister SC Excoriator, apparently of the same class, are both lance fitted SCs that predate the heresy.  Most of Soulhunter and Throne of Lies take place aboard her.  Granted, outside of our discussion, except that it's implied that the NL 10th company have not even taken the time to recruit new members since the heresy, let alone refit the ship, some sections of it becoming dangerous due to lack of repair and refit.  

There is an interesting commentary on the difference in time, for the crew of Covenant of Blood it's only been a hundred years or so since the Heresy, despite it having been 10,000 for the galaxy.

Regardless of newer fluff in relation to possible lances being right or wrong, there is one thing that NOTHING you've posted can refute: standard pattern Strike Cruisers are not equipped with lances. We know this because the fluff is in the BFG books and that both epic and bfg do not equip lances on marine vessels by default. If lances do exist on strike cruisers, they are very rare because all the fluff references you post still refer to just a handful of ship compared to thousands controlled by the Marines. Now from a gameplay perspective, we know people like lances and tend to take them when they can so to make sure these lances stay rare on strike cruisers there are only a few ways to do this. First you can set a limit (0-1) which isn't very good because it makes the upgrade better at low point games and worse at high point games. You can also limit them by ratio which we have now and scales to high or low point games. None of those discourage people from taking as many as they can though, so upping the cost to be less competitive remains to keep the lances rare since most people will avoid them.

A chapter can have a maximum of 10 Strike cruisers.  Given that there are supposedly 1000 chapters, this means that there are approx 10,000 loyalist SCs in existence, give or take.  However, variants would not be even throughout the chapters, due to individual chapters favoring differing combat doctrines.  Chapters such as the Minotaurs would favor boarding torps and thawks, as they primarily engage in anti-ship operations and close assaults, where as a chapter known for it's precision strikes might favor lances and teleporters.  

I do not disagree that the lance is NOT the standard pattern of SC.  What I disagree with is the instance that they do not exist at all, when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.  I feel that the requirement that half of all the SC MUST be the standard type accurately reflects this, but also allows more variety in SCs.  I would also limit SC to no more then 10 total, as this is the max any one chapter CAN field, with the possible exception of the BTs, as fluff also states that each company has it's own SC.

However, I might also point out that, at least in the example in Planetstrike, the chapter in question has three of them.  Which would match up with the HA's requirement of one normal SC for every variant, as this would mean that about 1/3 of the entire chapters SC are fitted with lances.

Further, as far as your assertion about the targeting ability of lances: the old Damocles command rhino fluff describes it working exactly that way, feeding information to orbiting starships from the SM commander.  Since it also states that they use it for heavy support 'as a last resort...reserved for the most dangerous of foes...' I would state that it's almost a textbook example of it.  I would suggest that the scatter in 40k the 40k version is due to them calling coordinates rather then locking on to a single target.  It's not that it can't, it's that it isn't as accurate.  

As long as a hit is rolled, the max scatter is only about 20 feet to scale in 40k.  The lances in 40k, despite assertions to the contrary, do, apparently suffer attenuation, being only a Str 10 ap1 hit when fired from orbit, but a str D ap 1 hit when fired from the ground at a target. (See defense laser stats for apoc by GW)

[Vaaish]

Except that the old Damocles command rhino fluff describes it working exactly that way, feeding information to orbiting starships from the SM commander.  Since it also states that they use it for heavy support 'as a last resort...reserved for the most dangerous of foes...' I would state that it's almost a textbook example of it.

While I can only conjecture to reconcile the differences in the Damocles fluff and the Epic rules, it is worth noting that the damocles fluff has been since adjusted while epic remains in effect. My best guess on the matter is that the damocles uses special equipment to translate the targeting data on smaller objects to the orbiting ships in a form they can use since it's built for command and control purposes while most field commanders would have to rely on the sensor aboard the ships to acquire ground targets with the lances limiting them to larger war engines. In any event, since it does require a specialized vehicle to pull off I don't think it reflects the standard bombardment ability of lances.

except that it's implied that the NL 10th company have not even taken the time to recruit new members since the heresy, let alone refit the ship, some sections of it becoming dangerous due to lack of repair and refit.

That's all well and good, but it is still a pre-heresy SC and one that belongs to a traitor legion so it really doesn't matter much referencing more modern strike cruisers or loyalist marine affairs.

On that last section (I don't care to quote the whole thing).
If even 1% of all strike cruisers were equipped with lances you are only looking at 100 out of 10k possible ships. While there could in theory be 10-20 chapters that have multiple lance boats, that's an exceptionally tiny fraction. One that is not accurately represented by allowing half of the strike cruisers to swap a lance out for free. Limiting it to half and making the upgrade expensive accurately depicts the rarity while allowing for the odd chapter than totes around the galaxy with three such craft. Even at 20 points for the upgrade and taking three you only slightly impact the amount of ships you'd be taking (cost of a single nova for all intents and purposes) otherwise.

You have your ability to take lances and we have our rarity, though I'd insist for gameplay reasons and rarity sake it's not something that needs to be in the marine list.

[Sigoroth]

I do not disagree that the lance is NOT the standard pattern of SC.  What I disagree with is the instance that they do not exist at all, when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

There is no evidence at all. Everything you have listed is either describing an orbital strike, in which the term does not apply to BFG weaponry, or is completely unreliable fluff. Not only is this an issue of nomenclature but the use of extremely dubious fluff to make these tenuous links. Any fluff that posits pre-heresy SCs is just bogus to begin with, regardless of how official.

Secondly, even if they made clear, official fluff that described one or more chapters having sanctioned anti-ship weaponry which would be called lances in BFG then that fluff would just be wrong. It doesn't match up with the political climate of the Imperium.

Lastly, the reason why you want lances isn't to justify orbital bombardments, as that can be done with existing weaponry, but just to use against ships. This puts you in the SM fanboi category, for which you should be shot, just on general principle but which would, at the very least, completely invalidate your argument. Space Marines are supposed to suck against ships. While we fudge this for play balance (rather than just saying "tough titties, go get some IN ships") there is no reason why we should do so by specifically breaking fluff and logic.

Currently SMs are a little weak. They can be made balanced by flavourful adjustments, which can being accomplished by adding shields and turrets. They're a bit boring to play, so variants are being added. On top of the base SC there are 3 other variants which are flavourful (torp/BC variants, CVL variant). We do not need to add unfluffy lances to the SMs to make them balanced. We do not need them to get an interesting fleet list. We do not need them.

[BaronIveagh]

There is no evidence at all. Everything you have listed is either describing an orbital strike, in which the term does not apply to BFG weaponry, or is completely unreliable fluff. Not only is this an issue of nomenclature but the use of extremely dubious fluff to make these tenuous links. Any fluff that posits pre-heresy SCs is just bogus to begin with, regardless of how official.

Secondly, even if they made clear, official fluff that described one or more chapters having sanctioned anti-ship weaponry which would be called lances in BFG then that fluff would just be wrong. It doesn't match up with the political climate of the Imperium.

Lastly, the reason why you want lances isn't to justify orbital bombardments, as that can be done with existing weaponry, but just to use against ships. This puts you in the SM fanboi category, for which you should be shot, just on general principle but which would, at the very least, completely invalidate your argument. Space Marines are supposed to suck against ships. While we fudge this for play balance (rather than just saying "tough titties, go get some IN ships") there is no reason why we should do so by specifically breaking fluff and logic.

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."

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

While I can only conjecture to reconcile the differences in the Damocles fluff and the Epic rules, it is worth noting that the damocles fluff has been since adjusted while epic remains in effect. My best guess on the matter is that the damocles uses special equipment to translate the targeting data on smaller objects to the orbiting ships in a form they can use since it's built for command and control purposes while most field commanders would have to rely on the sensor aboard the ships to acquire ground targets with the lances limiting them to larger war engines. In any event, since it does require a specialized vehicle to pull off I don't think it reflects the standard bombardment ability of lances.  

Incorrect: the lance strike remains an option from Codex: Witchhunters with the same rules, and the (in)accuracy rule has redacted in that codex latest FAQ.  The fluff itself was left unchanged, but the lance strike was removed in favor of the generic 'orbital bombardment'.

On that last section (I don't care to quote the whole thing).
If even 1% of all strike cruisers were equipped with lances you are only looking at 100 out of 10k possible ships. While there could in theory be 10-20 chapters that have multiple lance boats, that's an exceptionally tiny fraction. One that is not accurately represented by allowing half of the strike cruisers to swap a lance out for free. Limiting it to half and making the upgrade expensive accurately depicts the rarity while allowing for the odd chapter than totes around the galaxy with three such craft. Even at 20 points for the upgrade and taking three you only slightly impact the amount of ships you'd be taking (cost of a single nova for all intents and purposes) otherwise.

You have your ability to take lances and we have our rarity, though I'd insist for gameplay reasons and rarity sake it's not something that needs to be in the marine list.

I would ask how you derived 1% when approx 12% of actual descriptions of SCs in combat allude to lances.  However, this is taken largely from running a word search through BL novels, as the accounts of SC firing in rule books and codecies are rare, which skews the data toward numbers as high as 37%, due to the limited sample.  I would suggest 12% is probably the more accurate of the two, though this result is also not the most accurate due to the amount of Ultramarines novels that Vae Victus appears in.

[lastspartacus]

It occurs to me, I'd like to see some arguments from the anti-lance-on-capital-ship crowd.  So far its been purely arguing against the quotes and fluff sources of the other side.

So, please, some quotes or references that cause this anti-lance-on-cap-ship zeal?

[Vaaish]

Incorrect: the lance strike remains an option from Codex: Witchhunters with the same rules, and the (in)accuracy rule has redacted in that codex latest FAQ.  The fluff itself was left unchanged, but the lance strike was removed in favor of the generic 'orbital bombardment'.

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.

I would ask how you derived 1% when approx 12% of actual descriptions of SCs in combat allude to lances.  However, this is taken largely from running a word search through BL novels, as the accounts of SC firing in rule books and codecies are rare, which skews the data toward numbers as high as 37%, due to the limited sample.  I would suggest 12% is probably the more accurate of the two, though this result is also not the most accurate due to the amount of Ultramarines novels that Vae Victus appears in.

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.

LS... we already posted that but you ignored it or dismissed it off hand. Our sources are the BFG rulebook specifically the Nova description. It is the logical conclusion of a comparative analysis of the differences in the Gladius, noted as the most numerous Marine escort, and the Nova, noted as the most rare and most objected to with the IN. It is also a conclusion reinforced by the lack of lance options on strike cruisers in the Codex marine list and the C:SM notes that only a very small number of chapters do not adhere to the codex. The lack of lances is further noted by the lack of pinpoint attacks on epic marine spacecraft.

[lastspartacus]

I havn't ignored anything.  If I missed something, I just missed it.  I really havn't seen a shred of anything beyond trying to debunk the pro-lance evidence, and personal opinions on how the Imperium should react.  If there is something, please enlighten me.

"It is also a conclusion reinforced by the lack of lance options on strike cruisers in the Codex marine list and the C:SM notes that only a very small number of chapters do not adhere to the codex."
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.
Its as if an argument had occurred a few years ago that 'battleships cant power 6 lances on a broadside', because the Apocalypse had not come out yet.

"The lack of lances is further noted by the lack of pinpoint attacks on epic marine spacecraft."
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'.

"It is the logical conclusion of a comparative analysis of the differences in the Gladius, noted as the most numerous Marine escort, and the Nova, noted as the most rare and most objected to with the IN"
So the line of thought here is 'because there are more gladius than novas, there would be no lances on SM capital ships'?

I hope you are drawing your line of thought from more than the Nova entry, because the wording there is very soft, more nervousness than promised retribution.  Nothing in the entry indicates that having a lance on an SC over a Nova would be grounds for serious action.

Actually, the IN take exception to the Nova because it is a pure lanceboat, an SC with a couple lances would be far more reasonable, by the logic of the Nova's description as to why other factions don't like it.  Also, lances are the same power, whether or not they are on an escort or an SC, the Nova actually can deliver the payload much faster.  Someone had mentioned it being far deadlier on a capital ship, which is why I mention that.