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.