Space Marine Lances

[BaronIveagh]

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. 

[horizon]

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.

[Zelnik]

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.

[Vaaish]

Regardless, GK don't exactly fit under the purview of toys given to other Space Marines.

[Plaxor]

My God. You know there is a saying here in the States, 'beating a dead horse'.

[BaronIveagh]

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.

[Plaxor]

The Grey Knights are the most heretical chapter now.... the 40k fluff took a massive beating the other day....

[Sigoroth]

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 ...

[BaronIveagh]

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. 

[Sigoroth]

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.

[BaronIveagh]

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.' 

[Sigoroth]

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.

[BaronIveagh]

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.  

[Sigoroth]

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.

[Sigoroth]

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.