"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...."
Printable View
"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...."
Get me out there? with all those things running around, you can count me out!
Sometimes I think my entire guard army is made up of Private Hudson's...........:rolleyes:
Did you just ask if there are atmospheric dissipation problems in a universe that has lasguns? :p
"Lance weapons" covers any large starship-mounted beam weapons. They aren't necessarily lasers (e.g., Tau lance weapons are ion cannons), but Imperial lance weapons typically are. They're also often compound beam weapons, a la the Death Star's superlaser (and if the thought of orbit-to-surface lasers gives you fits, I recommend you not think about compound lasers too hard ;)) Rogue Trader describes them as
Rare and potent weapons that fire incredibly high-powered beams of energy capable of burning through the hull of a warship, or cutting a smaller vessel in half. Unlike macrobatteries, lances are often mounted on gigantic turrets where multiple energy projectors focus to create a single, titanic beam.
BFG describes them as
incredibly high-powered energy weapons that are capable of burning straight through an armored hull or cutting an escort ship in two. ... On Imperial and Chaos ships, lances are usually mounted in huge turrets with quad or triple energy projectors that focus into a concentrated beam of destruction.
In all cases, lance weapons have the game mechanic effect of ignoring the target ship's armor (similar to the Lance special rule in 40K). They are "precision" weapons in that they fire a single beam with which you must physically intersect the target, as opposed to macrobatteries/weapon batteries, which (and don't think about this too hard either) saturate a volume of space with a large number of projectiles.
In 40K terms, the orbital bombardment that a chapter master can call down is almost certainly a single shot from a lance turret, as are the Planetstrike Laserburn stratagem and the Apocalypse defence laser. So if you want, you could say that lance turrets fire 10" Strength D shots, which are downgraded by the atmosphere to 5" or D3 S10 AP1 shots, which actually is quite a bit of attenuation, I suppose.
As for how cyclotronic warheads work, we don't really know. As far as I know their actual mechanism is never described. The effect they have, however, is to crack a planet apart. Obviously you don't actually need to turn a planet into an asteroid field to render it uninhabitable - just cracking the crust in enough places will have plenty of life-ending side effects - but in theory I suppose sustained cyclotronic bombardment could do that.
I've had the impression that cyclonic torpedoes were vortex weapons - basically planetary-scale versions of a Vortex Grenade or the Vortex Support Missile that Warlord Titans can mount. Basically, they scour the planet's surface through controlled, massive bursts of warp energy.
That's mostly speculation on my part; as a few people have said already, the official fluff on cyclonic torpedoes is pretty hazy.
Got a little further into "The Founding" and it does mention an orbital strike against rebel artillery positions, which doesn't work very well due to the sneaky blighter's moving the guns prior to bombardment. Doesn't say what they use for it though.
Guess the Imperial Navy need some real time Predator support! lol
Did you just ask if there are atmospheric dissipation problems in a universe that has lasguns?
Derrr my brain hurts! lol
Epic offers us another perspective, which is useful for comparison because it allows orbital bombardment and ground-based artillery in the same game, on the same scale. A space marine battle barge in Epic can use its bombardment cannon and macrobatteries to effect an orbital bombardment with the following properties:
- In-game strength of 14 Barrage Points - 4+ to destroy an infantry unit, 5+ to destroy a vehicle
- Total area of effect approximately 339cm^2 (three 5" blast templates)
- Ignores most armor saves (rough 40K equivalent of being AP3, though there's no exact parallel)
- Can be used on one game turn and one game turn only, which must be declared at the start of the game
By contrast, 14 Basilisks can effect a regular fire mission with the following properties:
- In-game strength of 14 Barrage Points - 4+ to destroy an infantry unit, 5+ to destroy a vehicle
- Total area effect of approximately 43cm^2 (three 3" blast templates)
- Can be used (potentially) every game turn
In other words, 14 Basilisks can almost equal the firepower of a battle barge, although it would take eight such groups of Basilisks to equal the coverage that the battle barge can achieve. Still, that's only 112 Basilisks, which is about half the strength of a Steel Legion artillery regiment.
Comparing the two options, we see that orbital bombardment can do some things that an artillery regiment cannot - but an artillery regiment can do some things that orbital bombardment cannot. Orbital bombardment is not restricted by range and is not susceptible to counter-battery fire. On the other hand, it is scheduled, predictable, and fleeting (i.e., it's very obvious when a ship is maneuvering for orbital bombardment, and it gets essentially one pass). Ground artillery is restricted by range and is vulnerable to ground and air attack. On the other hand, it's sustainable. You can't really say that one is more devastating than the other - yes, the orbital bombardment gets to ignore armor saves, but then again, an artillery regiment can actually produce a much more intensive bombardment.
And that's trying to equal the orbital bombardment capacity of a battle barge, the Imperium's single most capable orbital bombardment vehicle. The same rough equivalency calculation for the much more common strike cruisers yields 40 Basilisks. Running the calculation again for an Emperor class battleship yields a mere 64 Basilisks, and that's for a battleship. For the workhorse Lunar class cruiser the number drops to merely 24 Basilisks (although the cruiser has some additional capabilities due to its lance turrets, which can't really be directly compared to tube artillery).
In other words, while orbital bombardment has its uses, it isn't a god weapon in 40K (well, unless you're effecting Exterminatus or doing something crazy like trying to break the planet's crust). It's just another form of artillery.
As I have said before I was an officer in the US Air Force. During my time there I would Herat many of the same discussions (but insert c-130 gunship for lunar crusier, lol). The problem with air strikes is also their benefit, they can effectivley doestroy large targets withou fear of reproach. However, asking me to take out a squad with a gun ship has a few problems.
1. Friendly fire
2. Possibly Inefficent use of resources
3. Potential loss of the gunship and crew
4. We still have to pull out, whereas infantry can consolidate the posistion.
Even in siuations where you want to glass the area ou still can't be sure everyone is dead, thus you need combined arms... Look how many marines survived horus' virus bomb.
Duke
Ah, walk softly and have a Specter on call lol.
Building on this, orbital bombardment is not risk-free. Conventional anti-aircraft fire can't reach a starship in low orbit, but ground-based aircraft can. Also worrisome are planetary defense lasers and surface to orbit missile batteries, which according to BFG and Imperial Armour are oftentimes buried deep underground in hardened silos that can withstand even space marine bombardment cannons (the Apocalypse model is obviously not buried deep underground in a hardened silo, but I imagine the opportunity to build a cool model was just too good to pass up). Just one or two of these sites is enough to keep starships away, judging by the evidence of Imperial Armour 3 and Imperial Armour 5-7.