Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Iracundus wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

That is pretty much what the Imperium tries on Vraks and Taros, to varying degrees of success. Can also risk direct assaults, but obviously that is a far more bloody affair into AA fire.

Taros I feel is a poor example actually.
The book introduces us to the planetary defences on Taros and it's like a single missile silo. Enough to feth up a cruiser so they neutralise it with an infiltration force prior to the strike on the governor's palace (all in the prelude). Surely not enough even if repaired to materially hold up to the naval group they later turn up with.

But then when the Imperials show up for the proper war they don't even utilise their fleet at all.
In fact even in the empty deserts they're heavily harassed by Tau and don't even think to just scan the desert ahead and bombard Tau concentrations, nor to call upon a cruiser when they're pinned down under fire.

The Tau had maintained a fleet in being in the star system, led by a Custodian class carrier. The Imperial Navy commander wanted the glory of a victory against the enemy flagship and also to eliminate decisively the threat to the water convoys shipping water to the Imperial ground troops. Rather than keeping his ships in orbit and potentially vulnerable to attack, or having them all escort the convoy, he took his flagship to chase the carrier. Unfortunately the Tau were using the carrier as bait to lure the heaviest Imperial flagship away from the convoy, which was then hit and destroyed by the other Tau ships. Even though the Custodian carrier was destroyed, this was a pyrrhic victory as the Imperial ground forces ran out of water.

That's just the macro view of the battle. We're also told that the Raptors chapter have a battlebarge and gladius escort that spend the battle literally stationed in orbit over Taros awaiting planetary deployment. There's no reason they should decide to stand there and watch the Guard struggle. Although perhaps one would dismiss it as interservice rivalry, the Space Marines not caring for the Guard.

Could be Taros was a chance to observe this still relatively new and highly dynamic foe in action. Something to take notes over for future reference, given they didn’t seem to be going away as a wider threat any time soon.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

That is pretty much what the Imperium tries on Vraks and Taros, to varying degrees of success. Can also risk direct assaults, but obviously that is a far more bloody affair into AA fire.

Taros I feel is a poor example actually.
The book introduces us to the planetary defences on Taros and it's like a single missile silo. Enough to feth up a cruiser so they neutralise it with an infiltration force prior to the strike on the governor's palace (all in the prelude). Surely not enough even if repaired to materially hold up to the naval group they later turn up with.

But then when the Imperials show up for the proper war they don't even utilise their fleet at all.
In fact even in the empty deserts they're heavily harassed by Tau and don't even think to just scan the desert ahead and bombard Tau concentrations, nor to call upon a cruiser when they're pinned down under fire.

The Tau had maintained a fleet in being in the star system, led by a Custodian class carrier. The Imperial Navy commander wanted the glory of a victory against the enemy flagship and also to eliminate decisively the threat to the water convoys shipping water to the Imperial ground troops. Rather than keeping his ships in orbit and potentially vulnerable to attack, or having them all escort the convoy, he took his flagship to chase the carrier. Unfortunately the Tau were using the carrier as bait to lure the heaviest Imperial flagship away from the convoy, which was then hit and destroyed by the other Tau ships. Even though the Custodian carrier was destroyed, this was a pyrrhic victory as the Imperial ground forces ran out of water.

That's just the macro view of the battle. We're also told that the Raptors chapter have a battlebarge and gladius escort that spend the battle literally stationed in orbit over Taros awaiting planetary deployment. There's no reason they should decide to stand there and watch the Guard struggle. Although perhaps one would dismiss it as interservice rivalry, the Space Marines not caring for the Guard.

I agree that Taros is a poor example of Imperial leadership, and features much squabbling between Imperial branches leading to a poor outcome for the Imperium. However, it is a good example of the Imperium deploying at a distance to have a safe landing zone. I personally think that was the wrong choice, but it is what they did. I reckon a full planetstrike assault directly onto the capital and other important zones like the water plant would have been more effective, albeit with some risk.

That said, as MDG points out, the Tau were a fairly new foe. Their particular aptitude for hit-and-run combat wasn't appreciated and therefore the Imperium choose a "safe" strategy that in hindsight played into Tau strengths.

I doubt the Tau observably concentrated in enough forces to warrant an orbital strike from the battle barge. They deliberately dispersed their forces and engaged in hit-and-run warfare. Dropping an entire bombardment cannon volley into a grid square for a sighting of a couple of Hammerheads probably didn't seem worth it, especially given the risk of hitting Guard formations instead.

I suspect any larger concentrations in the rear areas for logistics were cloaked in some way.

Except not every bombardment needs to be a massed broadside from a battlebarge.
We *know* that orbiting ships are capable of providing precise and measured orbital support to relatively precise targets. Because it does happen in stories, but usually only as a sidepiece to some other narrative.

Furthermore a foe engaging in more traditional tactics is even more a reason to engage in bombardment.
I can accept that small packets of highly mobile Tau forces are one of the least efficient targets for orbital strikes, but what were they expecting?
Dug in defensive positions? Concentrated military formations? Anything like that would be extremely efficiently simply just removed by even a naval frigate on 'overwatch' the second the front echelon troops became pinned down and reached for the radio.

This is also clearly something that they do - Space Marine ships are specifically outfitted with purpose designed guns, reflecting their primary role as transport and assault ships.
It also forms a prominent role in the BFG Armada videogame where planetary bombardment (whilst holding off an enemy fleet) is a common mission you play.

But this doesn't occur, almost at all, in 40k narratives because 40k is inherently a ground combat game and "we encountered resistance, 30 seconds later we continued past the crater" wouldn't be a good read for someone expecting bolter porn.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Except not every bombardment needs to be a massed broadside from a battlebarge.
We *know* that orbiting ships are capable of providing precise and measured orbital support to relatively precise targets. Because it does happen in stories, but usually only as a sidepiece to some other narrative.

Furthermore a foe engaging in more traditional tactics is even more a reason to engage in bombardment.
I can accept that small packets of highly mobile Tau forces are one of the least efficient targets for orbital strikes, but what were they expecting?
Dug in defensive positions? Concentrated military formations? Anything like that would be extremely efficiently simply just removed by even a naval frigate on 'overwatch' the second the front echelon troops became pinned down and reached for the radio.

This is also clearly something that they do - Space Marine ships are specifically outfitted with purpose designed guns, reflecting their primary role as transport and assault ships.
It also forms a prominent role in the BFG Armada videogame where planetary bombardment (whilst holding off an enemy fleet) is a common mission you play.

But this doesn't occur, almost at all, in 40k narratives because 40k is inherently a ground combat game and "we encountered resistance, 30 seconds later we continued past the crater" wouldn't be a good read for someone expecting bolter porn.

From what I recall, I think the Imperial commanders were constantly expecting to get the big decisive battle any moment now, just as soon as they could pin the Tau down. But they never managed it and ran out of supplies before they could reach the population centres. They had effectively zero frame of reference for how the Tau fought and had failed to infiltrate any spies onto the world. So yeah, breaking siege lines was more-or-less what they expected.

Worth noting the Marshal leading the Imperial Guard forces on the ground was noted for being overly cautious. I think this is ultimately what doomed the campaign with an overly-cautious plan.

In fairness, we do get the "rebellion was ended by orbiting ship" in lore. It just isn't the focus of narratives because it is boring. All the ground battles happen when orbital bombardment isn't the answer for whatever reason. That's fine, so long as people recognise it is only a portion of how conflicts are resolved in 40k.

You're missing my point.
They were expecting to encounter and break a siege line... but didn't plan on using naval support to do so?
The commander was overly cautious but didn't want to use assets he had sitting around anyway to basically remove any and all risk from his plan?

Landing on the other side of the planet and marching over I can understand, although that was specifically because they were worried about a rapid enemy counterattack mid-landing, *not* because they feared planetary defences anywhere.

Interestingly actually this problem also applies to the "first intervention" on Taros. When the Space Marines become pinned down in the palace by Tau forces they could have utilised their awaiting Battlebarge to smash the area surrounding and assaulting position. They lost a *dreadnought* in that engagement as a battlebarge watched silently overhead. Dispatching only Thunderhawks to facilitate a withdrawal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess my point is most authors don't actually bother to set up engagements in situations were naval support *isn't* available.

It's all well and good to say a major hive world is too heavily defended for naval ships, or that orbit is too contested to take any time for an orbital strike. But that's really not where most narratives focus.
In fact I'd argue the attacker usually does have naval superiority which is how they get to deploy ships in the first place and GW loves to set a battle in a strategically unimportant location so they can have massed formations of tanks and titans duking it out.

 Ashiraya wrote:
That rulebook profile reads like a mistake. We've seen or heard of no macrocannon that weak. It reminds me of how a multi-melta is a bunker-buster, but last I played Necromunda a cargo hauler could take 20 point blank MM shots from the best shooter in the game (Van Saar leader) and would usually be fine because rules writers don't understand numbers.

I think it is less a mistake and more that the term "macrocannon" is not defined and just means "big cannon" and therefore whatever a given writer wishes. Macrocannons are mentioned far more rarely than more tangible weapon "categories" like battle cannon or autocannon.

Clearly whatever GW was thinking about when they made the 6th edition rulebook did not come to pass though, that profile faded into obscurity and no model ever appeared to use it. There is some precedent for macrocannons on that scale- the original Rogue Trader rulebook also features macrocannons as "the largest and heaviest version of the autocannon" in the "very heavy weapons" section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
You're missing my point.
They were expecting to encounter and break a siege line... but didn't plan on using naval support to do so?
The commander was overly cautious but didn't want to use assets he had sitting around anyway to basically remove any and all risk from his plan?

Landing on the other side of the planet and marching over I can understand, although that was specifically because they were worried about a rapid enemy counterattack mid-landing, *not* because they feared planetary defences anywhere.

Interestingly actually this problem also applies to the "first intervention" on Taros. When the Space Marines become pinned down in the palace by Tau forces they could have utilised their awaiting Battlebarge to smash the area surrounding and assaulting position. They lost a *dreadnought* in that engagement as a battlebarge watched silently overhead. Dispatching only Thunderhawks to facilitate a withdrawal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess my point is most authors don't actually bother to set up engagements in situations were naval support *isn't* available.

It's all well and good to say a major hive world is too heavily defended for naval ships, or that orbit is too contested to take any time for an orbital strike. But that's really not where most narratives focus.
In fact I'd argue the attacker usually does have naval superiority which is how they get to deploy ships in the first place and GW loves to set a battle in a strategically unimportant location so they can have massed formations of tanks and titans duking it out.

Given how frequently "orbital bombardment" is some kind of ability or strategem in in 40k, I think it is the case that some degree of orbital bombardment can be commonly available, but there is a difference between orbital superiority and orbital supremacy. The former might allow an attacking force to deploy reasonably safely to some parts of the planet, or to deploy under fire to others, and it might allow them to do attack runs but not sustained bombardments. Attack runs are still huge sources of firepower, but they aren't a threat in the same manner as a ship that can just sit there and proceed to delete enemy field armies as they manoeuvre. A ship sitting in orbit is vulnerable to attack from enemy space vessels too, I would think most ship commanders would need to feel very secure before they are willing to park their vessel around a world.

I suspect how happy a given Marine force would be to bombard an Imperial city depends on the Chapter and how callous they are. The Raptors did lose a dreadnought, but bombarding the city would not give any guarantee of getting it back (indeed it might be hit by the bombardment) and it would also ruin the city. There would be little left to recapture at a later date. Some Marine chapters would do it anyway, collateral be damned, but clearly the Raptors preferred to come back as part of a larger force to retake the city.

I agree that orbital support was underutilised at Taros though, but that was more the failings of the Imperial commanders and Imperial politicking than anything. The Guard commander had no jurisdiction over the Raptors, for example, who in their turn were cautious to commit given their casualties in the first intervention.

Again, I think the Imperium went in with a bad plan. That isn't particularly unrealistic though, human commanders are known to lose wars because they chose bad strategy or made other stupid errors. Add that to the Imperium having a dysfunctional bureaucracy and command structure and it breeds these kinds of situations and outcomes. That said, I reckon they probably would've bombarded a siege line if they'd encountered it.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
You're missing my point.
They were expecting to encounter and break a siege line... but didn't plan on using naval support to do so?
The commander was overly cautious but didn't want to use assets he had sitting around anyway to basically remove any and all risk from his plan?

There was a lot of interservice rivalry/lack of communication. The Space Marines had an attitude of "Nobody tells us what to do" and probably figured there was no target on that planet worthy of a bombardment cannon shell. The Imperial Navy as I mentioned was either chasing the Tau carrier or escorting the water convoy, and was not at the beck and call of the ground forces.

Iracundus wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
You're missing my point.
They were expecting to encounter and break a siege line... but didn't plan on using naval support to do so?
The commander was overly cautious but didn't want to use assets he had sitting around anyway to basically remove any and all risk from his plan?

There was a lot of interservice rivalry/lack of communication. The Space Marines had an attitude of "Nobody tells us what to do" and probably figured there was no target on that planet worthy of a bombardment cannon shell. The Imperial Navy as I mentioned was either chasing the Tau carrier or escorting the water convoy, and was not at the beck and call of the ground forces.

Yeah, there is a difference between "this thing is implausible" and "this person/these people did a stupid thing". Unfortunately, the latter is always plausible based on human history.

 Haighus wrote:

Agreed. I think it is far more likely GW was referring to the macrocannon they sold a model for at the time than the macrocannons that only featured in lore at the time and hadn't seen a model since BFG was discontinued a decade earlier.

...I don't see the logic in this at all. If a story presented a machine "twice the strength of a Barghesi" I'd assume they refer to an average or median Barghesi, the most common type specimen, rather than the single Barghesi model they've actually made (the one in Masters of the Maelstrom, a small adolescent).

For macrocannons, those are fairly obviously the massive versions that appear pretty much every time any meaningful ship appears anywhere, rather than a single throwaway terrain piece that is a blip on the scale in comparison.

Like are we for real here, for a moment? Compare how often starship-grade macrocannons appear in any GW written or visual media, overall, to the number of times the Aquila Strongpoint appears. They're orders of magnitude apart!

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Agreed. I think it is far more likely GW was referring to the macrocannon they sold a model for at the time than the macrocannons that only featured in lore at the time and hadn't seen a model since BFG was discontinued a decade earlier.

...I don't see the logic in this at all. If a story presented a machine "twice the strength of a Barghesi" I'd assume they refer to an average or median Barghesi, the most common type specimen, rather than the single Barghesi model they've actually made (the one in Masters of the Maelstrom, a small adolescent).

Then again, if someone was trying to sell me on how awesome his new armour is and he said "it could survive the hit of a macrocannon" I'd assume he was being generous with his definition of macrocannon to make it sound cooler. Or at the very least accept that as a plausible possibility and ask for further clarification before standing there and flipping the bird to a battlecruiser.

I also suspect that, for the context of a ground trooper, "macrocannon" probably more refers to the ground based versions. When 40k the groundwarefare based game has used the term "macrocannon" it usually refers to one of the smaller ones.
Whereas you normally hear "macro cannon" spoken about in regards to the navy.
As an IRL counterpart - when a Navyman says "rifle" he means an 18 inch caliber naval gun. When an infantryman says "rifle" he means a 5-8mm hand held weapon.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Certainly I think a lance strike, hitting a Titan directly, absolutely could take it from pristine with full shields to utterly spiflicated. But such a direct hit seems more luck than judgement against such a tiny target.

In AT 1st edition it does mention orbital threats and the need for camo. Hence my beetlebacks having urban camo from above blending into space marine buildings. Very good for obscuring from eye level. To the extent in several games I forgot about a couple...

(A similar problem occurred with my tundra camo epic guard on my tundra board. Camo sucks...)

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Agreed. I think it is far more likely GW was referring to the macrocannon they sold a model for at the time than the macrocannons that only featured in lore at the time and hadn't seen a model since BFG was discontinued a decade earlier.

...I don't see the logic in this at all. If a story presented a machine "twice the strength of a Barghesi" I'd assume they refer to an average or median Barghesi, the most common type specimen, rather than the single Barghesi model they've actually made (the one in Masters of the Maelstrom, a small adolescent).

For macrocannons, those are fairly obviously the massive versions that appear pretty much every time any meaningful ship appears anywhere, rather than a single throwaway terrain piece that is a blip on the scale in comparison.

Like are we for real here, for a moment? Compare how often starship-grade macrocannons appear in any GW written or visual media, overall, to the number of times the Aquila Strongpoint appears. They're orders of magnitude apart!

We are lore people. We encounter macrocannon batteries in lore. We are also something of a minority in the community, especially if the prevalence of meme lore is anything to go by.

The average player is far more likely to encounter the literal plastic model GW sold at the time, which also had rules. GW has favoured extant models over lore references for... at least 2 decades? Aquila strongpoints were commonly featured in miniature sections in rulebooks and codices in 8th edition, when GW released Allarus Terminators.

I don't think that is a stretch at all. Especially given how compartmentalised GW sections can be.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When 40k the groundwarefare based game has used the term "macrocannon" it usually refers to one of the smaller ones.

Does it? Can you remember other examples than the Aquila Strongpoint, the seemingly mistake-written 6e rulebook one, and the Rogue Trader one?

 Haighus wrote:

We are lore people. We encounter macrocannon batteries in lore. We are also something of a minority in the community, especially if the prevalence of meme lore is anything to go by.

The average player is far more likely to encounter the literal plastic model GW sold at the time, which also had rules. GW has favoured extant models over lore references for... at least 2 decades? Aquila strongpoints were commonly featured in miniature sections in rulebooks and codices in 8th edition, when GW released Allarus Terminators.

I don't think that is a stretch at all. Especially given how compartmentalised GW sections can be.

The average player would not have been that likely to encounter such a niche model at all, and you make starship macro cannons sound much more obscure than they are. They appear in basically every video game and novel where meaningful battle spaceships themselves appear.

I go to Lexicanum, and on the list of battlecannon types the literally single type that isn't starship-grade is the Aquila Strongpoint. That's it, that's the one.

I almost feel like you guys are just yanking my leg at this point. This is like if you get offered a room able to house ten people and the seller goes "Oh, well, you know, Jyoti Amge is a person!".

 kirotheavenger wrote:
But voidshields don't make you immune to naval bombardment, because voidshields are a central part of naval warfare as well and any ships (plus their weapons) are well positioned to deal with voidshields.

If we base in on the BFG models, a typical lance bank (of which a cruiser will have two per broadside and equated to firepower 2 ingame) has two turrets of 3 barrels each.
So we might conclude that something like a Lunar class cruiser (one lance bank and one macrocannon bank per side) can strike with 6 lance shots.
So 6 lance strikes would be half of a single broadside of a typical cruiser (rate of fire unknown, varying greatly)

Using tabletop rules to judge weapon effectiveness is very hard - voidshields work very differently in different editions. Varying from a straight invuln (meaning even the first shot can sail straight through) in 40k 8th, to a simple AV12 'wall' in 40k 7th, to a 'wall' with its own invuln save in AT18.

If we equate 6 lance shots to 6 volcano cannon rounds (which is being very unfavourable to the naval lances as those barrels are like 10m in bore lol) then a Titan in 8th could survive with some hot rolling, would be obliterated in 7th, and probably unfased in AT18 (although probably very vulnerable for strike #2).

but 'realistically' - Titans are said to be vulnerable to weapons orders of magnitude weaker than even naval escorts are carrying in multitudes.

Hell in Taros Campaign a Warhound titan was brought low by a strike-bomber, in a manner which was a very close narrative interpretation of a 7th edition ingame-attack. Brought low by a level of firepower which doesn't even register as being able to harm an escort in BFG.
If a titan can reasonably fight another titan, then it must therefore be highly vulnerable to a warship. It is like an ant to a god.
The only real excuse that might not be the case is if the warship lacked the precision to reasonably target a titan, but unfortunately for the titan precision-lance strikes on ground assets are not an uncommon occurrence in 40k depictions.

I think all your reasoning, while sound, is still not enough to say that Titans are "useless/illogical in universe". Why? Because even if there are anti-Titan weapons available, the real world tells us that weapon systems with even a wide array of counters can still serve important and even irreplaceable roles on the battlefield. The existence of precision artillery, drones, and Hellfire and Javelin missiles haven't made tanks a non-option in todays modern warfare. In the early years of the Ukraine war some were saying it was the end of the tank, but here we are still, with tanks continuing to be fielded effectively, and new ones continuing to be designed and built for eventual deployment. The tactics and usaage of equipment just changes depending on context of the environment.

Sometimes Titans will make sense and be useful, and sometimes they will not. As long as they have at least some niche where they're valuable it's not unreasonable for the resource-rich Imperium to have and field them.

They also outrange most threats to themselves. Sure, chewing through a tank company is going to take time. But you still have the range on them, and can potentially target the biggest threats first.

For instance, the classic Leman Russ Company where the Command Tank is a Vanquisher. Take your time (you’ve got some of that), place your shot, and remove that highest threat level.

If your opponent has no hard counter? You’re about as safe as can be in the hubbub of battle.

Even if they do? You know you’re gonna be a target and can take that into account. Indeed, you’re going to draw so much enemy firepower, your supporting allies are going to have an easier time. And it’s not like your opponent can casually ignore you as a target.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When 40k the groundwarefare based game has used the term "macrocannon" it usually refers to one of the smaller ones.

Does it? Can you remember other examples than the Aquila Strongpoint, the seemingly mistake-written 6e rulebook one, and the Rogue Trader one?

The Astreus superheavy tank mounts a pair of "Macro Accelerator Cannons". The old Rogue Trader description says Macro Cannons are the heaviest versions of the autocannon. they fire explosive shells of considerable size and potency." So there's multiple versions of them, presumably some bigger and some smaller. They are explosive, so being hit by a blast isn't the same as taking a shell directly to the face. They can be fitted to large vehicles, so the Astreus version can still count. Terminator Armor is based on armor used to work inside of plasma reactors, so should be reasonably protective against big blasts, and historically it has sometimes been equipped with protective fields. Also, just because the armor can do something, doesn't mean that they always will. In the given example the model rolled a 6 to save, for example. It seems like there are definitely ways to make the passage make sense.

Macro- is a prefix that is used for many things. A macro-cannon is a specific class of weapon, of which the macro-accelerator cannon is not part.

It's like how the Primaris-Lightning Strike Fighter is not part of Cawl's Primaris Space Marine armies, or how the Contemptor Dreadnought's Gravis Plasma Cannon is not related to the Gravis Armour also worn by certain Space Marines.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Macro- is a prefix that is used for many things. A macro-cannon is a specific class of weapon, of which the macro-accelerator cannon is not part.

It's like how the Primaris-Lightning Strike Fighter is not part of Cawl's Primaris Space Marine armies, or how the Contemptor Dreadnought's Gravis Plasma Cannon is not related to the Gravis Armour also worn by certain Space Marines.

Possibly. Still, according to Rogue Trader the term Macro Cannon refers to versions of Autocannons larger than a typical autocannon, some of which can be mounted on vehicles. That's still enough wiggle room to not be in the same arena as space-navy weapons. Even with the Rogue Trader version being S10 with a -6 save modifier (rather than the silly 6th ed S7 AP4), Terminator Armor (before adding a Refractor Field) still saved it on a 6+.

According to Rogue Trader, the Ultramarines Chief Librarian Astropath is a half-Eldar. RT has -some- interesting and useful stuff and I respect it for its place in history, but at this point Warhammer's changed so much I would not use 1e as a load-bearing argument.

(This is aside from the issue of using gameplay stats in a lore argument. I refer you again to my Multi-Melta example of why this is a problem, but there are many, many more cases, such as Guardsmen in some editions being able to outrun supposedly supersonic jetbikes...)

Macro-Cannon used to be Titan Weapons, later renamed to Quake Cannons.

But they’ve remained constant as a broad term for any massive projectile weapon that lobs high explosive shells.

 Ashiraya wrote:
According to Rogue Trader, the Ultramarines Chief Librarian Astropath is a half-Eldar. RT has -some- interesting and useful stuff and I respect it for its place in history, but at this point Warhammer's changed so much I would not use 1e as a load-bearing argument.

(This is aside from the issue of using gameplay stats in a lore argument. I refer you again to my Multi-Melta example of why this is a problem, but there are many, many more cases, such as Guardsmen in some editions being able to outrun supposedly supersonic jetbikes...)

You look for consistencies through the editions before choosing to disregard any one example. The description of "Large Autocannons" appears to be consistent, and even the Macro Cannon on the Aquilla Strongpoint left a Terminator a save. The example of a half-Eldar Librarian is rather less consistent.

It sounds like you should toss out the Multimelta rules from Necromunda as a source. The Multimelta could kill bunkers and vehicles well enough in 40K from 1st through 7th before GW dropped damage charts.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Macro-Cannon used to be Titan Weapons, later renamed to Quake Cannons.

But they’ve remained constant as a broad term for any massive projectile weapon that lobs high explosive shells.

Thank you! I was looking for that, but I only have the Titan Legions books, not any of the earlier ones.

I do just want to clarify that it was the model of the Macro Cannon that was renamed to Quake Cannons.

That doesn’t meant the Quake Cannon is therefore a class of Macro Cannon.

Though, given it is indeed a massive projectile weapon that lobs specialised explosive shells? It could still be, though I can’t find confirmation either way.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do just want to clarify that it was the model of the Macro Cannon that was renamed to Quake Cannons.

That doesn’t meant the Quake Cannon is therefore a class of Macro Cannon.

Though, given it is indeed a massive projectile weapon that lobs specialised explosive shells? It could still be, though I can’t find confirmation either way.

Sorry, having touble parsing that. The "model" as in the piece of a figure being renamed to a new weapon? Because your statement also reads like a Quake Cannon is just one model of Macro Cannon, like a model of car.

Out of curiosity, when it was named Macro Cannon, what were the stats/description?

Ah, yes. I see where I’ve caused confusion.

The part originally called a Macro Cannon was later renamed as a Quake Cannon.

Macro Cannon was Adeptus Titanicus. Will grab a pic if my books are close to hand. Which they should be, but I’ve not read them since the move so might be in the attic.

I’m too good to you lot, I really am! Including bonus piccie of a really smart bit of old background.

The "Plasma Cannon" being a Titanicus "very heavy weapon" definitely is telling about how much has changed since, unless my Heavy Support Squad is toting ten Titan strategic-level guns without telling me.

Rogue Trader did t have Macro-cannon. It very clearly had Marco-cannon

Is that saying "Exist for the Emporer?" LOL.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The "Plasma Cannon" being a Titanicus "very heavy weapon" definitely is telling about how much has changed since, unless my Heavy Support Squad is toting ten Titan strategic-level guns without telling me.

Ah, they’re toting what were once Heavy Plasma Guns!

Also note that (not pictured, might get round to it soon but I just realised how awfully I’d filed my books, and so have sent myself to bed like a Dirty Boy) in AT? It was really the number of barrels that counted. So yes, the Plasma Gun might look weedy and misnamed? But could be packing multiple barrels for extra mayhem.

I do have the full rules and Codex Titanicus and I think a complete set of Titan Cards. But the cards are in the box. And the box is safe in the airing cupboard. And I can’t be bothered to dig it out,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I can say is that the original AT wasn’t far from Battletech in some respects.

I forget and will need to make time to refresh, but each sub-class of Warlord had different hard points. The use of which were consumed in different ways by different weapons and their number of barrels.

I may be confusing myself with 2nd Ed, but I’m pretty sure due to the drain on the Plasma Reactor, you could only pack a single Plasma Cannon. And some vague memory of once you fired it, it had a turn to cool down and you couldn’t move in your next turn?

Also, in my 2nd Ed Space Marine box, where the rulebook wasn’t (see putting myself to bed for being a Dirty Boy)? I found an original plastic Warlord Titan! Sadly the weapons are glued. But I’ve got one! In damned good condition all things considered.

@Doc: cool pics! Interesting that there's both an Autocannon and a Macro Cannon, which makes it seem like the Macro was a "Quake" from the start rather than a second "Auto" The labels for the bits are great too, I just magneted and primed three of those OG Warlords to paint them soon. Now I know what all the bits are supposed to be!

@Ashiraya: The Titans still have a Plasma Cannon, at least in Epic Armageddon/Net EA. In this case it's the man-portable one that changed from Heavy Plasma Gun. But hey, we could also use it as a sign that multiple sizes of weapons can exist with the same name.


@Flinty: Lol I never noticed that.