orbital bombardment in 40k

[dragon]

Currently reading last chancers omni, a little weird especially the second book, but have quick question. In the first book they spend several years training a sucidial team to go into the fortress and sabotage the fusion plant to blow up the city.

But yet they use a battleship to help blast there way in. Why is it that in many of these stories orbital strikes seem to be weak, but in others situation ther're powerfull enough to destroy moons.

[white_rabbit]

Currently reading last chancers omni, a little weird especially the second book, but have quick question. In the first book they spend several years training a sucidial team to go into the fortress and sabotage the fusion plant to blow up the city.

But yet they use a battleship to help blast there way in. Why is it that in many of these stories orbital strikes seem to be weak, but in others situation ther're powerfull enough to destroy moons.

Because they are different authors, and in franchises authors frequently sacrifice continuity and/or common sense on the altar of their "work".

I think perhaps propaganda wise its easier to spin the destruction of a Hive city when you aren't the blokes who've just annihilated it from orbit.

Hang on though, I seem to recall that the Warmaster wouldn't actually let them reduce the city from orbit,and the plot combined this with the oncoming Nid horde homing in on the Genestealer insurrection, and the problems of Tyranids accessing high level information on imperial logistics and military matters from the Hive and its officers.
Solution, covert Inquisition sponsored sabotage.

[dragon]

Currently reading last chancers omni, a little weird especially the second book, but have quick question. In the first book they spend several years training a sucidial team to go into the fortress and sabotage the fusion plant to blow up the city.

But yet they use a battleship to help blast there way in. Why is it that in many of these stories orbital strikes seem to be weak, but in others situation ther're powerfull enough to destroy moons.

Because they are different authors, and in franchises authors frequently sacrifice continuity and/or common sense on the altar of their "work".

I think perhaps propaganda wise its easier to spin the destruction of a Hive city when you aren't the blokes who've just annihilated it from orbit.

Hang on though, I seem to recall that the Warmaster wouldn't actually let them reduce the city from orbit,and the plot combined this with the oncoming Nid horde homing in on the Genestealer insurrection, and the problems of Tyranids accessing high level information on imperial logistics and military matters from the Hive and its officers.
Solution, covert Inquisition sponsored sabotage.

ok yeah just scimmed back over it and the Warmaster did say not to destroy it by orbital bombardment as he wanted it intact. Answers that I guess.

[Connor MacLeod]

As I recall it was the Inquisitor oriel who wanted to blow it because the genestealer/tyranid infestation wasn't widely known. It was in fact an Inquisitorial fuckup. EVeryone else (the Warmaster included I assume) thought they were merely rebels.

I'm also betting that the Inquisitor tried to get a bombardment done but was refused. Of course, had the Inquisition been honest and the true nature of the threat been known, they probably WOULD have bombarded the city rather than risk infection spreading.

The bombardment in question was probably reduced in yield so as not to wipe everyone out in the vicinity - "dial a yield" can and has been done (Strike Cruiser in "Nightbringer") Generally facilities and whatnot are considered rahter valuable and you don't want to destroy them any more than you have to, and you wnat to be careful about how much firepower you dump into a planet because warships can dump alot of firepower in (even by lower end calcs). This is parly why they don't exterminatus every threat they come across - some of that shit is irreplacable.

there can always be other cases (existence of void shielding protecting something, sheer durability, personal whim/stupidity of some higher up, greed or the desire to take something on the planet, etc.) which as WR notes, can often be traced to "writers fiat".

That said, the cases of actual, genuine inconsistencies are alot lower than you might think (I can only think of a handful offhand that are truly difficult to reconcile) - most examples tend towards the more impressive (and in my mind accurate) depictions of firepower.