KommissarK said:

I would argue that an artillery company firing at a single squad is rather silly, as Darklordofbunnies mentioned.

The artillery spotter should send word up the chain of command and let a squad or two of the enemies infantry be dispatched to deal with them. 

Ah, but being traitor PDF, and an otherwise gung-ho/trigger happy bunch, they don't care about no stinkin chain of command. They got big guns, and they have enemies approaching their position. What if they don't have a squad to spare against the party? What if its more than just the party and several squads of guardsmen (including the party) that are advancing towards them.

I'm just saying there are moments when a squad may come under artillery fire. As it is, there are two things that can occur in RAW:

1. They are actually being shot at, in which case they will be hit since earthshakers can't miss (see the "2d10m scatter is meaningless if you have a 20m blast radius" argument).

2. They are not being shot off, and are inherently "safe" where they are. Unless of course, it scatters on top of them, in which case they're still dead (as there is no method of decreasing damage as a function of distance from center of blast).

Maybe its just me, but infantry huddling up in trenches and foxholes while under artillery fire is quite iconic of the setting. I'm reminded of the sequence from Band of Brothers. Their unit took it pretty bad, but was able to continue fighting. Looking at these rules, it seems very much like putting a party into a similar situation is simply a device of quickly ending the campaign (via TPK). It has a very hot/cold (you're either 100% dead or 100% alive) feel to it, which, while stressing, makes for a pretty crappy RPG. You're essentially living at the whim of the GM. I'm just looking for a means of using artillery fire as a means of injuring (and maybe killing a PC, not all of them). Its really an issue with blast damage, and how it deals its full value to all inside the blast radius. I get that it greatly simplifies the system, but at the same time, it takes away certain tools, certain stressors the GM can use on a party. "Incoming!" is just another word for "Reroll!"

Honestly the initial point of this thread was simply commenting that earthshakers can't miss, which I hope we all agree is actually kind of an issue. Indirect fire needs to scatter more, or earthshakers need to have a smaller blast radius. It is not a good thing that the weapon always hits its designated target, no matter the penalty to the attack.

But again, A Basilisk against the party is swatting flies with a sledgehammer. A Basilisk bombardment should be set dressing, not a direct threat. If you want something party-scaled just use mortars.

That having been said, check out the cover rules on page 184. A bunker, or an arbitrarily thick wall of dirt between the party and the shell can throttle the damage down to survivable levels.

But, IMHO, unless they do something truely stupid to invite it, you as a GM should not actually be rolling to see if a Basilisk hits them. It should be a pre-built part of the scenario with an effect you have already worked out and scaled to them. Like for example they are sneaking through a sewer system underlaying a battle field, and becuase they are 10 min late they run into the arty barrage that was supposed to be a distracting cover for them. Then you hit them with a full on Basilisk round. 4d10+10 pen 8, with full cover of dirt plus ceramacrete sewer walls gives 24 points of additional armour leaving the party getting their teeth rattled by a net damage of around 8 pts pen 0. I'd probably throw in an agility/acrobatics check to keep your feet.

But for the most part unless they stand on top of a hill and Vox "I bet you can't shoot this octopus off of my head." to an enemy basilisk crew, they should not be the target of a basilisk anymore than they should be the target of an orbital lance battery. Or the full ire of an Inquisitor.

Another question: Would it matter if the basilisk attack could miss? You'd then still be at the mercy of the GM's dice. It would be an exact repeat of your bleeding Commissar situation - there's still nothing you can do to influence the outcome.

Right now, the "take back the guns" mission would essentially be a stealth game: Hope you can notice any spotter before he sees you, then sneak up on him until you're close enough that he won't be willing to call a barrage on what is essentially his own position and take him out. Perhaps allow a grace period between being spotted and the death coming from above while the spotter transmits the coordinates via vox and you move towards whatever cover you can find.

Andor said:

Please don't give my party ideas, they have the life expectancy of a fruit fly as is… This is what I get for using my DW group to playtest OW.

given the reported scatter range for artilllery in real bombardments, max 20m seems very low. how about 2d10+(Dof)d10? this wouldmake artillery pretty damn deadly in the hands of competent gunners but useless in the case of Bob the ork..

As far as the rules go, something needs to be changed.  Whether it's the party being targeted, or they are the ones pulling the trigger, the earthshaker cannot miss.  A larger scatter would make sense, particularly if it was based on degrees of failure.

In fact, that even a successful test would land a shell with almost pinpoint accuracy (and at several kilometers too) seems a little off to me.

Also, it's just occurred to me that there is no minimum range for the earthshaker cannon listed.  +30 to hit for point blank range anyone?

 Explosive weapons need something like Shadowrun's system, where they lose potency with distance, so someone who is 19 meters from the epicenter doesn't take as much damage as someone in the center.

As for increasing the scatter based on DoF of failure, I agree, but I still think siome part of scatter should depend on the distance, as that is the main factor in deviation.

How about a simple reduction of two points of damage for every meter away from the blast center?

Min damage - 14 - Direct Hit - Severely damaged trooper

Min damage - 14 - Mid blast - No damage.

Min damage - 14 - edge of blast - No damage.

Av Damage - 30 - Direct Hit - Dead trooper.

Av Damage - 30 - Mid blast - 10 damage, minimised by good cover.

Av Damage - 30 - Edge of Blast - No damage.

Max Damage - 50 - Direct Hit - What trooper?

Max Damage - 50 - Mid blast - Smoking boots.

Max Damage - 50 - Edge of Blast - Damaged, but survivable.

It could work.  Essentially, at average damage, guardsmen in strong trenches could weather a barrage for some time, but out in the open, are fodder.

Also, does anyone else think that 8 pen is a bit much?

People, Basilisks are made to fire at buildings, you know: hardened bunkers, enemy strongholds, traitor marine companies, etc. The damage is fine, the scatter is a little silly but w/e, and the Pen 8 is ok as the gun shoots a VW Beetle full of C4 at you…seriously. If you aren't running a siege game the plyers have no need to have a basilisk and unless you hate your players very deeply then you have no reason to shoot them with one either.

I've seen basilisks fire at infantry formations all the time in TT, I'm not quite sure where you're getting this whole "arty doesn't shoot at infantry" stuff. Its highly effective. But it shouldn't outright murder a party.

Sadly, SR probably has a lock on this, but we really just need a column to describe how damage is modified as a function of range, for example -2 damage / 1 meter.

Darklordofbunnies said:

The trouble with really big guns in any game is that A) The players will tear the game setting apart to get their hands on one and B) point it at the most inappropriately weak thing to use it on possible.  As a GM, there comes a point where you run out of excuses, and the players get to pull that enormous trigger.  Plus, from the other side, a great part of war action/drama is a bunch of line troopers weathering the storm of incoming artillery.  Just not when it results in everyone going home early, character sheets in the bin.

My point about the PEN value is that the blast from the earthshaker already does do a lot of damage, which alone will get past most armour.  It always seemed to me that wepans with armour penetration had a specific reason to do so (such as sharpened points or superheated beams). 

Also, in relation to the German car packed with explosives metaphor, the demo charge has no PEN value.  At this time I am unable to find a table containing the PEN values for Volkswagens, but I'll get back to you as soon as FFG puts one in the errata.

I'm not enitrely sure that Basilisks fire anything larger then smartcars, and given the prevalance of las technology they may even be hybrids…

I suppose the problem with reducing damage by area is that weak blast weapons become useless (frag grenades) while not sufficently impacting on artillery damage. 2 points per meter does seem to be good though, allowing exceptional shots to deal rather more damage to everybody. as for trenches, how much cover does a trench provide in terms of AP? most of the target simply can't be hit by the shell surely? I suppose foxholes might give additional +4 or so? Scatter distances really should be influenced by range but that is kind of difficult, maybe firing indirectly causes additional penalties at long and extreme ranges (-20 and -30 respectively) which would increase the average degrees of failure and hence the scatter.

Pen 8 is fine for shells as they are designed to penetrate bunkers and buildings and then explode, whereas demo charges just go "boom". a shaped charge should get some pen as well, for instance. I would like to see some artillery based talents for operators.

trentmorten said:

Exactly, the PEN works fine on a direct hit, but not on a personal armour kind of way, unless your target is unbelievably unlucky.

Why would a basilisk fire a charge the size of a car? To do that it would need to be about the size of 6 or 7 baneblades. Which it clearly isn't.