Is indirect fire a pointless rule?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

With its -1 to hit when using the rule it seems super pointless when every weapon with the rule that I’m aware of also gets the heavy rule.

 

so in the case of the guard a mortar team has a BS of 5+. Indirect fire means they’re hitting on 6s, but heavy brings it down to 5+ again.

 

with BS being weapon and unit specific it makes no sense to have that rule come with an in built -1.

 

you want a stationary mortar to hit at 5+ give it a BS of 6+ and heavy.

or just a 5+ BS and only the blast rule. Is a mobile mortar hitting on 5+ really going to break anything?

 

 

[Mr. Oddity]

Like several other rules this edition, it feels to me like a case of GW conceptualizing a high-level balance method and then subverting it at the individual level. A lot of indirect has options to avoid penalties (Desolation squad rule, spotter strat(?) for Guard, fate dice in Aeldari, weapon support systems and AFP in T'au) via flavor rules, thus negating the balance attempt to an extent. It's an unfortunate casualty of their efforts to give every unit a unique ability instead of leaning into the keyword system more (YMMV).

Edited October 2, 2023 by Mr. Oddity
Mobile keyboard goofs

[sairence]

I'm working on the assumption that they want Mortars to hit on 4s, aka the normal Guard hit roll, but not when they are running around because man-portable heavy weapons generally need time to set up.

 

So the heavy buff applying when not moving is an abstraction of that set up time, or of having a stable platform. It's also why in my view most Guard tanks don't heavy right now, they're not meant to be stationary guns, they are meant to be mobile linebreakers, with the exception of the Vanquisher, whose fluff is literally to be a tank sniper.

 

The indirect penalty is a separate rule from that, that acts as an abstraction of nit being able to hit that well when you can't see and when you don't have spotters to radio over coordinates.

 

I think it's always worth keeping in mind that rules probably aren't written purely from a balance POV, but that the initial idea for them in all likelhood comes from a fluff-inspired "this is how we think this should work and how we might translate this into the game" type of POV

[jaxom]

On 10/2/2023 at 3:47 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

With its -1 to hit when using the rule it seems super pointless when every weapon with the rule that I’m aware of also gets the heavy rule.

 

so in the case of the guard a mortar team has a BS of 5+. Indirect fire means they’re hitting on 6s, but heavy brings it down to 5+ again.

 

with BS being weapon and unit specific it makes no sense to have that rule come with an in built -1.

 

you want a stationary mortar to hit at 5+ give it a BS of 6+ and heavy.

or just a 5+ BS and only the blast rule. Is a mobile mortar hitting on 5+ really going to break anything?

 

 

Because the current way it works allows for indirect weapons to also be used as direct fire weapons and avoid the -1 to hit penalty. Mortars with line of sight will hit on a 5+ if they move and 4+ if they stay stationary; like all other direct fire Guard heavy weapons.

[MegaVolt87]

Another example of GW making interesting core rules that factions can subvert or mitigate. Same with battleshock. This was prevelant in 9th, expect the same in 10th for such mechanics as we get more codexes and new units. Is it really much of a suprise at this point? 

[Dark Shepherd]

Indirect fire is a hard rule to balance, well without balanced points

 

A fun to do it would be to rely on spotter units to make indirect fire good

 

 

[MARK0SIAN]

17 hours ago, MegaVolt87 said:

Another example of GW making interesting core rules that factions can subvert or mitigate. Same with battleshock. This was prevelant in 9th, expect the same in 10th for such mechanics as we get more codexes and new units. Is it really much of a suprise at this point? 

This. GW is a world leader at introducing a rule then handing out so many exceptions to the rule that it becomes pointless. 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

If I was feeling malicious, I would say any rule written by GW due to their breathtaking incompetence is pointless.  

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 10/3/2023 at 11:34 AM, sairence said:

I'm working on the assumption that they want Mortars to hit on 4s, aka the normal Guard hit roll, but not when they are running around because man-portable heavy weapons generally need time to set up.

 

So the heavy buff applying when not moving is an abstraction of that set up time, or of having a stable platform. It's also why in my view most Guard tanks don't heavy right now, they're not meant to be stationary guns, they are meant to be mobile linebreakers, with the exception of the Vanquisher, whose fluff is literally to be a tank sniper.

 

The indirect penalty is a separate rule from that, that acts as an abstraction of nit being able to hit that well when you can't see and when you don't have spotters to radio over coordinates.

 

I think it's always worth keeping in mind that rules probably aren't written purely from a balance POV, but that the initial idea for them in all likelhood comes from a fluff-inspired "this is how we think this should work and how we might translate this into the game" type of POV

Indirect just needs to return to the scatter dice

 

On 10/4/2023 at 6:56 PM, jaxom said:

Because the current way it works allows for indirect weapons to also be used as direct fire weapons and avoid the -1 to hit penalty. Mortars with line of sight will hit on a 5+ if they move and 4+ if they stay stationary; like all other direct fire Guard heavy weapons.

And no one is direct firing them…

[Sergeant Bastone]

I direct fire my mortars all the time.

 

Or sometimes something rounds the corner to get a shot on your indirect stuff, fails to kill it, and then you get to shoot back direct. 

[sairence]

I deeply, deeply feel that the return of scatter dice would be absolutely terrible. Same with vehicle facings.

 

Dear God-Emperor, no. Never again.