Artillery and Bombs: a couple questions on their value.

[NeonKnight]

Make sure you're maintaining a distinction between advanced and standard rules.  Under advanced rules, it *is* still 34" for 0 flight time.  Under standard rules, it works like a standard IF attack (that happens to always resolve at long range, no matter what the true range is).  There's no flight time for LRMs, there's none for artillery either.  There's also no such thing as alternate munitions under standard rules, so no homing rounds either.  (however, see below for what TAG does for artillery in standard rules)

Modifiers for standard rules artillery:
+4 for long range
+1 for Indirect fire
(both of the above are a hard requirement, you can think of an artillery attack as being skill+5 before beneficial mods come in to play)
-1 for artillery staying stationary
-1 for spotter staying stationary
-2 for spotter having TAG or PRB (only -1 for PRB if your artillery is a tube of some sort; all the more reason to use Arrow IV launchers)
(before SPAs, you're looking at skill+1 very much of the time, skill+2 if you can't afford to have your spotter go stationary)
-1 for SPA:Oblique Attacker or Oblique Artilleryman on the artillery (given via Fire Support and Artillery Fire lances, respectively)
-2 for SPA:Forward Observer on the spotter (given via Recon Lance)

stack 'em all on a 4 skill, and you hit on 2+.  No need to even roll.

Not that it matter much, but nckestrel has stated:

No. Artillery Indirect Fire is not modified by attacker movement, though Direct Fire Artillery is.

Conversely, if that ruling has been changed, can we please then change the post (link above) to reflect that?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Not that it matter much, but nckestrel has stated:

Conversely, if that ruling has been changed, can we please then change the post (link above) to reflect that?

I'm sure nckestrel can speak for himself to clarify, but until then that ruling is about offboard artillery, is it not? Which makes sense, since they don't have movement to forfeit.  And isn't germane to standard rules anyway, since offboard artillery must categorically be talking about advanced rules (not possible to do offboard in standard rules).

EDIT:  if we *are* going to talk about advanced/offboard artillery, I'll throw in something I really don't like about offboard: no minimum distance is specified.  Someone can say they're 1/16th an inch offboard, and effectively not just get a ~34" 0 flight time range, it's ~34" measured from ANY POINT of your home edge.  There really, really ought to be a minimum distance for offboard artillery.  Even a "whole hex" of 2" offboard still gives superior zero-flight time coverage than any on-board artillery could. 

[NeonKnight]

I'm sure nckestrel can speak for himself to clarify, but until then that ruling is about offboard artillery, is it not? Which makes sense, since they don't have movement to forfeit.  And isn't germane to standard rules anyway, since offboard artillery must categorically be talking about advanced rules (not possible to do offboard in standard rules).

Well, the question does say:

If I am standing still or my off board artillery is standing still, do I receive the -1 modifier?

So, I would like to think the person was asking two related but different questions, i.e. first part being onboard, second part being off-board. Also, the answer specifically references Direct Fire, someting off-board can never do ;)

Again, not that a -1 modifier to a 2+ roll really matters at the end of the day.

[Scotty]

My suggestion for Forward Observer was to allow that unit to spot for multiple artillery attacks (per target), because current rules as written you get one per spotter.

I also think all to-hit bonuses for TAG, PRB, and RCN should be dropped, or that RCN should allow a unit to spot multiple targets for indirect.  That'd mean that a Recon Lance could stack Forward Observer and RCN to be able to spot multiple targets for multiple indirect attacks, but there's a net +/- 0 mod to the attack, instead of the potentially up to -4 that currently exists.

More potential options, but this is getting toward formation building and SPA rules: Remove the scatter reduction from Artilleryman, allow IF# attacks without a spotter at +X mod for Attacker.

[nckestrel]

I believe that post pre-dated the existence of standard rules artillery.  The answer applies specifically to advanced rules artillery, as it was all that existed at the time.
In advanced rules artillery, indirect fire artillery only uses the to-hit modifiers listed on p75.   Indirect does not use range bands, target type, target movement, terrain, etc.  Even if the spotter is spotting through woods, in smoke, while jumping, none of those modifiers on are on p75, so they don't apply to indirect artillery.  So attacker movement does not either.  That's for onboard or offboard.

Advanced direct fire artillery says to use p75 modifiers, but also says to include intervening terrain, target type, target movement, etc.  So with the addition of attacker movement modifiers to Alpha Strike, I ruled direct fire should also add that to the list that affect it.

Standard rules artillery works as much as possible like standard attacks.  Attacker movement modifiers work the same as they do for non-artillery standard weapon attacks and indirect (LRM) attacks, ie. attacker movement modifiers affect it.

[nckestrel]

There really, really ought to be a minimum distance for offboard artillery.  Even a "whole hex" of 2" offboard still gives superior zero-flight time coverage than any on-board artillery could.

I think fixing standard rules artillery's to-hit modifiers, and then replacing all of advanced rules artillery with the option to make indirect artillery attacks regardless of range with a 1 turn flight time, including the offboard option. IE. just make all 42"+ indirect artillery attacks 1 turn in flight with the system for tracking the target hex and drop most everything else from advanced rules artillery.

[sadlerbw]

The problem with just saying things don't stack, is that canon is that what those are used for.  Taking a Recon Lance, that grants forward observer, and then putting RCN/TAGs units in it and being told you have wasted one or the other is frustrating. 

I'd like a flat +1 to-hit modifier on all area effect attacks (artillery and bombs).  And removing the RCN to-hit bonus and making TAG then just a -1.  I think those two, along with changing Forward Observer, would get Artillery to a more reasonable level.

I get what you are saying, but it wouldn't be totally unheard of to say something like, "Forward Observer replaces any bonus from TAG or PRB." And while I hate to use fluff reasons to justify rules, with probes and TAG we are talking about a computer locating the enemy and sending targeting data back to another unit. It doesn't really matter how skillful the operators are, they pretty much just pointing the guns where the computer tells them to. So, forward observer still matters to units that DON'T have TAG or a probe, of which there are bucket loads that are still 'recon' units. That way, if you mech has the fancy electronics you can spend your SPA elsewhere, but if you don't, you can get a similar affect by adding an SPA. Besides, there is no rule that says SPA's have to be useful for EVERY unit. I am more than welcome to take Fist Fire on an Ostscout 7K for no benefit, or taking Jumping Jack on a Hunchback 4G. There would be no point to it, but that is OK. Those SPA's only help certain units. I don't see anything wrong with making Forward Observer an SPA that only helps units that do not already have advanced targeting equipment.

As for the AOE +1 to-hit. Hmm. I think I would prefer removing some of the minuses from the stack rather than adding more pluses, for the sake of making the whole calculation simpler, but your math does end up in a place that seems more reasonable, and gets back to rewarding the attacking unit for improved Skill rating.

Another thought I just had: Is there anything stopping an Artillery unit from taking Range Master and making their long-range to-hit mod +0? Because the simple arty rules specifically say all indirect attacks are at long range.

[Scotty]

The fact that Range Master isn't conferred by any extant formation type, which means it only shows up if you're deliberately picking SPAs to assign to individual units.  SPAs aren't designed to be balanced on their own.  The reason Forward Observer is coming up so often in this conversation is that Recon Lances are fairly easy to make.

[sadlerbw]

I know FO is hugely common because recon lances throw it out like candy, and that is why it is such a big deal as it is almost a standard part of Artillery if you are using formations. Just thinking about other ways to break the to-hit stack if FO gets changed.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

The range master trick wouldn't work in advanced rules, where artillery doesn't use range brackets.  I suppose you could do so in standard rules, but you can do all sorts of broken things with SPAs on all kinds of units.  Making artillery auto-hit in new and inventive ways isn't that big a deal in my view, since you can already get auto-hitting artillery via the limited SPAs available through force building.

[nckestrel]

The fact that Range Master isn't conferred by any extant formation type, which means it only shows up if you're deliberately picking SPAs to assign to individual units.  SPAs aren't designed to be balanced on their own.  The reason Forward Observer is coming up so often in this conversation is that Recon Lances are fairly easy to make.

We've hopefully got many more Combat Manuals and new formations to go.. though I don't believe any currently use Range Master.
I have to check on Range Master, I thought it was no longer a straight +0, but two less so it worked with sniper.  But I hate checking from my phone.

[Scotty]

I am actually against (almost) every SPA that gives a bonus to hit on the formation bonuses.  It's simple, yes, but it's also incredibly powerful, and fairly uninteresting as far as game effects go.

[sadlerbw]

Fair enough. I can accept SPA's being 'on your honor not to be too cheesy'. Also, the advanced rules artillery are a whole other kettle of fish, for sure.

[NeonKnight]

I am actually against (almost) every SPA that gives a bonus to hit on the formation bonuses.  It's simple, yes, but it's also incredibly powerful, and fairly uninteresting as far as game effects go.

I'm of the opinion, that SPA's should never, ever give Bonuses, but at most should eliminate penalties.

I.E.

Super Duper skill, should not give a -1 to Indirect Fire, but rather, eliminate the +1 penalty. That way, it future proofs against other abilities that may also grant a negative, and prevent the current issue we see with Artillery attacks.

[cavingjan]

I would not advocate for an elimination of the indirect penalty for a SPA. Or at least not without a limit. It tends to have unintended consequences. There were some of those in MW:DA.

[Scotty]

The current SPA is just a flat -1 to hit when firing indirectly.  It is, effectively, the exact same thing, except unbounded by limitation to the IDF penalty explicitly.  It is nevertheless the kind of SPA I'm not too keen on. 

For SPAs that I really like (from formations, since I'm most familiar with those): Speed Demon, Multi-Tasker, Eagle Eyes, Lucky, Combat Intuition, Maneuvering Ace.  All of them improve the capabilities of a unit without touching the to-hit roll for an attack, and most exist to add more interesting or impactful options for something the unit can already do.

[sadlerbw]

I'm not against SPA's that modify to-hit roles entirely, but I do think they are prone to becoming over-broad. I'm OK with messing with to-hits if it is in limited situations that you can't get to happen every single turn. For instance, if Forward Observer gave you -1 to-hit on a SINGLE artillery attack, I don't think I'd mind as much because it isn't a flat bonus for as long as the Recon formation exists. Anything that is given out to most or all of the units in a formation, however, probably needs extra caution in giving out to-hit bonuses. I'm not an expert at min/maxing SPA's, but I do like when they create a synergy between one formation and another, or between the units in a formation. Stacking bonuses is always a tricky problem, and so is giving out enough bonuses that to-hits drop like a rock, but I don't think that means we have to avoid them completely. That's just my opinion though. I don't have data backing it up or anything.

I'm also OK with some SPA's being more powerful than others, or only useful on a subset of all the possible units. The problem comes when a couple SPA's are the no-brainer, must-have choice for a large number of units.

[Scotty]

A spotter may only designate a target for a single artillery attack.  If a second artillery piece also wants to shoot that target, you must either have another spotter, or just eat the penalty for firing without one.

A properly constructed force will have adequate spotters all with Forward Observer because it's really easy to make them.