Excelsior Entertainment Forums

Warzone => Game Questions => Topic started by: chribu on February 06, 2006, 07:33:46 AM

Title: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: chribu on February 06, 2006, 07:33:46 AM: Some GLs have Direct fire only, while others have Indirect fire.
How do I deal with "Direct fire" template rolls? The same way as indirect fire? i.e. roll to hit for each unit, add the amount missed by to AR?
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: chribu on February 06, 2006, 07:55:00 AM: And what about AP Rockets (with RLs)?
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: Gallagher_Standard_Barer on February 06, 2006, 09:49:21 AM: Attack rolls and damage are calculated in exatcly the same fasion for both direct and indirect grenade launchers. The only difference is the path the projectile takes to the target. Direct fire weapons fly in a straight line at the target, while indirect fire weapons follow a parabolic path, this means two things, one indirect fire weapons ignore any cover the target is hiding behind, and that with the aid of a spotter who has LOS to the target the indirect fire weapon can fire over obstacles (provided both he and the target are at least as far away from the obstacle as half its height).
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: chribu on February 06, 2006, 11:01:07 AM: Ok thanks!
Another: Do indirect fire weapons ignore MP?
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: Gallagher_Standard_Barer on February 06, 2006, 12:09:21 PM: Yes, I believe that they do, but am not as certain about MP as I am cover.
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: dmcgee1 on February 06, 2006, 02:38:40 PM: MP is ignore for indirect fire, as MP is a form of cover. Remember, however, that trenches afford cover in the case of indirect fire.
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: chribu on February 06, 2006, 02:48:50 PM: if only indirect fire ignores cover (not direct, ranged, template fire, like AP grenades), then why does directly placed template (e.g. FT) ignore cover?
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: Gallagher_Standard_Barer on February 06, 2006, 02:57:35 PM: Its becuase of the path the projectile takes to the target. A direct fired weapon flies in a straight line from the target to the shooter, meaning if they have cover the projectile will hit the cover and only some of the blast will be transferred to the target, whereas an indirect fire follows a parabolic path meaning it comes at the target more or less from above, thus going over the cover and landing right in the targets lap. See the difference. This also means indirect fire weapons cannot be used on someone under a roof, or inside a building, since the projectile couldn't get to the target since it would hit the roof first.
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: chribu on February 06, 2006, 02:59:31 PM: yes, got that, but what about FT? i'd imagine cover giving some protection from flames coming towards me.
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: dmcgee1 on February 06, 2006, 02:59:40 PM: Because Directly Placed Templates represetn weapons that are unaffected by cover. Flamethrowers were used widely in several wars to clear out tunnels, pillboxes, etc because they afforded no cover to the enemy. The fire burned not only flesh, but consumed tohe available oxygen in the area, as well.

Shotguns are comprised of hundreds of pellet/flechettes that are designed for coverage over a wide area, ensuring that the targets are at least hit by some shrapnel. Further, the weapons are, already limited in distance (7" - 10"). Balance that with the fact that they ignore cover, and you still have to use good tactics to get in and be able to use it, effectively, as you should have to do with any weapon.

The only cover from these is LOS. You can't hit what you can't see.
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: Sylvas on February 06, 2006, 07:01:32 PM: Quote from: chribu on February 06, 2006, 02:59:31 PM
yes, got that, but what about FT? i'd imagine cover giving some protection from flames coming towards me.

not at all...the flames would envelop all of the area around the cover...

B.
Flame On...
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: PFC joe on February 06, 2006, 07:22:27 PM: Honestly, if you want to make it entirely representitive of the really real world. If you're firing an FT (full size) indoors then you would make an attack against all models in the room (provided that it's smaller than a certain size) as the burnin fluids tend to bounce, splash and on top of that incinerate tender lung tissues. the only way to effectively avoid a FT is to shoot the user first.

-PFC joe
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: chribu on January 22, 2007, 09:24:26 AM: Quote from: chribu on February 06, 2006, 07:55:00 AM
And what about AP Rockets (with RLs)?
Still the same question. What about AP rockets?
If "Attack rolls and damage are calculated in exatcly the same fasion for both direct and indirect (grenade launchers)" then why aren't they calculated in the same fashion for AP rockets (as all RL are direct)?
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: PFC joe on January 24, 2007, 09:19:16 PM: Because there is a very large difference between a shaped charge that explodes on contact and funnels molten copper (or some future Martian metal) in a tight cone shaped pattern to defeat plate armor (standard rockets) and a warhead that explodes and blows shrapnel all over the place to rend armor and flesh and damage with concussive forces (anti personel).

in game terms, cause one is a big bullet and the other is a big bang.

-PFC joe
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: chribu on January 25, 2007, 02:47:20 AM: So:
GL with direct and indirect fire, thrown weapons with template and mortars: ToHit roll for the template, reduce damage inflicted by the amount missed.
RL with AP rockets: ToHit roll for the template, if missed all miniatures under the template are safe.
?
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: Dr. Nick on January 25, 2007, 03:18:11 AM: wait, I also thought that the rl ap rockets get reduced damage when miss (exposion goes off close)!
just don´t ignore mp and cover
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: dmcgee1 on January 25, 2007, 01:55:37 PM: Quote from: Aldrien on January 25, 2007, 03:18:11 AM
wait, I also thought that the rl ap rockets get reduced damage when miss (exposion goes off close)!
just don´t ignore mp and cover

That is correct.
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: Wedge on January 25, 2007, 02:33:35 PM: Quote from: chribu on January 25, 2007, 02:47:20 AM

RL with AP rockets: ToHit roll for the template, if missed all miniatures under the template are safe?

You don't use a template with AP rockets. As Joe said, "It's a big bullet".
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: jjdodger on January 25, 2007, 03:49:35 PM: Wedge, i think you are incorrect... AP rockets use the small explosion template, and do less damage the more you "miss" by.
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: Dragon62 on January 25, 2007, 04:34:09 PM: AP is anti-personel and uses the templete.
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: PFC joe on January 25, 2007, 07:44:30 PM: Sorry wedge, i tried to avoid using the AP name cause it can get confusing at times. The big bullet is the standard, regular old issue rocket. The AP rocket (anti-personnell) is the optional load out and it uses the template with the degrading damage system.

-PFC joe
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: Wedge on January 25, 2007, 09:47:16 PM: Obviously... I am confused! :P :-[
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: chribu on January 26, 2007, 06:08:25 AM: Quote from: PFC joe on January 25, 2007, 07:44:30 PM
Sorry wedge, i tried to avoid using the AP name cause it can get confusing at times. The big bullet is the standard, regular old issue rocket. The AP rocket (anti-personnell) is the optional load out and it uses the template with the degrading damage system.

-PFC joe

So what you wrote some time ago was not referred to AP rockets but just to the standard RL shot?
Quote
Scorpion RL

Actually.... The Scorpion's RL is not indirect fire. This is a typo. It came up in the FAQ team discussions waay back when and unfortunatly the servers went down before it made it to popular discussion. If it were an Indirect fire weapon it would be the only RL that is as such as well as a never miss weapon as given that the RC of the Scorpion is so high and the damage of the weapon is as well. Couple that with the indirect fire ignoring Cover and the weapon could not actually miss. so yes. It is not an indirect fire weapon. -PFC joe
If this is the case, the scorpion RL with AP rockets is devastating, with the reduced damage system
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: PhillySniper on January 26, 2007, 08:01:44 AM: Yes the Scorpion can be devastating. Anytime you can make an opponent make rolls for armor saves its a good thing.. and when you can do it in bunches its even better ;D You can being at least 3 in a 1000pt army if you choose to and then multi-wound models look out!!! :)
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: PFC joe on January 26, 2007, 02:14:16 PM: The Scorpion rocket is a typo!

It has Huge amounts of damage, but cover can ameliorate that somewhat.

-PFC joe

(I was hopin this one wouldn't come up)
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: PhillySniper on January 26, 2007, 04:33:39 PM: Quote from: PFC joe on January 26, 2007, 02:14:16 PM
The Scorpion rocket is a typo!

It has Huge amounts of damage, but cover can ameliorate that somewhat.

-PFC joe

(I was hopin this one wouldn't come up)

The regular rocket is nasty but its hit or miss. The AP round can make you roll an armor save almost everytime.
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: Dr. Nick on January 27, 2007, 06:03:07 AM: well, but just the scorpion..

normally I try to shoot at w2+ models in single shot, because a (e.g.) S5 hit rarely does something useful, compared with a 13x2 hit at a soulslayer..

S10 is normally a AR job, not a valuable RL shot.
Title: Re: Indirect Direct Fire?
Post by: dmcgee1 on January 27, 2007, 06:51:52 AM: Quote from: PFC joe on January 26, 2007, 02:14:16 PM
... ameliorate ...

Joe, spit out the Thesaurus, and no one gets hurt...now, slowly back away.