[some edits for spelling, presentation order, etc]

I'm finally getting around to working on the sequel to FSB Pious Piotr which will involve acting as forward observers for the artillery. But, as usual, the scale in Only War is messed up, and the rules on how to get the artillery on target leave something to be desired. So here's my thoughts on that:

These rules are trying to feel like calling artillery between roughly 1935 and 1990. Post ~1990 artillery is pretty much too good for the game.

Terms:
--------------
Adjust Fire
This is where you don't know if you have the right target area or not, so the artillery you are talking to only fires one round at the time. Then you observe where the hit was, call them with corrections, and have them shoot again.
-------------
Fire for Effect
This is where you know your artillery is on target, and now you want the guns to shoot several rounds.
--------------
Danger Close / Minimum safe distance (MSD)
Considering the relative inaccuracy of artillery fire and the large blast radius, you don't want to call artillery fire to land too close to friendly targets, outside of exceptional circumstances. The distance is technically determined by what you are shooting and what the friendlies are (infantry in the open, infantry dug in, vehicles, etc).
---------------
Final Protective fire (FPF)
This is the call when your unit is in danger of being overrun. The artillery fires very close to your position (quite often within the danger close /MSD range) as a final attempt to kill the enemy about to overrun you.

A call for final protective fire has a very high priority for artillery units, so your less urgent fire mission may get put on hold for some other units FPF.
-------------------

Artillery fusing:
Standard artillery shells normally have 3 different fusing choices:
------------------
Proximity / 'Variable Time' (VT)
Not a timed fusing at all, instead the artillery shell has a device that tells it how far above the ground it is, and it blows up in mid air. [They were originally called variable time by the Allies during WW2 in an attempt to confuse the Germans about how exactly it was done and, like them term 'tank', the name has stuck.]

So why would you use VT fusing?
It gives you the greatest area of effect of shrapnel against infantry targets. In addition, the shrapnel if coming from above, rather than along the ground, making fighting positions (or simply be prone) considerably less effective in protecting against it
----------------
'Quick'
This has the artillery go off almost as soon as it hits the ground. This greatly reduces the effectiveness against personnel, as much of the shrapnel is wasted against the ground.

So why would you use Quick fusing?
Your tech level doesn't allow for VT fusing (though this has been available since WW2, so it's quite old)
You want to see where your shells impact, because you are adjusting fire.
You don't have any ICM rounds and you really need to engage vehicles. The chance of the artillery round directly hitting a vehicle is very small, but vehicles directly hit by large artillery shells are usually very unhappy.
[Realism comment, the actual shrapnel footprint of quick fuse shells is more sausage or butterfly wing shaped, rather than round, but we'll ignore this.]
------------------
'Delay'
The artillery goes off after a slight delay, meaning that the shell goes off under the ground. This greatly reduces the shrapnel effect. On the other hand, it is more effective at demolishing structures.
Delay fusing s theoretically more dangerous to dug in infantry, since the delay makes the blast effect of the shell more likely to effect their fortifications. BUT, VT fusing is generally more effective against infantry positions without overhead cover. So the delay fusing is generally only fired against dug in infantry when the shooter doesn't have VT shells.

So why would you use delay fusing?
You want to damage a building, bridge, or other structure.
You are firing on infantry positions with overhead cover that are almost immune to quick and VT fused shells.

-----------------
ICM, for when you really want to kill people.
Instead of being one large blast, an ICM round instead splits open and distributes several small bomblets over the beaten zone. This is even more dangerous to vehicles, as the ICM bomblets usually have some anti-vehicular effect. In addition, ICM is more effective against infantry as well.

ICM rounds are only 'modern' and only available for medium and heavy artillery.

So when wouldn't you want to use ICM?
When firing against dug in targets with overhead cover. (ICM costs more, and isn't much more effective)
When firing on targets with 'incidental' overhead cover, such as forest or jungle.

When shooting at targets in buildings (the bomblets don't do so well against structures).
------------------
Artillery blast radii
The blast radius of actual artillery is much larger than presented in Only War. So first thing, here's something about that:
----------------
Light mortar (Mortar heavy weapon in the book, 60mm mortar)
Approximate MSD 250 meters
------

Fragment radius:

-----------
'Modern Type' ca 1960-1990 shells
VT ~15meters
Quick ~7.5 meters
Delay ~4 meters
--
Less advanced shell ca 1910-1955
VT ~10 meters
Quick ~ 5 meters
Delay ~ 2.5 meters
---------------------
Heavy Mortar/Medium Artillery (Griffon Mortar in the book, 100 - 120mm mortar. ~105 mm gun)
Approximate MSD 350-400 meters

--

Fragment radius:

-----------

'Modern Type' ca 1960-1990 shells
VT ~30 meters
Quick ~15 meters
Delay ~7.5 meters

ICM ~30? meters
--
Less advanced shell ca 1910-1955
VT ~20 meters
Quick ~10 meters
Delay ~5 meters
--------------
Heavy Artillery (Earthshaker cannon, ~155mm Artillery)
Approximate MSD 500-600 meters
--

Fragment radius:

-----------

'Modern Type' ca 1960-1990 shells
VT ~50 meters
Quick ~25 meters
Delay ~12.5 meters

ICM ~50? meters
--
Less advanced shell ca 1910-1955
VT ~35 meters
Quick ~17.5 meters
Delay ~8.75 meters

--------
Damage:
The main way artillery damages targets is via shrapnel. Though the blast effects of the shell are much more damaging, the area of effect is very small compared to the shrapnel radius. So we'll only really worry about blast effects when we are using artillery to level buildings.
-----------
For infantry:
Being the lethal radius of an artillery shell is like coming under attack from a spray weapon. Make an agility test, modified by your size. For example, an ork nob (size: Hulking) would add 10 to his roll, making him more likely to be hit. For quick and delay fusing, a result over 120 represents a direct hit by a shell.

If the fusing is quick or delay, you get a +10 for begin prone, +20 for being prone and in cover, and +30 for being dug in (slit trench or foxhole, not just a hasty fighting position)

If the fusing is VT, you get a +10 for being prone and in cover, and a +20 for being dug in.

If ICM, you get a +10 for being prone and in cover, and a +20 for being dug in; but, for every 2 margins of failure after the first, you suffer an additional fragment hit.
------------
For vehicles:

Crew of open topped vehicles makes agility tests as if they were prone and in cover.

For VT fusing:
Vehicles are hit automatically by fragments, and suffer a hit on the top facing, which normally has the same armor as the rear.

For quick and delay fusing:
Vehicles roll d100 and add their size modifier.

A result of 120 or more means a direct hit by an artillery shell on the top facing. In addition, crew of open topped vehicles hit directly automatically fail their agility tests and also suffer the direct hit damage.

Otherwise, the vehicle suffer a single fragment hit to the top armor facing. (Crew makes agility tests as normal).

ICM
The vehicle's commander makes a test against target number thirty (30), and adds the vehicles size bonus to the roll (so massive vehicles (SB +30) will be hit at least once). If the test is passed, they suffer a fragment hit to the top facing. If failed, for every 2 additional margins of failure, they suffer an additional bomblet hit.
--------------------
Damage:
Fragment hits (no matter what artillery size)
2d10+2
Direct hits:
Mortar: 2d10+6 Pen 6
Medium artillery: 3d10+8 pen 8
Heavy Artillery: 5d10 + 10 pen 10
ICM:
Bomblet hit vs. vehicle: 2d10 + 6 pen 10
-------------
Results:
Infantry in the open gets roughly handled by artillery, but PCs aren't likely to be killed outright by an artillery strike.
Armored vehicles are mostly immune to non-ICM rounds, and ICM works better against lightly armored vehicles but is also capable of destroying tanks.
----------------
Things that may need more thought:
Dug in infantry should be very resistance to most artillery, and may need more bonuses.
May need more 'discussion' on incidental overhead cover, like trees.
May need more discussion on fighting positions and overhead cover for those not familiar with the terms.

Should I also model the 'casualty' radius of the shells, not just the lethal radius?

[Casualty radius of shells is roughly twice their fragment radius. Would probably be the same as being in the lethal radius, but no chance of direct hit, and maybe +30 to agility test.]

What's the lethal radius of ICM vs VT? Is it roughly the same, or is the ICM radius larger?

Would assume that ICM doesn't have as much of a casualty radius, though.
-----------------
Next post to be about how to get the artillery on target.

May I ask where the fun is in playing forward observers?

One of the most important things in hitting targets with artillery is the ability to read a map. You have to read the map tell the artillery where the target is. Barring the artillery being in a known position relative to you, like your company mortars just over the hill, if you can't read a map, artillery can't help you.

So, first step of calling artillery is knowing where you are. This requires the Navigate(Surface) skill.

-------------

After you've read the amp, your ability to hit with called artillery depends on your observational ability and your basic math skills, it has very little to do with how good a shot you are.

So the 'shoot' test for artillery is moved to Scholastic Lore (Tactica Imperialis). It's not something every Guardsman is taught Common Lore (Imperial Guard), but it is something most every officer has and that says Scholastic Lore (TI) to me.

------------

The next problem is that there aren't any navigational aids in the book other than the multi-compass, and that has near unique availability. That's silly.

So, here's my changes:

----------------

Multicompass

Availability: Scarce

Weight: 2 Kg

[Maybe they talk to navy vessels, maybe they talk to know location radio stations that the guard sets up, maybe they have inertial navigation systems. But really, they work by tech magic, OK?]

Possessing a multicompass adds a +20 Navigation (Surface) Tests.

----------------

Hang-Held Targeter

Availability: Rare

Weight: 3 Kg

[Yak, yak, yak rangefinding]

Acts as a set of Magnoculars, in addition, it provides a +20 bonus to the Scholastic Lore (Tactica Imperialis) test to put artillery fire on target. A best quality Hang-Held Targeter also acts as a multi-compass.

----------------

Now, calling the artillery:

Step 1:

Make a Navigate (Surface) test to identify where the target is.

This takes around one (1) to five (5) minutes, though it's possible for this to take much longer, if the officer involved was dropped on the head as a baby.

It's also possible to do this ahead of time, for places you think you might want to fire artillery on later.

If you succeed, for every degree of success past one, you get a +10 bonus on the Scholastic Lore (Tactica Imperialis) to put the artillery on target.

If you fail the test by 5 or more degrees of failure, you've done something boneheaded like use the wrong mapsheet, asked for artillery fire on the next continent, or even asked the artillery to fire on it's own position. You will not be getting artillery right now.

Step 2:

Call the artillery and say you want fire.

[something about availability of artillery fire goes here

But one very important point is that you will have a limited number of fire for effect calls, so you usually shouldn't just call for fire for effect right away.]

It generally takes the artillery somewhere between three (3) to fifteen (15) minutes to respond, depending on how competent they are (less time) and how busy they are (more time).

You can ask for fire for effect, or adjustment of fire.

Time between fire calls: Around one to two (1 to 2) minutes, which includes time for the artillery to make adjustments, fire the next round, and then for the round to arrive, and for you to see it land, so you can adjust the next round.

Adjust fire:

The artillery unit fires only one round.

You make a Scholastic Lore (Tactica Imperialis) test.

If the test succeeded, buy can call for fire for effect the next time and it will hit automatically.

If the test failed by no more than 4 degrees of failure, any following requests for fire on the same target get a +10. Note that you need to be able to see the impact of the round to get this bonus, so things like smoke screens or being kicked in melee can make this difficult.

Fire for effect

The artillery unit fire a number of rounds to do the job on the target.

[How many rounds is this? it depends on what you are shooting at and how big it is.

Some rules of thumb:

A squad 1-3 rounds

A platoon 3-8 rounds

A company 5-15 rounds

A battalion 15-60 rounds

If firing light artillery, pick the bigger number, if firing heavy pick the smaller, middle in the middle.

So, for example, a light mortar mission against a platoon sized target would be around 8 rounds.

For rules simplicity, the effects are the same, but you may want to be able to describe how many rounds are fired.]

If you have already used adjust fire to make sure your artillery is on target, then you don't need to make a test. Otherwise, make a Lore (TI) test just like you were adjusting fire and hope you got it right.

For particularly tough targets, or those you need really need to die, you can fire for effect on them over and over as long as the ammunition holds out.

------------------------

Wait, you say, calling artillery takes a long time in combat time. What if I'm being run over be orks right now?

Well, one thing you can do, if you are going to be in an area for a while, is to use that time to talk to the artillery and get them to adjust fire on any area you think you'll want to shoot up later. This is called registering a target. This way, you only have to call the artillery to fire on the pre-registered point, without having to take the time to make navigation tests or use adjust fire.

That's one of the reasons that artillery is so effective in the defense.

-----------------------

Scatter:

Notice I haven' really addressed artillery scatter. That's because the initial deviation of the first round can often be several hundred meters away. For the time period (ca 1935 to 1990) we are trying to model, the typical first round accuracy was around 300-500 meters.

[After 1990, first round accuracy was down to around 100 meters. After roughly 2000, first round accuracy is down to roughly 5 meters.]

----------------------

Now a rules sample,

Lieutenant Piotr is calling artillery

His relevant stats and gear;

Int 30

Navigate (Surface)

Scholastic Lore (Tactica Imperialis)

Gear: Magnoculars, Multi-compass

----------------

Using his Magnoculars, Piotr identifies a around 500 orks moving by foot.

He makes a Navigate(Surface) test to figure out where they are. He gets a +20 for having a multi-compass.

Rolls: 57

He's failed, but he hasn't screwed the pooch enough to totally bork the artillery call, he just doesn't get a bonus to the next test. Time elapsed [rolls 1d5] 5 minutes.

He calls to artillery:

Piotr:

[Artillery], this [Piotr] Fire mission. gird [someplace]. target ork battalion in the open, VT in effect, adjust fire, over.

[Rolls Scholastic Lore (Tactica Imperialis), gets 16, so it's a hit]

Artillery:

Roger, grid [someplace], ork battalion in the open, VT in effect, adjust fire. Out

[Rolls 1d10] 7 minutes pass

Artillery:

Shot, over [meaning they have fired]

Piotr:

Shot, out. [confirmation that he heard them]

[Less than 1 minutes passes]

Artillery:

Splash, over. [meaning that the artillery is about to hit]

Piotr:

Splash, out [meaning that he has seen the impact]

Piotr:

On target! fire for effect, over.

Artillery:

Roger, fire for effect, out.

[Around 2 minutes pass]

Artillery:

Shot, over.

Piotr:

Shot, out. [confirmation that he heard them]

[Less than 1 minutes passes]

Piotr:

Splash, out [meaning that he has seen the impact]

Piotr:

Good effect on target, estimate 150 casualties. Repeat fire mission.

[and assuming the artillery still has rounds and doesn't have something else to do, they fire on the orks again and kill more. It's taken around 15 minutes to get to this point. And why does he have 15 minutes to do this job on the orks? because he's up on a hill and can see them from five kilometers (or more) away.]

----------------

Other stuff for comment or thought:

In general, anything moving on foot is moving slow enough to be treated like a stationary target. Hitting (faster) moving vehicles should present more problems.

May I ask where the fun is in playing forward observers?

Because part of the point of being in the Imperial Guard is having friends with hueg guns? What's the most awesome weapon a guardman can have? a radio. Because all the friends with the hueg guns are on the other end of that radio and are just itching to shoot something.

Why do armies dig like termites every time they stop? because of artillery.

Why do armies ride around in otherwise very lightly armored boxes? because of artillery.

It's one of the most important things in modern warfare and Only War says, "Artillery, I dunno." when asked about it.

Shooting test is Scholastic Lore (Arithmancy) if you ask me.

Shooting test is Scholastic Lore (Arithmancy) if you ask me.

Wouldn't that be a logic test? BTW: I would also use a Logic test to adjust fire since that is really more of a mathematical excersize than anything.

Example:

Battery: Shot out.

Forward observer (FO): Shot out

1d5 rounds passes

Battery: Splash out.

FO: Splash! (Gm. rolls scatter) 50 meters short left of target! (FO makes routine +10 Logic test *rolls 27* [success]) Adjust fire, right 3, out 2 mics. (Pardon me if my terms are off. It's been awhile )

Battery: Roger, Adjust fire, right 3 out 2. Wait one. (One minute elapses)

Battery: Shot out:

FO: Shot out. (1d5 rounds passes)

Battery: Splash out.

FO: Splash! Round on target. Fire for effect!

Battery: Roger. Fire for effect. (1 minute passes)

Battery: Shot out.

FO: Shot out. (1d5 rounds passes)

Battery: Splash out.

FO: Splash. Good effect on target (Sky opens up and rains horrifying death on tango's!)

@ Crusher Bob: Very nice work! One question though: Many of your numbers list towards the high end (120). Under most 40k rpg rules, these would be fails! Am I missing something?

Chrusher Bob,

That was an interesting read and obviously done by someone who knows about artillery (although I am extremely skeptical about the first round scatter. Either our artillery was utterly incompetent or there is a huge gap between the artillery systems in use in our countries...)

If the player squad does not have a dedicated artillery spotter you can simplify the system greatly. Have them radio their officers and explain where the enemies are (depending on how well they read the map and make the estimate accuracy will change.) and several minutes later there will be an artillery barrage (if the command thinks there is need for one.)

BTW:Assuming it's not classified, what changed to make artillery post 1990 so accurate (I was "in" in the 80's and your numbers for that period are fairly good!). Are you talking about Semi-guided rounds (Like LASRAPS) or has advanced navigation simply changed the picture that much?

@ Crusher Bob: Very nice work! One question though: Many of your numbers list towards the high end (120). Under most 40k rpg rules, these would be fails! Am I missing something?

Probably bad wording on my part.

What you are probably asking about is how I did the rules for large targets being directly hit by shells. The idea is that the target rolls a d100 and adds it's size modifier. So a target with a +20 size modifier Enormous (6) (Sentinel Walker, Krootox) has a 1% chance of being hit. A target with a +30 side modifier Massive (7) (Battle Tank, Greater Daemon) has a 10% chance of being directly hit, and so on. Because I didn't want vehicles to make 'agility' tests, but I needed a system to generate some small chance of being hit, but exclude things that were PC sized from being that unlucky.

The bonuses to test for being dug in, for example, are mean to modify the target number upwards, so you have a greater chance of success. The 'bonuses' based on size are meant to modify your roll upward, making you more likely to get hit.

BTW:Assuming it's not classified, what changed to make artillery post 1990 so accurate (I was "in" in the 80's and your numbers for that period are fairly good!). Are you talking about Semi-guided rounds (Like LASRAPS) or has advanced navigation simply changed the picture that much?

GPS for everyone in First Gulf War. After that, various improvements to both GPS and computerization for both spotters and artillery fire control. But yes, the last few meters of artillery accuracy do rely on the shells themselves. Apparently, "1 round, that house" is now, or will soon be a valid call for fire.

@ Crusher Bob: Very nice work! One question though: Many of your numbers list towards the high end (120). Under most 40k rpg rules, these would be fails! Am I missing something?

Probably bad wording on my part.

What you are probably asking about is how I did the rules for large targets being directly hit by shells. The idea is that the target rolls a d100 and adds it's size modifier. So a target with a +20 size modifier Enormous (6) (Sentinel Walker, Krootox) has a 1% chance of being hit. A target with a +30 side modifier Massive (7) (Battle Tank, Greater Daemon) has a 10% chance of being directly hit, and so on. Because I didn't want vehicles to make 'agility' tests, but I needed a system to generate some small chance of being hit, but exclude things that were PC sized from being that unlucky.

The bonuses to test for being dug in, for example, are mean to modify the target number upwards, so you have a greater chance of success. The 'bonuses' based on size are meant to modify your roll upward, making you more likely to get hit.

Ok. Probably unnecessary since the scatter rules will tell you where the round landed. To simulate what you're suggesting, asume that only the point of impact is a direct hit. the rest of the blast radius is shrapnel only.

BTW:Assuming it's not classified, what changed to make artillery post 1990 so accurate (I was "in" in the 80's and your numbers for that period are fairly good!). Are you talking about Semi-guided rounds (Like LASRAPS) or has advanced navigation simply changed the picture that much?

GPS for everyone in First Gulf War. After that, various improvements to both GPS and computerization for both spotters and artillery fire control. But yes, the last few meters of artillery accuracy do rely on the shells themselves. Apparently, "1 round, that house" is now, or will soon be a valid call for fire.

"1 round, that house" was a valid call in my day too! But only when dealing with the USS New Jersey or one of her sisters!

@ Crusher Bob: Very nice work! One question though: Many of your numbers list towards the high end (120). Under most 40k rpg rules, these would be fails! Am I missing something?

Probably bad wording on my part.

What you are probably asking about is how I did the rules for large targets being directly hit by shells. The idea is that the target rolls a d100 and adds it's size modifier. So a target with a +20 size modifier Enormous (6) (Sentinel Walker, Krootox) has a 1% chance of being hit. A target with a +30 side modifier Massive (7) (Battle Tank, Greater Daemon) has a 10% chance of being directly hit, and so on. Because I didn't want vehicles to make 'agility' tests, but I needed a system to generate some small chance of being hit, but exclude things that were PC sized from being that unlucky.

The bonuses to test for being dug in, for example, are mean to modify the target number upwards, so you have a greater chance of success. The 'bonuses' based on size are meant to modify your roll upward, making you more likely to get hit.

Ok. Probably unnecessary since the scatter rules will tell you where the round landed. To simulate what you're suggesting, asume that only the point of impact is a direct hit. the rest of the blast radius is shrapnel only.

Yes, but I didn't really want to have to simulate where all of the shells of the fire mission landed. I didn't want to have to figure out exactly how many shells were fired. I didn't even want to figure out where the artillery scattered to, since the possible scatter distance was so large. If the first round scatter distance was something like 2d5 x 100 meters, that might work. But that sort of scatter number isn't appropriate for company mortars, so I'd have to write more stuff there. Really I'd just recommend assuming any scatter on artillery targets further out than the MSD don't threaten anything anyone cares about.

And I didn't want to have to deal with the actual different types of fire adjustment for example: bracketing vs creeping... [You use creeping when firing close to friendlies, the rounds start out 'far' away and you adjust fire them a little bit closer until it's time to fire for effect. For bracketing, after the first round, you call an adjust fire so that it lands on the other side of the target and then you just the distance in half each time.] So instead I just wrote in improving bonuses to the targeting test and you can assume your observer is using the appropriate type of adjustment.

I also didn't want the PCs under artillery fire to be in the blast zone of multiple artillery shells and get pulped. So I just abstract the number of shells fire to be (enough) and assume that they give the target area roughly equal coverage.

So, the average PC has Agility 30, so it very likely to be hit by the artillery barrage. The average PC has around 11 wounds, and toughness + armor of 6-8 vs fragmentation. So the average damage on a PC hit by artillery fire is around 5-7 wounds, and the chance of running out of wounds and taking critical damage is around .06 to .20. So the GM can pretty safely hit the PCs with artillery once, and not kill them.

I am sorry, I am not trying to be antagonistic or troll but I still don't get it.

I am not disputing the effect or value of artillery but why would anyone want to play a FO?

This is a rpg. I can see the fun in playing grunts on the front line or playing special snowflakes who do the special missions but how many different missions/adventures can you do with a bunch of artillery guys? Or are these rules meant for a single player in the squad?

And (once again) where is the fun for the players?

Unless you wanted to create an artillery centric game, artillery IMO shouldn't really be that important for the average squad. Maybe the sarge can request artillery support if their part of the line is being endangered and pass on coordinates but all that matters for the squad is if it hits their opponents and/or hits them. I don't think a DM needs a lot of complicated rules for that (the grenade rules should work just fine with a bit of houseruling to simulate artillery shells that knock about the players but don't kill them all, because where is the fun in that?).

Because I have very little interest in what most people seem to think the average squad does. If you just want to run around and shoot people, play Battlefield. A tabletop RPG has to offer things that you can't get out of Battlefield (or tabletop war games, or whatever), otherwise, why play?

So, you could play only war as a darkly humorous soap opera, where you don't really engage in combat at all, and that's different enough from your other choices to make it interesting. But then, none of the rules in the books are really helpful for that sort of game, and you are better off with My life with Master Commissar or something like that.

The problem the adventure designers for Only War have is that they keep sending what they claim is the 'average squad' on missions more appropriate for highly trained special operations troops. The average squad doesn't get involved in that sort of thing.

So, for example:

Look at the two adventures I've written

FSB Pious Piotr

Pretty much an adventure for an ordinary squad. You aren't expect to do anything an ordinary squad wouldn't do.

FOP Nihilist Bess

Do ordinary squads do this? No, it's a LRRP mission, which are done by 'special ops' troops. But compared to the standard published only war adventure, it's quite tame in what's required of you. And the whole point of being out there in the valley is to call artillery on things. But how does that even work? You'd want characters who spent points to be good at that to be good at that. And characters who didn't spend points to be bad at that. For the players to feel like they have any agency in the matter, there has to be some actual rules support. Otherwise it's like making a sniper in the game and never having to roll ballistic skill because the GM just makes you hit or miss as the story dictates. Why did you bother putting points into stuff?

Of course, the adventure isn't just about sitting in one place and calling artillery over and over again, that would be boring. Just like sitting in one place and shooting orks over and over again would be boring. But if the rules for moving around and shooting orks are the same as the rules for sitting still and shooting orks, what difference does it make?

What series of books are often referenced when talking about only war? Gaunts Ghosts... And who are the main characters? The officers and top specialists of the regiment because they are the ones who get to do all the interesting things.

Okay, and I agree completely with you that most adventures are not really what an average (infantry) squad would have to do but wouldn't the table top game or perhaps even epic be better suited to what you seem to want to do rather than a rpg?

Which brings me to the promise in the OW core book about later books covering higher command opportunities for players.

Are those still in the pipeline?

Crusher Bob is right. And I have often thought it ridiculous when players make a Dark Heresy-like party for only war. In the IG, Stormtroopers, Ogrynns and Ratlings have their own distinctive units for a reason. They are not generally "attached" to a regular squad in the same way a Commissar, Confessor or Engineseer might be. Want to play a special ops flavored game? Have Everybody roll up Stormtroopers and go from there!

Generally, squads can get into plenty of interesting stuff anyway! The difference is they will have an actual primary mission to perform. FO support is one of those rolls! Rescue the general likely is not (Unless command has that 'only starship in the area' plot card they want to pull!)