Hello all

I'm sorry if this has been answered before, however I could not find it on this forum. Do shots from a Artillery weapon ignore cover, or do units in hard/soft cover receive the benefit as normal. I've been through the rule book and could not find anything to suggest they don't, however I find it odd that a shell allows cover, but a grenade does not... If someone could please point me to the relevant rules, or provide a yes or no response, it would be hugely appreciated.

Happy Gaming!

There is no exception for artillery and cover as far as I know, which I think is right, don't soldiers go to ground or hug cover when under artlllery attack, I should expect that they would suffer more casualties just standing there. And if you made exceptions for artillery then when not the HE rounds from the mech's guns? And the reasoning for grenades ignoring cover its because thats what they were designed for, chucking bombs through windows, pill box slits, into trenches or fox-holes, accurately and at short range.

What about an indirect strike?

Would the unit get cover if the command squad can see them, but they are behind cover? Or does indirect fire ignore that completely?

It doesn't matter where the observers are, just the direction of shot, which follows the normal cover rules.

Yeah, except that indirect shot ignores line of sight. How would someone get cover from a shot outside of line of sight? i know they would get cover from crates and such, but would they also get it from corners?

they would get corner cover if the artillery robot was in a direct diagonal, at least thats how i would rule it.

I would rule that soft cover does not provide cover (and is destroyed) and hard cover rolls like soft cover when under arty fire. At least that sounds good to me. I'll have to play test it sometime.

-Jeff

I play corner cover is based on the LOS of the observer. Not in the rule book, just they way I play. When I play at GenCon I will definatly ask for a ruling before the game.

We play that artillary ignore cover because of the blast.

marcemtp said:

But the 88mm also blasts and so do bazooka's, do these ignore cover in your rules to?

Why is nobody playing the rules as written?

With these rules, you dare not use the new two-man squads.

Major Mishap said:

I guess I am playing the way I am, until I get clarrification on corner cover. Do you play that a target gets corner cover for indirect fire, if the fire comes in at an angle, even though the firing unit is not in LOS?

yes, because thats the direction the actual projectile would be coming from. the observers are just telling them where to shoot.

If the shooter/target/corner would normally give cover if fired at direct from the positions, then yes as normal cover rules apply.

If its past the 45' way in then, no, as normal rules apply.

However there is one situation where the rules are not written when shooter/target is sharper than the 45' for example a direct line shooter running horizontal shooter - wall - target where the target square is invisible to the shooter square (or dot to dot). In this case I would still give cover due to logical reasoning; if a corner gives cover then a complete wall will, the otherside of the wall wil be hit or shots overshoot.

Major Mishap said:

I try to explain to people that there is a difference on impact with an armor piercing round vs. a high explosive round. A UGL will fire a projectile that will not explode on impact, it hits what it hits and then explodes based off of an internal timer. It can explode in mid air or it can bounce off of one or two objects before exploding (and yes I am aware there are direct impacting grenade launchers but those are generally armor piercing rounds not intended to kill infantry).

A flame thrower does not allow for cover as the flames envelope all points of cover. An Armor piercing round or a high explosive round fired from an artillery piece explodes on impact, so if you are behind cover there is a *chance* that you will avoid the shrapnel or blast from the artillery.

There is no reason why artillery should negate cover. Anytime artillery is fired at a group the first thing they do is take cover, whether in a fox hole or behind some kind of obstacle. If you have a hard time understanding what artillery does watch any war movie or read any story about people in combat in any war. Whether it is mortar rounds or artillery from a howitzer, taking cover is the best chance of surviving.

ok I see your point and will change the house rule and allow cover.

Using a venerable old game system as an example, in Advanced Squad Leader, still the best WWII rules I've ever seen, units in foxholes and trenches actually got better cover saves against indirect fire, buildings got normal cover saves against both direct and indirect fire, walls and hedges only protected against direct fire and were ignored by indirect fire (you are in essence firing over the wall) and by far the most interesting one was woods. Against direct fire, woods give a normal cover save, but they have a unique "air burst" quality against indirect fire. Indirect fire would explode in the trees rather than at ground level and would rain shrapnel and tree slivers down into the trenches, so units in woods actually reversed the positive cover save into a negative one against indirect fire! See the history of the Battle for the Huertgen Forest at the end of 1944 in France for details.

Of interesting note is that in WWII the allies had shells that would explode in the air just above the target. I believe it was a form of radar in the warhead. This negated a lot of cover as most cover does not protect from above. I have no idea if the Dust world would have these or not. But I thought it interesting enough to share and sorta on topic.

Also, due to the size of the warhead you may have more people die from the concussion of the blast than the shrapnel. Regardless we should not think to create over complex house rules less we end up not being a "Beer & Pretzel" game and become more Caffeine & Whiskey...cough...40K.....cough

-Jeff

As I see it, indirect artillery shots would ignore corner cover (if a whole walls are no hindrance, why would a corner be? plus, you can't draw a diagonal line that skims a corner to a target you can't even see), but if the target is crouched under an ammo crate and tank trap, normal cover rules apply.

However I have half a mind to house rule those cover elements so that at least their cover is diminished when facing indirect artillery fire. Maybe hard cover becomes soft cover, and soft cover has no effect.

I think it should ignore cover cause atilery rounds come from the sky and hits straight down, plus its a blast so i would imagine it would ignore cover. We could test it out on real people right now if you want.

rathianfire said:

strangely enough, it has been tested on real people, alot. Artillery shells dont always come straight down, and neither are they the most accurate shot, no matter how good the spotter is. With the innacuracies, i see no issue for a cover save.

rathianfire said:

rathianfire said:

Sure if the shell landed right next to you, but what if it lands the other side of wall, the blast won't touch you. Of course if it lands close enough to the wall it might collapse on you . Cover might also be a trench or fox hole, again, unless its a direct hit, you will have protection from the blast. So, unless you get a direct hit, cover will offer some protection and so should not be ignored.

Just to be clear, is anybody advocating corner cover for artillery shots?

Loophole Master said:

yes, i have earlier in the thread.

blkdymnd said:

For indirect artillery shots? I just can't see your logic there. The attacker has no LOS to his target, how can you even draw a diagonal line that skims a corner? And why would that make the shot harder?

There are a great many things about Arty that are not truly represented in the game. Ranging Shots, Fire for Effect, Arty is fired from batteries not a lone unit...etc. I'm ok with some abstract cover rules as they have to find a middle ground between a range of possibilities and scenarios. And in some places realism must stand aside to allow for fun and fairness. That is really what should come first when thinking of altering the rules...will it be fun and fair?

-Jeff