Loophole Master said:

you would draw a line like anything else. the angle is more important than the line of sight, line of sight matters not for indirect fire in any situation. the squad hugging the wall of the building/obstacle is what grants the save.

Ok, then take a look at these two examples.

javascript:void(0);/*1306701721819*/

javascript:void(0);/*1306701766999*/

You're saying that in Scenario A the target would get a soft cover save due to the corner he's hugging. But in Scenario B he would get no cover save, cause he's not really hugging a corner. How does MORE wall protection equals LESS cover protection?

i would rule soft cover in both. they are both hugging a direct diagonal corner. which is exactly how i've stated it. the square on the corner i would say is irrelevant. in a los ignoring situation, i would allow the cover elements to stand on their own merit, regardless of what they're 'connected' to.

Ok, just one last example:

javascript:void(0);/*1306703643055*/

You would apply corner cover in this situation as well? Even though the target is most certainly NOT hugging a corner?

Loophole Master said:

yes i would, and i just explained why.

Listen, and i hesitate to go too indepth on a rules discussion with a gent named loophole master . it is a slight rules anomaly, but the rules can still be adapted to fit the situation. find a ruling and stick with it and be consitent and you're players will respect that. 'you' asked 'me' if i would rule it that way. am i right or wrong? if an eventual FAQ comes out, then we'll find out. but you asked how i would rule it and i told you.

blkdymnd said:

blkdymnd said:

But page 13 says, about corner cover: "This only works if the target squad is in a square adjacent to the corner."

And so the problem is that a wall "connected" to another wall is no longer a corner, it's now one big wall segment. Corners offer corner cover, not simply walls. How can you justify a corner cover save when the squad is nowhere near a corner?

It all comes back to the fact that corner cover only makes sense for attacks affected by LOS. I certainly understand this is YOUR opinion, and if we were discussing house rules here I would be totally with it. However I'm trying to understand what conclusion we can come based on the official rules, and as I have explained, your ruling doesn't jive very well with the official rules.

Loophole Master said:

The fact is (which I covered on page 1) the rules do not cover this point as there were no indirect shooting in the original rules and so this scenario could not happen, and they fail to address the possibility in Cyclone. Corner's give cover and so by extension (and common sense), does a complete wall.

Major Mishap said:

I fail to see the common sense in that. Corners give cover because when someone`s shooting directly at you, you can engage them by just peeking around the corner and exposing your weapon, while keeping most of your body secure behind the wall. If an indirect shot is already flying OVER your protective wall, it will really be of no avail to you, whether it is a corner or the great wall of china.

What's the difference between the 3 scenarios below? Why would B and C be more exposed than A?

I really don't mean to be a pain about this, I just think this is a topic that merits discussion. And as I'm about go get my artillery walkers, I really want to be sure about how I'm going to handle them.

Loophole Master said:

well, for starters, A is the only one with an exact diagonal. And you are being a pain, because like every loophole master i know, your interpretation is the only one you'll accept. and thats fine, play it how ypu interpret it, everyone else will do the same. i have a question sent to dust games about it, we'll see if i get an answer.

blkdymnd said:

I'm terribly sorry for being a pain. I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum, and thus, that it welcomed discussion. You are very mistaken in thinking that I would only accept my interpretation. By my own interpretation I concluded that indirect artillery fire ignored any and all cover, be it corner or ammo crate and tank traps. But by reading the discussion here, I have changed my mind about it, and accepted that those cover elements do affect artillery. I'm still not convinced about corners, though, and so I discuss it. And I discuss it by trying to be polite, by giving clear examples of what I'm talking about and by asking for other people's input. What's so painful about it?

Back to the topic at hand, I know that only A is at a direct diagonal, but what I ask is, why would B and C be any more exposed than A? Why would the diagonal matter in this circumstance?

ok guys , simple FACT of technicality as written .

the reason you cant fire an indirect shot with a normal unit weapon is because you cant draw LOS from firing unit to target unit . the rules are very clear about this , that you can only attack units you can see .

and loophole master , as you yourself point out on the BGG thread , page 17 "when ever a special rule for a special weapon or ability contradicts general rules , the special rule prevails "

the artillery rules are special weapon rules , just like those for flame throwers , grenade launchers , etc ......., so they "prevail" . while quite wordy , in this particular issue , they ONLY altar the rule that requires the attacking unit to have LOS .

because they do NOT mention cover , or any rule , special or otherwise that would "prevail" , the standard cover rule apply until such time as they are errattaed or FAQed . as stated

page 13 : " A squad standing right behind a corner when attacked diagonally is behind SOFT COVER: the members of the unit hug the wall to hide from the attack. This only works if the target squad is in a square adjacent to the corner."

the rules as quoted , ONLY refer to the attack , not who called it in . the attack is made by the artillery walker , not the spotter , and the rules for corner cover ONLY cover if the ATTACK comes from an exact diagonal .

page 4 , operation cyclone : "in order to succeed on an indirect shot, you have to score a (hit) with your dice roll, just
like a standard attack ." AND "2. If you decide to make an indirect shot, the spotting unit is immediately deactivated and the unit that’s carrying the artillery weapon is activated. You then fire the indirect shot with the artillery unit. This attack is resolved just like a normal attack ."

so by technicality , as written , in the rules , despite how we may feel or what we may want the rules to say , they are what they are : being adjacent to a wall , ONLY gives cover if it is on a corner , as normal , and that corner is diagonal to the artillery walker making the attack , as normal .

and likewise for all the above reasons , as written in the rules , wheather we agree with them or not , cover elements or special terrian squares , etc .......... give cover as normal .

thats what the rules say , there is no loophole to slide through .

i believe that corners should not provide cover , that units should only get cover if they are in a square with a cover element , or in a square that offers them cover such as new terrain squares , or in use in our city fight rules , but as written , corners give cover as stated above .

but as written also , you can make tthis game your own , so you are free to house rule it when playing CASUAL games with your friends , just not in events . i my self plan to leave it as is .

Very well put, GrandInquisitor. I agree on every point. Your assessment sums up what we can conclude from the official rules. Simply following the rules, as written, with no further speculation or logical extrapolation, we get that in regard to indirect artillery fire and cover:

- Ammo crates and tank traps provide their normal cover to squads sharing its square.

- Wall corners provide soft cover if the target is standing adjacent to it, and a diagonal line can be traced to the attacker that skims the corner.

- Only corners provide cover, not continuous walls or other configurations.

And that's that. From there, however, we are free to apply our own personal logic to arrive at rules that actually sit well with us. And there I'm with you: walls shouldn't provide cover to indirect fire, whether they are corners or not. Why would a corner provide cover (official rules), but then if you add another wall right next it, suddenly the squad is left wide open to attack?

Loophole Master said:

its not a big issue . yes its a technicaility in the rules . and my beliefe that corners should not provide cover is just based on a desire for cleaning up the rules a bit , not off of practical use of corners .

your exapmles are good in that they use larger boards than the standard 3X3 that some people are still using , today , we played on a board 4X6 feet using a gridded sheet . artillery worked well because of the increased table size .

but unless you end up playing on smaller boards , the odds of ending up in a situation where your target gets the cover is so incredibly small that it doesnt matter . i have only seen it happen maybe once or twice in the games i have played with artillery since they came out .

I put this together as I began to try and type an explanation of how this is covered in the rules already, but I think everyone else has tried to explain it and some people are having a hard time grasping how the system works. I hope this helps.

actually , i would argue otherwise , based on the definition of a wall . and that even for those scenarios that dont refer to a wall , the placement of obsticals connecting to each other , constitues a wall by default .

there is no definition in the game to change the general definition of what a wall is , or how it is constructed . unless some one can show me a real world example of a wall constructed as in you example , with 7 continuous sections that dont connect to create one wall , OR a real world example of 7 giant obsitcles that are placed next to each other , but not connected to become one a wall , the 7 tiles would represent and be considered one continuous wall .

to argue otherwise , requires an official ruling from FFG or DG to support your arguement , and has supporting evidence where connected terrain tiles are refered to as a wall for scenarioes 3&4 in BT , even though they are made up of seperate tiles .

i must there fore conclude that the use of individual tiles is done for ease and economy , as it lets people modify the boards for each game , to benifit all players , NOT to create loopholes that super intense rules lawyers can use to abuse at a key time , or against less experienced players .

baring an official ruling from FFG or DG , for those who face an opponent that would argue otherwise , remember , that no rule in ANY of the rules books or scenarios says you cant bring your own terrain , infact you are encouraged to do so , so you can simply cut some card stock to the approprite size and shape to make one continuous piece of card stock which maintains the rules , spirit of the game , and will really annoy rules lawyers looking for a hole in the rules that doesnt exist .

unless one of the squares in your example is destroyed , thus creating an empty square thus creating "corners" , the only corners are at the 2 ends of the wall .

but thats my take on it , based on technicality of what the rules and scenarios say .

but i would happily invate anyone to seek an official answer , and would bet that they agree with me .

GrandInquisitorKris said:

Is there a definition of a wall in the game or that separate squares which have walls next to each other or then considered one solid wall?

I am taking the rule at its face value, I do not have to go into any more depth than what the rule says. If the attack comes from an angle that runs along the corner than there is cover. There is nothing in the rules to say 4 pieces which are next to each other should be treated any different than one piece out in the open. Each piece has 4 corners.

Jiltedtoo said:

Sorry, but this is just plain silly. Are your really suggesting that if the top walker takes one step down then the target no longer benefits from cover, despite there actually being more protection. Why does this wall suddemly provide no cover? Don't forget that the rule you are quoting was for when there was no indirect fire and you needed LOS.

You guys are right. I wasn't using any logic, just using the rules which are available.

If it passes a corner you get cover. Since there is no clarification on the rules for indirect fire.

Major Mishap said:

That's what I've been saying, this interpretation of the rules makes for a very silly scenario, in which a particular square along a continuous wall offers more cover than the ones next to it for no apparent reason.

The corner cover rules are intrinsically bound to the LOS rule. If a special weapon ignores one, it must ignore the other.

You are 100% right, it makes no sense if the angle of the attack is the same. It simply being an exposed corner vs a non-exposed corner should offer the same benefit of cover.

I guess now we just wait to see how long it takes FFG to reply to the game question.

Jiltedtoo said:

This is really something they should have addressed in the Cyclone rules. It was the first thing to pop into my mind once I read the artillery rules: "Ok, but what about cover?"

For me it seems pretty logical for Artillery to ignore diagonal corner saves FOR INDIRECT FIRE ONLY. This is, of course just my opinion but I'm basing it on the rules.

The rules heavily imply that LOS must be drawn to get the corner cover saves. True, it does say "attacking" diagonally but in every example they draw LOS from one unit to another. The reason I believe they don't spell this out for indirect fire is you no longer draw LOS from the attacker, so since no LOS is drawn from the attacker so there's no corner to skim. If an Artillery weapon were using LOS to target a unit next to a corner with direct fire then I'd grant the cover save per the LOS rules.

My .02 anyway.

Major Mishap said:

Major Mishap said:

I don't know if I would consider this "silly". My idea behind my example was that the angle of attack is what is important to the game rules and game play. Yes logically a wall could potentially provide some cover at any angle, but according to the rules, if the artillery was using direct fire and took one step up instead of down the unit would no longer have cover as well.

In a nutshell I was justifying the cover by the continued use of the angle of attack.