Not sure why it double posted the quote.

Wish there was an edit button.

no jilted , the game does not define a wall , i would presume because they expect that when they use the word wall , they expect us to know what a wall is ..........because we use it in our daily lives .

had they meant the meaning of wall to be different , they would have defined it scenario by scenario . and included specific terrain pieces labled wall .

since they didnt define wall as something different , i can only presume the define wall , the way the rest of us do , every day :

wall   /w?l/ Show Spelled
[wawl] Show IPA

–noun
1. any of various permanent upright constructions having a length much greater than the thickness and presenting a continuous surface except where pierced by doors, windows, etc.: used for shelter, protection, or privacy, or to subdivide interior space, to support floors, roofs, or the like, to retain earth, to fence in an area, etc.
2. Usually, walls. a rampart raised for defensive purposes.
3. an immaterial or intangible barrier, obstruction, etc., suggesting a wall: a wall of prejudice

this is further supported by the wording in the scenarios 3&4 , AND by the fact that they dont lable the walls in those scenarios that you can breach , because they expect that you understand what a wall is , and what they are talking about .

so anyone that plays the few of you that are trying to create hudreds of corners on every battle field , should just bring their own custom terrain , with long strips of cardstock . as opposed to the standard cardboard squares that the rest of us can use as instructed based off the common definition of wall as one continuous piece of terrain , not a collection of corners to hide behind to try and cheat a game with loopholes that arent there .

i have quoted technical rules , and definitions several times here in several threads , even if the technical definition is something i dont like or agree with . and this one is no different , but the corner cover issue only relates to open corners .

My thoughts on the matter...reading through the rules i would guess that artillery fire always ignores cover because of its nature of coming from the sky.

Quote from Blue Thunder rulebook page 22: Under Special Weapons - UGL

"" They fall from the sky and explode on impact: UGL grenades always ignore cover. ""
"" Grenade Launcher and Grenade Pistol work the same as UGL, but they are never limited. ""

Quote from Operation Cyclone rulebook page 3:

"" Shells, missiles, grenades , or projectiles fired by this weapon strike its targets from the sky :
instead of firing in a direct line like a normal weapon, artillery fires up into the air and the
projectiles arc over everything in between the gun and the target. ""

I know that UGL and artillery are two diffrent things but their shots behave in a similar way. Hope a clarification gets published soon.

But nowhere in the artillery rules does it say they ignore cover, if it were the case then I'm sure it would have been mentioned. I can see grenades ignoring cover as they can be acurately thrown over a barricade or through a window - its what they were designed for.

Hey methinks

there are two types of cover rules -

1-cover - ammo boxes , tank traps

2-LOS - cover - corners etc

Artilery is under 1 type of rule so ammo boxes and tank traps type cover works

Artilery indirect fire ignores LOS so cover coming from los rules does not .

hope it helps

For what it is worth I agree with both Gian and Poyet. I see no real distinction between an UGL and Arty. For all ballistic purposes they are the same and thus would ignore cover because they "fall from the sky".

I think we should look at it from the perspective of what is in the spirit of the game. As I think of Dust as a fast, friendly, blood and guts game, I would say no cover. If the game was trying for a more realistic feel I might think otherwise. However, as we have walking tanks, talking apes, and zombie soldiers, I think we can skew the realism about cover just a tad.

-Jeff

If we go by the fluff text, I agree that a case can be made for artillery ignoring all cover. However, when we take in consideration just the hard rules (which we really need to do with this game, the fluff and the rules often being contradictory), nothing really justifies artillery ignoring cover from crates and tank traps. Corner cover, however, I totally agree should be ignored, since it is part of the LOS rules that artillery ignores.

Personally I think artillery ignores cover. An ammocrate or a tank trap is simply no place to hide in an ordnance blast from the sky. Simply think of all the shrapnels that buzz around. If we´re talking about a real trench system, I agree, there the cover rule works, I think. But in an open area without cover all around you the ordnance will reduce you to nothing more than some tiny remnants at the crate.

I have to confess, I´m a big fan of RAI, cause RAW mostly doesn´t feel right like in this case.

Moiterei_1984 said:

I like to support RAI as far as i can .

But in this case -ammo crates and tank traps are just game bord piece.

-soft cover does not mean ammo crate only- it symbolize all entrachment that can be easli destroyed by HE fire and that is no obstacle for Tank type vehicle - ruins, fox holes , low walls etc

-hard cover represent any type entrenchment design to withstand HE fire and that can be obstacle for Tank type vehicle. like bunker , hevy trenches with tank barrier -on board its symbolized by tank traps

Bear in mind that Cyclone also introduced terrain that gives soft cover to infantry. Terrain is certainly something that would give cover from artillery, because unlike grenades fired from 3 squares away artillery is a lot harder to hit with pinpoint accuracy (even if they fall from the sky). And while we could argue whether or not an ammo crate would be able to give cover, bear in mind that those artillery shells are a lot deadlier than a 1/1 grenade, and so the odds of the whole squad hiding behind that ammo crate unscathed are rather low. So maybe one or two guys managed to escape death and hide behind the crate, you still blew the rest up. Either that or you need to fire your artilleryman.

Bottom line, it's not in the rules that Artillery ignores cover, I don't think it absolutely NEEDS to ignore cover, and in fact I feel it could unbalance the game if it did so.

I think Poyet is partially right.

Artillery should ignore corner cover when making an "Indirect fire" shot since it (the attacking unit) doesnt need LOS and corner cover is LOS dependent (thou not written in clear text in the rulebook).

Quote from Blue Tunder rulebook page 13: From the example text under the picture

"" When the Recon Grenadiers shoot, the Rangers arent behind cover either: even though they are next to a corner, the line of sight between the two units does not skim past the corner. ""

When artillery makes a "Direct fire" shot one should consider corner cover since LOS is needed and should be treated under the normal rules.

Quote from Operation Cyclone rulebook page 4: From "Direct Fire"

"" When an artillery weapon opens fire with a direct shot, the attack uses the same rules as a normal shooting attack. Check the line of sight, make sure the target is in range, and fire! ""

"" The only difference between a direct shot from an artillery weapon and an attack from a regular weapon is the minimum range. ""

As Loophole Master says if we consider the hard rules without trying to interpret more into the rules then there is written and dont try to draw parallels to other weapons that work in similar ways (fiction or real life) the rules clearly states the following...

Quote from Blue Thunder rulebook page 13: From "What are the effect of cover?"

"" To be behind cover, a squad simply needs to be in the same square as a piece of cover. No special action is needed to be behind cover. ""

"" Important: some attacks and certain weapons ignore cover. In this case the description found in the "Special Weapons and Armament" section supersedes the rules mentioned above. ""

... and therefore i would now state that the only cover artillery fire ignores is that of corner cover when makeing an "Indirect fire" shot (this still being a grey zone since not clearly written). Hopefully there will be a clarification to both the artillery rules and the cover rules in a future release regaring this matter.

I've changed my view slightly, terrain squares give cover as normal, there is nothing in the rules to say any different. My change is corner cover and I no longer believe it offers protection from indirect fire. Corner cover requires the LOS rule, indirect fire does not use the LOS rule from the shooter....... but, then this adds another question. If you are firing direct at a corner, if you have an observer or not, the mech should still be able to throw its missiles over the wall as if firing indirect - rules don't allow it though. And why can't FFG reply to emails!!!

Yes, terrain that offers soft cover to infantry should offer cover against artillery attack. It's just like an ammo crate. And on this subject, I agree with whoever said that we shouldn't take the ammo crate too literally. It's just a symbol for cover elements in that square, it doesn't necessarily represent just a single puny wooden box sitting in the batlefield for an entire squad to cower behind. It could stand for shallow trenches, wreckage, rubble, trees, whatever could offer soft cover to infantry.

Major Mishap said:

True, but I'd say that if you're firing indirectly, you're making all the ballistic calculations to make sure your shell manages to bypass the obstacles and fall on your target's head, that's why indirect fire costs the artillery piece both its actions. When firing directly you're just quickly pointing your cannon in the direction of the enemy and pressing the trigger, so there's a good chance your shell might strike the corner. You could house rule, however, that if the artillery piece has LOS to a target, it could act as its own observer, thus spending one action in the ballistic calculations, and the other in the indirect fire. However, what you'd be doing there is basically exchanging a Sustained Fire attack for an attack that ignores soft cover. Sort of pointless...

Artillery Ignores All Cover

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/dust-tactics/support/Dust%20Tactics%20FAQ_v1.pdf

If that was their intention all along, it was HUGE oversight not to include a single word about cover in the Cyclone artillery rules.

I think they could do with some external playtesters. Does this answer the question then about artillery firing indirectly into a building? It's not being used in a building, and you get no cover rolls from the indirect attack? I'll go post on the FAQ thread, they might pick this up then.

Major Mishap said:

Hey i think they are simplifying. Now Always look for simplest solution when in doubt.

No cover mean no cover so no cover from LOS no cover from buildings etc.

Do i like it ? no .... But i guess thats influence of TT coming - I hope that they will come back with classic points as well

Again, rules say artillery doesn't work inside buildings, it would just hit the ceiling,

Again - the artillery is not in a building.

But it's "being used inside it", which the rules don't allow.

Thats not the definition of being 'inside' though, and are you really suggesting that my neblewefers can fire diect at a unit looking out of a window but cannot be directed to do so by observers?

Major Mishap said:

And what is the definition of being "inside"? Cyclone never specifically mentions the walker itself being inside the building (though it really wouldn't make a lot of sense to o into that at the time, since building smaller than the whole board didn't exist at the time).

Major Mishap said:

No, I'm suggesting that your nebelwerfers cannot touch any unit inside a building, wether by direct or indirect fire, wether the target is standing right next to a window or doorway or it's deep inside the building. Artillery weapons can never be used inside buildings.

Loophole Master said:

FFG do not need to define what Inside means, that's defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. What you are saying is even worse, against logic and against the rules (assuming you use the correct definition of inside). So, you are now saying that a weapon designed for taking out infantry in cover, such as the Iron Rain's weapons, cannot be fired at a squad mooning at them from a window, do you really think that is correct? Change your definition of inside to Read As Written for the artillery rule and all slots into place and makes sense. If FFG didn't want you to fire at infantry behined a window then they would have said "...and cannot fire at units in buildings." But they didn't, or are they just aweful rule writers? Being inside and targeting at models inside are two completely different things.

Well, actually they are pretty poor rules writers. It's a complaint that's been voiced many times, and often blamed on the fact that the creators' native language isn't English. They often use conflicting terms and leave potential loopholes unexplained. The FAQ certainly does a MUCH better job at explaining the rules than the rulebooks did, giving examples for pretty much every possible iteration of a rule to make sure all of its aspects are clear. Unfortunately, the FAQ barely touched upon the several troubling issues regarding buildings, and this is one of them. The rules for artillery were spelled out at a time when contained buildings didn't exist in the game, and so they didn't specifically tackle the situation where the walker is outside a building and the target inside it. However, it does say that artillery can't be used inside buildings, since the trajectory of the shell is parabolic, hitting the target from above, and thus it would hit the ceiling before hitting the target. The same should still apply for buildings smaller than the board being attacked from outside. The parabollic trajectory of the artillery shell means it would strike the ceiling before hitting the target. The rules do say that a structure's walls cannot be destroyed, so why would a structure's ceiling be destructable? Does an artillery attack against a squad out in the open sharing a square with an ammo crate destroy said piece of cover? No, so why should a structure be any less tough?

And people say table top rules will cause arguments and rules lawyering to get that much extra benefit out of rules and how they are written.