Hey guys. was looking for the answers but was not able to locare anthing concrete. Is there a list of the weapon types that ignore cover?

We know artillery, UGLs, and close combat ignore cover. Is this true for flamethrowers and lasers as well?

Flamethrowers yes (as well as napalm throwers), lasers no. Also phasers and Joe's grenade launcher.

just curious why not lasers? it says in the fluff they can cut through any material and armor. can you point me to where in the rule book it says flamerthrowers ignore cover. i have the revised RB and have not been able to locate a definitive answer.

also is there a link to the rules FAQ/erratta somwhere?

thanks!

Revised Rule Book, Page 25, under Flamethrower:
"To represent engulfing flames, all flamethrower weapons ignore cover and cannot destroy anti-tank traps."

All downloads on in the Support tab, main DT page.

And why not lasers? Just because they can cut through anything, doesn't mean cover doesn't provide any protection. Lasers, and any cutting tool really, require sustained effort in one place to cut through objects. A good example would be the oxyacetalene cutting torch, pass it over a sheet of metal and nothing happens, hold it in place for a few seconds and a hole will be burnt through.

Actually there is no rule stating that Artillery fire ignores cover. I have written FFG about this and referred to their contradictory example in the FAQ. The FAQ example contradicts LOS, Cover, Terrain Square, and Square Dot rules. Plus the FAQ is complied out of the rule books, and not a single rule book mentions Artillery ignoring cover. Plus, there have been answers from FFG in this Forum about Artillery fire being called on squads in structures, and FFG representatives said it themselves that a squad in a structure can only be targeted for an artillery strike if they are next to an exit, and that they will benefit from Hard Cover from being inside the building. Therefore Artillery does not ignore cover.

Phaser, UGL/Grenade Launcer, Close Combat, and Flame Weapons are the only things that ignore cover at this point in the game.

ktj1138 said:

That's a rather erroneous view. The FAQ is not simply a compilation of the rulebooks. Yes, in some cases it just further explains something that was stated in a rulebook, but in others it introduces brand new (and official) information. Such is the case of artillery ignoring cover. It says so pretty clearly. Since the FAQ is supposedly kept up-to-date, we have to assume that whatever it contains right now is still valid (FFG has said that an update is coming). The only thing that muddles the waters is that now they seem to be saying artillery doesn't ignore ALL cover, like that offered by being inside a building. That's it.

Major Mishap said:

"Cover" in gamer terms actually is composed of two factors in military terms: Cover and Concealment.

Cover = actual physical barriers to incoming fire, like the a brick wall, sandbags, trees, etc.

Concealment = barriers to line of sight that will not provide a barrier to incoming fire, like bushes, camo netting, sheetrock walls, etc.

In either case, what DT (and other games) generally do is consider area effect weapons to be cover denying weapons of some sort.

There is solid consistency in allowing area effect weapons to ignore cover. It can make cover less effective, though rarely negating it completely. Corner cover would be largely meaningless.

That would mean grenades (including UGL's), phaser blasts , flamethrowers and artillery would all ignore cover. Close combat ignores cover because the soldiers are fighting around it where it won't really help.

Panzerfausts, Panzerschrecks, and Bazookas can be justified to not ignore cover, as they have much more limited blast effects because they are shaped charge weapons instead of blast weapons. Demo charges would depend on the type of demo charge, though they tend to be non-shrapnel producing weapons, and so less dangerous beyond a very close vicinity.

Vehicle main guns can be given an improved anti-personnel capabilty, or not, because of the limited number of explosive blast (HE) shells as opposed to anti-armor (AP) shells. Using the 'X dice per model' mechanic can represent better HE shells, while 'X/1' can represent less effective HE shells, or a small gun with a high rate of fire. Using the Flamethrower stat wouldn't work, as it would mean a large HE gun couldn't remove an anti-tank trap, which is what they should be really good at.

I think what FFG means is that Artillery will ignore corner cover, but not tank traps, ammo crates, and buildings. Though it is all very unclear at the moment, but regardless, the FAQ example is wrong since it contradicts at least 3 rules regarding combat.

ktj1138 said:

For now, the only kind of cover that's been said artillery does NOT ignore is that offered by being inside a building. Tank traps and ammo crates are still ignored.

ktj1138 said:

Could you explain what all these contradictions are? There's a difference between being wrong and being an exception to the rule .

If you look at the Example, the BBQ squad is behind a Terrain Square. Terrain Squares cover the dot, therefore eliminating LOS and movement options. There are 3 Terrain Squares forming a "wall" of sorts. So the BBQ squad is not with a Tank Trap, Ammo Crate, or in corner cover. So it is in no form of cover what-so-ever. The position of the Lothar is on the other side of the wall, so it cannot see the BBQ Squad. So it couldn't fire either way. Even if there was an Observer Squad spotting for them, the BBQ squad is not in cover anyway, so the example does not fit the question/answer. Something that was acknowledged in response to my clarification request. All they said was they are doing another FAQ that will hopefully clear the issue up.

Also, since classic military tactics include taking cover when artillery fire rains down, I don't see how it can ignore cover. I can see why it would ignore corner cover since it is coming in from a different angle and I believe that is also stated in the rules somewhere. But if there are cover elements present, then cover should apply, and there is nothing stated anywhere that says Artillery ignores these elements of cover.

Oh yes, I agree that the example they used is a terrible one that doesn't tackle the issue of the question, but the entry itself doesn't really contradict anything (as long as we assume there's an observer unit somewhere out there with LOS to BBQ squad).

I hope they hurry up with the updated FAQ, and do a better job of it this time.

My thing is typically that if it's not in a rule book, then it's not an official rule. And nowhere in a rule book does it say that Artillery ignores cover in any way shape or form (just went through all the rule books to double check, and couldn't find anything, even on corner cover).

FAQ's are all well and good, but it's the only thing in the entire FAQ that can't be traced back to a rule book. I'm thinking they meant corner cover, but not elements or structures. Or maybe they do mean structures only, but there is no clear rule that exists at this time. Rule of thumb should dictate that since it specifies for weapons that do ignore cover, and artillery doesn't, then artillery does not ignore cover. I am praying Operation Cerberus will have some good, clear updates to some of these rules, especially this and the W-serum ability. Regardless of the ruling, this game is just too much fun. Just want to make sure I'm playing it correctly.

I'm finding small things like this everywhere and am wondering what I have to do for a job to catch things like this... Easy income. ha ha ha.

ktj1138 said:

Well, it's not called "The Official FAQ" for nothing . Those are the official rules, even if it's not printed in any rulebook. Sure, you can chose to ignore it, just like any other official rule, but that's still the official rule: "Artillery weapons ignore all types of cover, including corner cover." ALL cover, save only the weird exception stated in their answer to me: "Inside a building, the targeted unit would gain Hard Cover against the attack from the artillery unit."

Right now the affair is certainly a bit muddled, so I fully understand if you chose to ignore the whole thing until the revised FAQ clears things up (hopefully).

Glad we can agree to disagree

I see a FAQ as a compilation of information that is derived from other sources. To me, the "Official" just means that it came from a legitimate source and not some random web source. And since we are all human, mistakes do tend to slip through occasionally.

Yeah, they screwed up a lot with the rules for artillery. The whole thing about what cover it ignores or not should have been included in Cyclone. How it relates to buildings (can't fire from them, can fire at a target next to the door) should have been included in SeeLowe, and certainly all of that should have been part of the Revised Core Rulebook. However, they seem to have settled for using the FAQ as an easy and inexpensive way of creating an Updated Core Rulebook.

Loophole Master said:

I am not opposed to this idea. A lot of local players do not download the FAQ though and get mad when you pull it out and show them they are wrong. Not sure why it is a big deal. I like an up to date FAQ and check it all the time for new updates.

If it's a friendly game whatever floats your boat but, if you pull the fussing for an FAQ while its a tournament I'd have a problem. It even says in the FFG rules for running a Dust Tactics tournament you are suppose to use all available and current rulebooks and and the FAQ. While mine is unofficial it's is still up to the TO to determine what the ruling is and they could use my FAQ for the ruling and you still have to deal with his ruling as the word of god. I wouldn't care if they do fuss though, atleast there is a legit FAQ ruling and not 40k ruling. 40k sometimes charge the ruling 180 on people. They just forgot to put the extra ignores terrain big wup use the apply the ruling of the FAQ, deal with it, and move on.

The use of an online FAQ for rules clarifications, errata, and what have you, has built up a bad taste with some players because of the problems from other companies.

When companies put out a consistent, logical FAQ that answers questions with consistency, it's a good thing.

When companies waffle on FAQ answers, and players can't be sure that the answer last Tuesday is still the answer this Tuesday, it generates bad feelings.

Games will have rules issues. Variations in language usage alone will create them, but it's also easy to miss something a larger player base will detecvt. Having an online resource to help resolve those issues is a good thing, but not a perfect thing. There are no perfect ways to diseminate information on rules issues.

An online resource is far better than being forced to buy additional books, or magazines, to stay current with the rules.

Forget the company waffling, I've seen too many players use "possible" interpretations of English to justify their claims of how things work. Simple Standard English usage rules should be all that apply, but when it messes with the way a player wants to play and, often enough, hurts their army, they are adamant that they have the true and received word. Even if their justification screws up all kinds of other rules.

Algesan said:

With those problems exacerbated by some companies that justify changes in interpretation by odd ideas of how English should work. 'We really didn't mean what we wrote as what we wrote, it actually means something no sane English speaker would expect so the problem we crerated doesn't really exist.' has never cut it as a FAQ concept for me. If you make a mistake, admit it, fix it, and I'll retain respect. Play spin doctor with a broken turntable, and I'll lose respect and interest in you FAQ responses. I have a few games we play happily with only house rules to fix rules issues, because the company couldn't admit they made a mistake, and trashed their rules in their FAQ.

Companies that take that tack are also the major reason players feel they can come up with outlandish interpretations of English to justify their ideas. Some players would do it anyway, but a few companies have encouraged the practice by their foolishness.

So far, Fantasy Flight has caused confusion for some issues, but they don't try to reinterpret English in ways it's never been used before. I expect them to clarify things in a reasonable way given time. Obviously more time than some people would like, but I can be patient for a good result.