Got this email just now:from FFG in response to my rules question.

> Can artillery units fire at units inside buildings?
Yes, as long as the targeted unit is on a space next to an exit in the direction of the attack from the artillery unit. In this case, the targeted unit would gain Hard Cover against the attack from the artillery unit.

I've also gotten a response to the questions I sent almost 2 months ago:

- Can a walker outside use Direct Fire against a target inside a building, next to an exit?
Yes. As long as the targeted unit is on a space next to an exit in the direction of the attack from the artillery unit. In this case, the targeted unit would gain Hard Cover against the attack from the artillery unit.

- Can a walker outside use Indirect Fire against a target deep inside a building, in sight of an Observer?
No. The targeted unit must be on a space with an exit in the direction of the attack. Even though the observer squad can see the target, the artillery shells follow a parabolic trajectory from the direction of the artillery unit. When targeting a unit that is not near an exit in the direction of the attack, the artillery shells would impact the roof of the structure and not hit the targeted unit.

- Can a walker inside a hangar use artillery against a target inside that same building?
No. Artillery weapons fire in a parabolic trajectory. Any artillery weapons fired from inside a structure would hit the ceiling of that structure and explode, making it very dangerous for the artillery unit!

- Can a walker inside a hangar use artillery against a target outside the building or inside a different building?
No. Same as above.

While they do make clear that you CANNOT fire artillery weapons from inside a building in any situation, the fact that the squad gets hard cover for standing inside a building next to an exit really contradicts the "artillery ignores cover" rule.

Well, at least they clarified for structures.

But yeah, to say they get hard cover makes no sense if artillery ignores cover. They need to clarify. I sent back an email to the person who emailed me and mentioned that what he said contradicts the FAQ. We'll see if he responds.

I wish they gave me as clear of an answer as they gave you. My answer was so short and missed mentioning anything about what makes artillery special, it sounded like he didn't understand the question.

And I find it strange that the walker cannot fire at a target outside the building. I guess I should have asked specifically about a walker STANDING NEXT TO AN EXIT...... Man, you really have to phrase your questions carefully here if you expect to get any kind of useful answer.

Loophole Master said:

Yes, I would think if the tail end of the parabola can hit someone in the entrance to a building, then the other end of the same parabola would work too, and a walker should be able to fire from inside a building at the exit.

My reasoning exactly.

I wonder if this means I'll hear back about my rules question about the Victory Bridge scenario with the walker stuck in the building with too small of doors.

It seems they took care of a batch of questions. Almost simulatenously I got the answer for this question, which I made in August 1st and also my Loth question which I made 2 weeks ago.

I find it humorous that they mention artillery firing directly, but they make all of it effectively indirect with the minimum range requirements.

Some artillery (infantry mortars and rockets) only fires on a high parabolic path. Other, tubed artillery can fire a high indirect path or a direct fire attack without a minimum range. The petard mortar being a turret mounted gun with a minimum range is rather silly for me as an ex-artilleryman.

WW2 short barreled assault guns were capable of both direct and indirect fire, with indirect fire having a possibility of a minimum range, but direct fire being something they could use to defend themselves, or bring fire directly on a nearby target.

The petard works within the game, even if it makes no sense as other than an oversimplification.

Not firing artillery from within a building when they don't acknowledge direct fire as other than self-observed indirect fire makes sense.

Not firing down through a roof from outside artillery works as a simplification that doesn't require rules to figure out how solid a roof is.

Giving cover to a unit on the edge of a building from artillery would work, except that it contradicts the artillery ignores cover ruling. Of course, while I don't have the original rulebook, the artillery ignores cover ruling only exists in the FAQ from what I have.

Cover helps against blasts, but not always. An air burst can ignore a lot of things that would protect against a ground burst. Corner cover would be no help against any artillery or grenade burst. Artillery ignoring cover is the quickest way to deal with the variables, so hopefully they'll amend their answer to not giving cover to a unit in an entrance attacked by artillery.

Today must have been the bi-annual answer questions day, got mine too, same Q's as Loopy. The problem with artillery, I think, stems from their assumption that all artillery shots, all the time, lob missiles in the air which is incorrect. At close range they would fire just like any other gun. In games terms the Artillery rules should really only be used with indirect fire and no minimum range for direct fire. But they like the rules simple so no artllery fire if in a building, at a door and firing out.

And as for the hard cover save when at a window, I guess the guy must have got a bit beffudled and got it wrong. Ahhh, mind you, the new rules do not say that artillery ignore cover, so maybe the FAQ which covered the original artillery rules is now out of date and artillery does not ignore cover at all?

It would be odd if they decided artillery blasts didn't ignore cover, yet phaser blasts, grenades, and flamethrowers did.

A 155mm artillery shell is close to 100 pounds of explosive, which is a lot more than a grenade. Even an 81mm mortar is firing more explosives than a grenade.

I'm thinking the answer guy forgot artillery ignores cover, and was only thinking about where in a building artillery could attack a unit.

Maybe the intention is that cover provided from being inside a building is a invulnerable save and is never ignored, but cover from corners, ammo crates, tank traps can be ignored. I always assumed the cover from being inside a building as a easy out of worrying about room to room, hallways, furniture and other debris in the building and just gave a flat out cover save.

I can see justification for cover from a building for artillery, but if they're going to make an exception for it, it should cover any blast and the flamethrowers, or none of them. No cover for all area attacks works for simplicity, but there needs to be consistency for building cover if they want to make an exception.

There is a big difference between artillery and the other weapons. Grenades and flamethrower were designed specifically to clear out infantry in cover with accurate close-rang shots of grenades through windows of flame through pill box slots - it's their job. On the other hand the rule writers assumed that every inaccurate, long range artillery shot that can't even see its target always lands perfectly the other side of the cover the infantry are hiding behined and this is just not true, the first thing any soldier does is dive for cover, cover does have an effect against artillery.

Major Mishap said:

Actually cover works against everything, including grenades, flame throwers and more. (well, maybe less if you count gas, germs, viruses and so forth).

A grenade lands near you, you jump behind a rock, or tree, and so forth. I think cover should count against all attacks. Some attacks, such as grenades, flame throwers and such should reduce your cover by one step, so soft becomes none and hard becomes soft. It should even count in close combat (evr try to stab someone hiding behind a rock?). Now you woudl have the option as the defender, maintain cover save and not get your counter attack or take your counter attack in close combat but sacrifice your cover save.

And as always, ahem, heroes and walkers should also get cover.

Somebody on the Facebook Dust Tactics group just posted this:

"Finally heard back from FFG regarding Artillery Weapons and the Wiederbelebungsserum... All they said is that they are working on clarifying the rules and that there will be a new FAQ out soon."

So it sounds like their rulings in the emails we received weren't necessarily so final.

I tell you, if only the creators of the game gave it half as much thought as we do....

Loophole Master said:

Yeah. I can understand a rule not being written clearly. Often if you're designing a game, you think something is clear because you already understand the rule when you're reading it.

But the issue here doesn't seem to be clarity of those who wrote the rules, but that the people writing the rules didn't even think about this situation at all to begin with, despite it not even being a rare situation. It really seems bizarre to me.

heroes benefit from cover when paired with a squad dont they?

ReaverRandall said:

Yes, they do.

Major Mishap said:

Grenades are not considered an accuracy weapon, nor are flamethrowers. Flamethrowers work best used excessively, on flamable targets, and on targets in completely enclosed spaces like bunkers where it can burn out most of the oxygen. Grenades work best on targets without cover, or to keep people's heads down during an assault. Cover from a building or wall can protect against both of them.

Artillery works the same way, without great accuracy, but with a lot more force. I mentioned a 155mm shell earler, because it was fairly common in WW2. It throws about 100 lbs of explosive. A grenade is about 1 lb. A 105mm shell is about 30 lbs. That's a lot more power than a grenade. To give an example of relative power, a 155mm shell is considered to have a lethal radius of 50 meters, as opposed to less than 5m for casualties from a grenade. I've had debris from a 155mm shell fly past my head when I was over a mile away.

Even in WW2, they had timed fuses, and were beginning to work with proximity fuses, to give air bursts, which do a significant reduction to cover from artillery blasts. Most WW2 rounds were impact fuses, but even 30 lbs of explosive blowing up on the other side of a room's wall is a lot more problematic than a hand grenade. A chair can stop a grenade, but it takes a solid wall to stop artillery.

Grenades are designed to kill people completely in the open, and make other people duck, rather than kill everyone. There are lots of battle reports about people bunkering down in a room while being grenaded for some time, and coming out without major injuries simply because of light furniture for protection. People don't walk out of rooms very often after being hit by artillery. The blast can disorient, or kill, even if the fragmentation fails.

And you will need tons of 155mm explosives to clear out 2 guy's in a foxhole before you hit it - or 1 grenade.

Major Mishap said:

Very far from true. A single air burst would do the trick, or the shock wave travelling through the ground if the consistency was right, or a near enough miss that they still got caught because they were at all exposed.

Grenades were far from a guaranteed clear, even if they entered the foxhole, as soldiers were trained to dig grenade sumps in the foxholes, and a grenade rolling or pushed into one did nothing to the people in the foxhole. Modern grenades have time and impact fuses combined, which makes the more dangerous, but WW2 had only timed grenades, so tossing a grenade back, or rolling away, or simply ducking if it wasn't right next to you, were frequently enough. The trick was that grenades often came right before an assault, so if you were ducking, you weren't watching the soldier coming behind that was trying to shoot or skewer you on a bayonet.

A grenade in a room without cover was a very nasty proposition, as overpressure and bouncing fragments created the famed chunky salsa effect, but experienced soldiers also knew about that, and would look for cover if they could get it in any building they were fighting in. Again, a grenade pressaging an assault was a good way to go, as people had to defend against the grenade and then react to an immediate assault, but grenades were not the entireity of a good room clearing operation.

Grenades are good, purposeful tools, but are nowhere near as effective as the movies show them to be.

Artillery ground bursts are not as effective as air bursts, and if the ground is the right consistency, can be even moreso, but grenades are very rarely timed well enough to be air bursts. There's a reason the statistics show 90% of casualties in war at the front lines are caused by artillery.

Gimp said:

I was unaware that in WWII they had the accuracy to launch 1 shell from indirect artillery to strike two guys in a foxhole whether it was a airburst or not.