Hey guys - my boyfriend bought me this game for Christmas and we all played it yesterday for the first time: it ROCKS ... really enjoying it.

I've been reading this forums closely this morning as - inevitably - a couple of questions emerged, the main one being around the scenario Victory Bridge: Bridge in Sight.

On the map below, can a unit with the artillery skill positioned in the green square (like a command squad) *see* the Allies Deployment squares covering the bridge, and therefore call in artillery strikes from an artillery equipped walker positioned behind the building?

One part of our group said "no. A unit has to be near the wall/exit to fire out and be fired upon."

Another part of our group said "what you can fire upon has nothing to do with LOS, and nothing here blocks LOS, therefore the Artillery skill can be used."

Something I read on this forum this morning has me leaning towards the latter, even though every fiber of my being says this is wrong. And if the Observer can see 'out' from here and use skills (like artillery), this would effectively mean that even though someone on the bridge could see them back, they could not fire upon them, so the observer would be impervious to anything but raiding the building.

I think that you could diect artillery from inside a building although they would have severly restricted vision. Reasoning? Page 16 of Cerberus and the first example. This states:

Even though the line of sight seems to be clear, it is assumed that the inside of the structure has interior walls, furniture, debris, etc., that block units from seeing each other well enough to attack.

This seems to imply that the units concerned can see each other even though they can't shoot.

Cool ... I agree. So by that definition even though they can't attack each other, they CAN call in artillery (or use other sight-based skills) ... it would seem to imply that they could.

The rules for line of sight are that a unit can only see out of a building from a square with an "exit" and only in the direction of that exit(s). The exit is an opening in the building wall and there are two types, large and small. The small are less then a full square and will block line of site and movement diagonaly from the the exit. A large exit is at least one square in length and will not block the diagonal line of site and walkers may pass through this type of entrance.

In your case a squad in the green square cannot see out of the building, this is because a unit may only see outside of a building from a square that depicts an exit. The observer unit would have to move 1 square to the right to see the (D) deployment zone of the bridge. also the observer must have line of site to call an artillery strike on a target.

Quote from rev core set rule book page 17:
*In order for a unit inside a structure to attack an enemy unit outside a structure, the
attacking unit must be on a space that shows an exit in the direction of the attack.

*In order for a unit outside a structure to attack an enemy unit inside a structure, the
enemy unit must be on a space that shows an exit.

Major Mishap said:

No, it specifies that the the units cannot see each other therefore the statement dose not imply that the units can see each other.

Dakkon426 said:

And this is where I was at yesterday during the game, *but* the rules here are talking about ATTACKING, and the counter point is merely SEEING. If a unit can see you, but not attack, can he call in artillery? Is the act of using a skill the equivalent of an attack?

Don't get me wrong, I'm merely playing devils advocate and tend to be in the camp of "LOS = Attack" and that there is no LOS in my example, because no attack can take place, *BUT* the whole Artillery Strike (Skill) ...

The player in question tends to latch onto rules, and if it's not specifically said that you can't, he therefore assumes you can.

Dakkon426 said:

No, it says thet the units cannot see each other well enough to attack, not that they can't see each other at all.

how dose this sound then: if you cannot see something well enough to attack it yourself how can you expect to describe where they are well enough for someone to attack it over radio?

Dakkon426 said:

Pretty much the same way as any observers do with map references - "4 rounds HE 200M north of my position" or whatever, you don't need good visability to direct indirect artillery fire, heck, you could just level a building if you just suspect an enemy is inside.

Guys, this is all about LOS. "Seeing" and LOS is the SAME thing. The Observer needs LOS to a target in order to call an artillery strike, and you don't have LOS from inside a building if you're not standing next to the entrance.

I have no doubt that the answer to the question is "no".

Nothing in the rules support a differentiation between "seeing" and "having line of sight". The rules specify that if you can see the enemy, the enemy can see you. It's always a two-way thing.

Since there is no definite wording of shooting LOS and spotting LOS beeing the same thing, this is really a loophole.

I tried to keep my opponent in the german championship from spotting from the 'backroom' but wasn't really able to do so, even though I am still sure it should not be possible.

To bad, the rules do have so many inconsistencies and loopholes. I know of another game with such errors: AT-43. It's producer rackham suffered with going out of business…

The key is that LOS is always mutual in DT so since you cannot see in he cannot see out.

scorpnoire said:

There is no loophole, as line of sight is simply defined as line of sight. While it is listed under the combat rules, it has its own, very specific section. With nothing stating spotting line of sight has different rules for line of sight, the regular rules for line of sight would apply.

Artillery Strike is also within the Combat Rules section, so there is no need to reiterate the rules for line of sight. Indirect fire spacifies the observer must have line of sight, so the standard rules for line of sight would apply unless there were a printed exception.

There are plenty of wording issues with DUST, but this is only an issue for people who are trying to make up alternate rules.

scorpnoire said:

WOW!

Page 15 INDIRECT SHOT

"Observers provide the artillery with specific coordinates, so they must have clear line of sight to the target ."

Page 17 STRUCTURES

"All structures have exterior walls, and some structures have interior walls that separate different rooms. All walls block line of sight ."

Indeed. There is no loophole whatsoever in this case. I'd know, check my username.

This was brought up at our game night last night. As the organizer, my answer was 'no'. I can't imagine the intent is for anything other than LOS for combat reasons being required to call in an artillery strike.

Dcal12 said:

The only thing that would change that is if you were using an actual building, which in some cases still have a window.

you can fire out of a window.

but by the looks of your map image you have no line of sight.

the other thing about line of sight is if you think of a real building when you look from the outside in you can not see very far inside the building because of the shadows created. although reversing that in real life you would be able to see out even if you weren't in the right spot. but to make things flow just follow the rules in the book.

I have never had too many issues with the rules in the RCS and everything seems to flow pretty well especially if you read the FAQ for the tournaments.

Everybody seems to be agreeing that this is a case of line of sight. Even if you understand that some special occasion wouldn't allow attacking even if having LOS, the case here is: is there LOS? I don't think the rules differentiate LOS from capacity to attack, LOS and range, that is. I'm risking myself saying that, being a newbie myself. That if you can see a unit it can see you seems a sacred directive of DT (at least until we see Invisibility in play). The thing about artillery: indirect strike is that you could only attack the unit seeing you and calling the shot, not the unit shooting.

But going back to the case here, is there LOS? Someone stated the rules about smaller than a square entrances. That seems to explain all of it, and for the simplest of reasons: if you draw a line from the middle of the green square to the deployment squares, you'l see the line passes through a little of the wall, since the opening is smaller than the side of the square. Actually, from the green square, even the square right in front of the opening doesn't have LOS.

That's why small entrances doesn't provide corner cover: it would be a pain to calculate the exact corner when the wall doesn't stop at a square limit. And because in the majority of cases, not being in the square bording the entrance means no LOS. So, no cover needed.

What do you think, this sounds reasonable?

Dakkon426 said:

Just reread this and this does answere the question. I was a little confused because the map image is not showing the full map. The bridge would be to the right. So my reasoning is still sound but I think a few people may be confused.

2pissed said:

That makes Denver but the deployment area in question is the one on the bridge which is wayyyy to the right off the image that was shown .