Looking for some confirmation (or telling me I'm dead wrong) on the specifics regarding the above-captioned-matter.

"Units that are on separate floors and directly above or below each other are not considered adjacent ." ("Operation Cerberus" pg. 14, bold original)

Thus, one floor apart and not right above or below, but diagonally one away you are adjacent since "when two units are only one floor apart , floors and ceilings do not block line of sight". ("Operation Cerberus" page 17, bold original)

This makes sense to me, as I imagine the 3-D buildings to have a large central staircase connetcting the floors, which accounts for the "open middle" of the buildings, the ease of traversing floors from anywhere on the floor, and the fact ine can shoot diagonally down at an enemy, etc.

This would allow close attacks from one floor to another (throwing puches in the stairwell or whatnot, if not vertically collinear), but only if one initiating the attack is the one on the floor above because one must "remember that the unit on the lower level must add one to its range" ("Operation Cerberus" page 17, reiterating page 15 "How height Affects Range" rules letting us know that the rule applies inside as well as outside ) for not having the "high ground"

Therefore, with rules for this situation are maybe:

1.) The "height/range" modifier prevents close attacks initiating from any unit that is attacking from below .

2.) A unit may attack with a close-combat weapon line from one floor away as long as the units are "one away," but not directly above or below each other.

Once the unit with the "high ground" commences the close attack, the "lower-floor-unit" would still get a silmultaneous close attack since with C ranged attacks "the defending player can retaliate against your close-combat attack" and are resolved silmultaneously ("Core Set Revised: Rules of Play," pg 14), and therefore:

3.) Even if the "height/range" modifier prevents close attacks initiating from any unit that is attacking from below, if they are attacked from above by a close range attack, they may perform a silmultaneous close-combat attack of their own .

Seems a bit odd in practice, "you cannot reach up, but can reach down, unless they reach down in which case you can reach up."

Thoughts?

Quick and to the point: There is NO Close Combat of any kind between different floors.

I do not think that is true (although I more than willing to be shown wrong through a citation to errata or otherwise).

It specifically states, "Units that are directly above or below each other are not considered adjacent and cannot engage in close combat." on page 17 of "Operation Cerebus."

This is clarifying specifically that one cannot use close combat if directly above or below, but going out of its way to leave the possibility of close combat between floors. Otherwise why not simply say, "units on different floors cannot ebngage in close combat." ?

If being on different floors does not block line of sight why couldn't you?

Drafting the rule as written to be excusionary to the idea would be like them writing, "If you are playing Dust on Thursdays, you cannot use "Heroic Attack" more than once per game, when they mean, "You can only use Heroc attack once per game."

I simply see no reason they would clutter the statement on determining adjacency if the concept is inherently forbidden.

Is there anywhere else they speak to this?

Cerberus, page 15:

"Weapons with range C cannot attack any target that is above or below the attacking unit, regardless of range."

I read that as well, but that is under the section " Firing into and Out of 3D Structures ," where one of the units is not inside the building , and one is.

This is logical as I think it would make sense to a degree that one cannot attack with close combat through an upper floor window if one cannot enter or exit

through it.

Where they carve out the specific exception to close combat when directly above or below is on page 17 under "Firing Up or Down One Level."

This section deals with combat between two units both inside the structure, but on different floors.

Like the rule states, I am certainly not suggesting that one can attack with close combat if a unit is directly above or below, as the rules expressly forbid it.

However, as previously indicated, I do not think close combat in buildings on different levels is outlawed as a whole simply because the rules have gone out

of their way to say they are is still line of site, and to give a specific exception where the close combat cannot work, implying that under "normal conditions"

(i.e. units not directly above or below) the close combat is viable.

Ok, let's see what we have here:

- In order to make a Close Combat attack, units must be adjacent to each other (not just range 1, but adjacent).

1) A unit attacking "up", adds 1 to the range of the attack. Therefore if he's under his target, one square to the side, the total range is 2 and C attacks are not possible.

2) If he's right under the target, the range would be 1, but not adjacent, since the rules say so. No C attack possible.

3) For a unit attacking "down": If he's right above the target, the range is 0, but still not adjacent as the rules state.

4) Now, what could be perceived as an exception: A unit attacking down, one square to the side. The range would be 1 and could be considered to be adjacent, so the attack would be possible.

Now, I would find it very odd that of all those four very similar situations, only number 4 allows for a C attack. And since only the unit above would be in C range, it should prevent the unit below from retalliating, which kinda breaks the mechanics of C combat. I know that the rule sentence I posted earlier is part of the "attacking in or out" section, but the text itself makes no such distinction. The other entries in that section clearly talk about units "inside the structure" and units "outside the structure", while the rule I quoted simply states "no C attacks between different floors".

"Now, I would find it very odd that of all those four very similar situations, only number 4 allows for a C attack."

I would agree with your statement that is a bit awkward that all of the four situations are so similar, and that only number 4 allows the close combat.

However, I think it is equally awkward that the shotguns or flamethowers only work in the situation you indicated in number 4, but that is almost certainly the clear interpretation for range 1 weapons, and there are few if any other situatuions in Dust Tactics where one can attck with a range 1 weapon and not a C range.

(The one exception I feel is the allowence of shooting down from inside a second floor window at a unit outside directly below, and not attacking from the same window with a C attack as expressly forbidden on page "Operation Cerberus" pg.15)

" And since only the unit above would be in C range, it should prevent the unit below from retalliating, which kinda breaks the mechanics of C combat."

I also agree it would be awkward if the "higher altitude" squad would be able to engage in close combat with their target unable to retaliate, but maybe that is necssarily the case.

When the Rules of Play indicate, "The defending player can then retaliate againt your cole-combat attack with a close-combat attack of their own," I feel they are trying to encasulet the feeling of melee for C range where you are engaged in mutual combat.

So in the situaion above, perhaps number 4 is the only option to initiate an attack, but I do not know that necessarly precludes the unit attacked from "fighting back"

Their height rules are somewhat arbitrary (IMHO) to simply show "it is always advantageous to hold the high ground" as it seems silly to me shooting a shotgun from a 6th floor window shold be able to hit a unit on the ground because the "extra distance from the height is essentially 'free'"), or shooting a panzerfaust up into the same window from the ground below it since you only "add one space to the distance when calculating the range (regardless of how high the target is located)."

So trying to use earthly logic is for the determination of the original question is not going to work anyway without an "official ruling" (although some of the offical answers form Dust I have read here have left much to be desired)

IMO this topic has RLY gone way too far in some too witty law-suited rules discussion Prolly it's only my but for dust mechanics sake! I once played it wrong and squads figting you with knives from the upper floor with NO retaliation felt so stupid and bad… Whatever they say i will never allow that to happen again, let's not search holes where there are none:P

Fenton is pretty good at handwaving away the rules he doesn't agree with.

The rule that says "Weapons with range C cannot attack any target that is above or below the attacking unit, regardless of range." doesn't say anything about into or out of the building, regardless of what section it's in. And there's no rule that directly contradicts it specifically about inside a building. or outside on some open air terrain pieces.

Fenton said:

Actually, range 1 weapons like shotguns and flamethrowers would work in all the situations cited, except for number 1.

My aplologies if I appear kibitzing, or for any perceived "handwaving away" of rules, as the purpose of my creating this thread was certainly not to simply be a contrarian or take an arbitrarily contentious stand on a rule interpretation.

Like you guys, (or gals if that's the case, as I suppose since I should not presume anyone's gender online) I do not feel it would be "just" to have a close-combat attack that is immune from retaliation, but was simply troubled by the rule:

"Units that are directly above or below each other are not considered adjacent and cannot engage in close-combat" ("Operation Cerberus" pg.17)

and sought clarity for my game group.

Loophole Master said:

"Actually, range 1 weapons like shotguns and flamethrowers would work in all the situations cited, except for number 1."

I agree with Loophole's comment here 100%, and was not meaning to imply that the rules as written exclude range 1 except for scenario number 4.

I was instead suggesting that perhaps, in the alternative, the rule drafters meant units directly above or below to not be in line of site (and it was a misprint or omission), as it would appear that they certainly meant something to be blocked/limited/prevented/otherwise-altered when units are directly above or below since they not only wrote the rule but also bolded, "directly above or below," and if close-combat is already precluded because of not sharing floors, and line of site is not precluded by that position, what else is left to alter?

If the answer is "nothing," then it begs the question what the purpose of the bullet-pointed rule's inclusion is at all, as it alters gameplay in no way despite whatever boldface they have added and the cute skull icon that precedes it.

I ask this rhetorically at this point, as I do not expect my perspective is one you will share.

While this post all but ends my involvement in this thread (I promise) I have nonetheless submitted the question to the "Dust Tactics rule lawyers" whom will hopefully have a perspective to share, and when/if they email a reply, and I shall post their response here if for nothing else than to sate the curiosty for those may have shared the concern.

I of course realize even "official answers" can leave something to be desired (like the much maligned "All Artillery weapons must 'Reload' " answer of some time ago), and even if their interpretation should for whatever reason in ways resemble my own, it is still only a game and and if a rule reduces your experience because of its inclusion, we are all free to play on without it.

Happy gaming.

I think adjacency is important for friendly units as well, for abilities like the NCO Command Squad's. I would say it's plausible that's the "important" part of the rule, and the Close Combat mention remains since it's not incorrect, just perhaps unnecessary?

Yep, that was my thinking as well.

Loophole Master said:

Agreed.

mgentile7 said:

Agree, thought the rules were pretty clear on that. Just don't play Dust Warfare where you can punch someone in the mouth 4 floors up