| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
A place to discuss the rules and clarifications for Dust Tactics
| Page 2 of 2 (19 messages) | « First page... 1 2 |
Dcal12 said:
scorpnoire said:
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…
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."
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.
Why do we fall Bruce?
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?
"Yes I know that one day I must die, I`m alive"
Caetano Veloso
Dakkon426 said:
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.
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.
Why do we fall Bruce?
2pissed said:
Dakkon426 said:
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.
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.
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 .
Why do we fall Bruce?
| Page 2 of 2 (19 messages) | « First page... 1 2 |
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS