VTOL mast mounts and smoke

[Nephron]

The VTOL mast mount says that it doesn't enable direct fire over or through cover.

So far as I can tell, cover is a defined term only so far as it relates to partial cover.  Partial cover says woods and bridges don't count for granting partial cover, with the clear implication from the examples of what does grant cover that only solid continuous objects like buildings or changes in ground elevation like hills are capable of granting cover.

So can a VTOL using a VTOL mast to peek above LOS blocking smoke fire a direct fire weapon through smoke that blocks LOS to the VTOL body?  Obviously it would be taking the +2 penalty for firing through smoke that doesn't block LOS, since the mast would have to be drawing LOS from a hex where the LOS passes through either 1 hex of heavy smoke or 2 hexes of light smoke for the VTOL to be in a hex that is LOS blocked by the smoke.

[AdmiralObvious]

I think you've got it right. The mast mount would be used to spot the unit, which determines if you can fire indirectly.

I'd effectively treat it as you said in game.

Though that would imply in other edge cases that the mast can be used to spot for direct fire.

This is probably something that needs to be errattad.

[grimlock1]

So can a VTOL using a VTOL mast to peek above LOS blocking smoke fire a direct fire weapon through smoke that blocks LOS to the VTOL body?  Obviously it would be taking the +2 penalty for firing through smoke that doesn't block LOS, since the mast would have to be drawing LOS from a hex where the LOS passes through either 1 hex of heavy smoke or 2 hexes of light smoke for the VTOL to be in a hex that is LOS blocked by the smoke.

Lets paint a picture.
The VTOL is hiding behind a hex of heavy smoke, with a target 6 hexes away.  The target is hiding behind a hex of light smoke.
If the VTOL uses a mast to peak above the heavy smoke and takes a shot with a large laser. That shot only has a +1 TH for the light smoke adjacent to the target.

It seems reasonable to me. 

There might be an argument for a 1 point TH penalty, simply because your point of view is 3 meters higher than normal.
I don't think a hull mounted TAG could work in this case though, because TAG is a low powered spotting laser, and may not be able to cut through the smoke, like the above mentioned large laser.   Although if you have a mast and TAG, why would you put it anywhere but the mast?

[Sabelkatten]

It does seem reasonable to treat it like IDF (i.e. a +1 TN). You're firing from a different spot that you're aiming from.

Makes for a niche but plausible house rule, allowing IDF with direct-fire weapons if the LoS is blocked by smoke.

[grimlock1]

Just to play devil's advocate, say you had a Warrior H7, with a mast mount.  A player could use the SRMS to lay down a nearly perpetual smoke shield while sniping with the AC/2.

Play like that, along with a bit of logic, is probably why FASA originally said no weapons in mast mounts.

[Daryk]

FASA had mast mounts?  ???

I wouldn't be surprised if my memory is failing me, but I thought they didn't come into the rules until after FASA's demise...

[grimlock1]

FASA had mast mounts?  ???

I wouldn't be surprised if my memory is failing me, but I thought they didn't come into the rules until after FASA's demise...

Back in Maximum Tech.  Sorry, but I don't have a page handy.

[Daryk]

I'll be back with my books tomorrow (late), but can look it up at some point after that... Thanks!  :thumbsup:

[CVB]

Maximum Tech (FASA1700), p. 73
Maximum Tech Rev.Ed. (also FASA1700), p. 67

[Daryk]

Thanks!  :thumbsup:

[Sabelkatten]

Just to play devil's advocate, say you had a Warrior H7, with a mast mount.  A player could use the SRMS to lay down a nearly perpetual smoke shield while sniping with the AC/2.

Play like that, along with a bit of logic, is probably why FASA originally said no weapons in mast mounts.

You can just use the LRM variant with a mast and it's perfectly legal...

[grimlock1]

You can just use the LRM variant with a mast and it's perfectly legal...

Can you? 

Can you be your own spotter for indirect LRMs?

[Sabelkatten]

That's how I've read it... I'll be happy if someone can tell me I'm wrong!

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

That's how I've read it... I'll be happy if someone can tell me I'm wrong!

TW, p117:
 

An attacker with a valid LOS to a target cannot make an LRM indirect fire attack, even if that attack would have a better to-hit modifier.

  I really wish I was wrong...

[Sabelkatten]

But the LRM doesn't have LoS, so it doesn't have a TN at all...

Is there an official ruling on leg-mounted LRMs on mechs in partial cover? IIRC that's where I got the idea that you can fire indirectly if your weapon doesn't have LoS. But I think it was a comment on the forum I read, not an official ruling.

Anyway since mast mounts are advanced tech you could mount a mech mortar on the VTOL. It always fire indirectly! :D

[Weirdo]

You don't look at wether the missile rack had LoS, you look at wether the unit as a whole has LoS. There's no such thing as partial LoS. Okay, there might be for very large units like mobile structures or naval vessels, but this discussion isn't about those.

A normal single-hex unit like a VTOL either has LoS or it doesn't, there is no middle ground. And if it does have LoS, then it cannot fire indirectly. The same would apply to your mech with leg missiles.

[Sabelkatten]

Ah, and I found the reference that MMs can indeed fire directly.

So what you've got to do is put a guy with binoculars and a walkie-talkie on your mast mount, then you can fire indirectly! ::)

A far more reasonable rule would be that mast mounts can be targeted (I'd say at an additional +1 compared to firing at the whole unit). That would make hiding behind your own smoke useful only as long as you mast remains.

[dgorsman]

Roof surfing the radome of a VTOL?  Think I've just found the next extreme sport.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

Roof surfing the radome of a VTOL?  Think I've just found the next extreme sport.

  You'd need a damp mop to recover the guy who slipped...

But the LRM doesn't have LoS, so it doesn't have a TN at all...

Is there an official ruling on leg-mounted LRMs on mechs in partial cover? IIRC that's where I got the idea that you can fire indirectly if your weapon doesn't have LoS. But I think it was a comment on the forum I read, not an official ruling.

Anyway since mast mounts are advanced tech you could mount a mech mortar on the VTOL. It always fire indirectly! :D

  The rule says "attacker", which means a firer can't spot their own IF if they have LOS.

  FWI, WW2 Sherman tanks had field phone hookups in the rear of their hulls for ground troops to spot for indirect fire. Since WW2, all American tanks were fit with artillery sights, no matter what armament they had: All guns are capable of IF.

[SCC]

You don't look at wether the missile rack had LoS, you look at wether the unit as a whole has LoS. There's no such thing as partial LoS. Okay, there might be for very large units like mobile structures or naval vessels, but this discussion isn't about those.

A normal single-hex unit like a VTOL either has LoS or it doesn't, there is no middle ground. And if it does have LoS, then it cannot fire indirectly. The same would apply to your mech with leg missiles.

The Problem with this logic is that then a VTOL with a Mast Mount hiding behind a hill now as LoS to everything that can't hit it because it's hiding behind the hill, poissbly even allowing it to fire through the hill.

[Daryk]

Aha!  Found it:
TO, page 350:

A VTOL with a Mast Mount treats any onboard sensors (including active probes and C3 systems, but not including weapon-like items,
such as TAG) as if they are located 1 elevation above the VTOL’s current position. This enables the VTOL to act as a spotter for C3, artillery, or indirect fire by other units, or even for itself (if using the Mast to spot for itself, treat the Mast as a separate, non-firing unit doing the spotting; apply the unit’s movement modifier once, and then add the Indirect modifier). This applies even if the unit with the Mast Mount is hovering just behind the highest level of a hill, building or other obstruction that would otherwise block its line of sight. The Mast Mount does not enable direct-fire over or through cover.

[Weirdo]

...poissbly even allowing it to fire through the hill.

Part of me kinda wants to know what on earth train of thought would put that idea forward. The rest of me really, REALLY doesn't, out of fear.

[AdmiralObvious]

It'll fire above the hill, indirectly. Good to know.

[SCC]

Part of me kinda wants to know what on earth train of thought would put that idea forward. The rest of me really, REALLY doesn't, out of fear.

OK, you said:

You don't look at wether the missile rack had LoS, you look at wether the unit as a whole has LoS. There's no such thing as partial LoS. Okay, there might be for very large units like mobile structures or naval vessels, but this discussion isn't about those.

A normal single-hex unit like a VTOL either has LoS or it doesn't, there is no middle ground. And if it does have LoS, then it cannot fire indirectly. The same would apply to your mech with leg missiles.

So if I have a VTOL hiding behind a hill but using a Mast Mount to peak over the hill then it has LoS to a target and can not indirect fire, therefore it must be able to direct fire upon the target, presumably this occurs through the hill.

[Daryk]

And that's why I quoted the Mast Mount rules, which explicitly state a VTOL can spot for itself.

[Weirdo]

OK, you said:So if I have a VTOL hiding behind a hill but using a Mast Mount to peak over the hill then it has LoS to a target and can not indirect fire, therefore it must be able to direct fire upon the target, presumably this occurs through the hill.

That's nowhere near the case, and I know you know that.

On a side note, everyone in this thread is reminded that straw man arguments actually violate forum rules, and warning people puts mods in a foul mood. You want verbal mud wrestling, go to literally anywhere else on the internet.

[The_Caveman]

OK, you said:So if I have a VTOL hiding behind a hill but using a Mast Mount to peak over the hill then it has LoS to a target and can not indirect fire, therefore it must be able to direct fire upon the target, presumably this occurs through the hill.

if using the Mast to spot for itself, treat the Mast as a separate, non-firing unit doing the spotting

This seems pretty cut-and-dry. VTOL is still out of LOS regardless of what the mast is doing.

[AdmiralObvious]

If it helps, consider the mast a seperate, unarmed vehicle, that can't be shot at.