If we're sticking with 1 artillery type, I think that it should:

Not see through fog
Count as an attack no matter what
Not able to invade

The "Bombers" in IRoll11s post.

Would any boards have their gameplay significantly affected if this change was made to them? i.e. the attacks count? Or does this need to be an option (e.g. 'Artillery attacks always count' to preserve existing functionality?

tom wrote: Would any boards have their gameplay significantly affected if this change was made to them?

Which change?

I think Artillery borders should see as Default attack borders do since they are an Attack

So I would vote 'Bombers with AWACS support':

- see through fog that a default border would see through
- not being able to invade
- every attack counts

My preference is "Bombers"  (no AWACS support)

-not seeing through fog

-not able to invade

-but with temporary RECON abilities after each attack..  (Same as a normal attack in total fog)

If you want to lift the fog you need to occupy a territory that is "normally" bordered to the target.

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote: Would any boards have their gameplay significantly affected if this change was made to them?

Which change?

I think Artillery borders should see as Default attack borders do since they are an Attack

So I would vote 'Bombers with AWACS support':

- see through fog that a default border would see through
- not being able to invade
- every attack counts

The only change I am planning to make is attacking via an artillery border to a territory that has already been reduced to the minimum allowed number of units now counts as an attack in a limited attacks game, it also exposes the unitcount and seat in the attacked territory.

As per the change log and comment above, Artillery attacks in a limited attacks foggy game to a territory with the minimum allowed number of units now count as an attack and expose the target seat and unitcount.

It would effect Risky-E-Vaders but I think in a good way. I never considered or thought about that when I made the map but I like it this way. It would be an issue if Duck Hunt had fog but it doesn't.
I think the gaining knowledge aspect is good. In a board like Vaders, you can use your artillery to lossen up attacks for the invaders and if you reduce it to 0 or if it is already at 0 it's the same outcome and so the attack should be counted.
I think this is a good thing.

Hey all,

I wanted to make a suggestion about artillery and came across this thread.  I am in the process of making a board with artillery and, as per the suggestion above, I managed to "blind" them, but it opened up a variety of new effects and complications. If anyone wants me to explain to them what I did to achieve that I'd be happy to explain.  That's not why I came here though.

I came to this artillery thread to bring up the suggestion that artillery should not be given an advantage when rolling at two as if it were one, nor a free pass when rolling at a single.  Shouldn't the default be that defense gets to roll all their dice available?  Otherwise artillery is used to take cheap shots at two stacks or as a cheap way of scouting if one suspects to be mostly surrounded by singles.  So, if rolling at two then if both defending dice win the artillery should lose two, if one of each side wins, then the defense is reduced to its minimum of one with the artillery losing one as well, and if the attacker wins with both dice then the defending territory is reduced to one with no loses to the artillery.  When shooting artillery at a single, meanwhile, the artillery would reveal the territory but the defender would still get to roll a single dice to try and pick off a unit from the artillery territory as the cost of looking.

Thanks!

Erick