Following on from our recent game, I think that we must remember that the terrain is representative only.

Making a blanket assumption that a group of buildings are all intact or all damaged does not allow the players to decide where to position their troops for whatever effect they want to achieve.

I remember one of the Rapid Fire books or scenarios mentioned a rule allowing for an undamaged building being hit by HE, taking the first 4 points of damage to the building itself, before it became a damaged building and the troops became casualties. This could be represented by markers etc.

As for seeing troops in built up areas etc., I think that the line of sight rule should continue as it is used for all other rule interpretations. This means that troops are either hidden from view due to a number of buildings blocking lines of sight, as happened in Sundays game, or in buildings and therefore the chance test rules come into play, or are moving in the open along the roads. To say that a whole area delineated by a tile is considered difficult going and hard cover for spotting negates the need for any buildings to be placed on the table at all!

If we want a built up area to have its blind spots, difficult going etc., then let's lay the buildings out that way. The idea of area of rubble is a good one to represent particular areas of the town being difficult going and hard cover and can be easily represented.

Everyone knowing these rules from the outset will just have to plan accordingly and consider lines of fire and sight when deploying or moving in the town.