Tournament Rules

[PG_UndeadDan]

That's when you call a TO over and get him to lay down the law. And if that TO sides with your opponent, you never play in that TO's events ever again.

[Tevelyn]

Wow... the explicit rule for a hill says that it grants elevation to a model on it. Its worth noting that this means contacting it isn't enough, but anyone saying that the opponent from the OP is cheating needs to learn how to read.
"They simply provide elevation to models on them." is the EXACT wording involved.

The elevated target rule applying to TERRAIN above 1", so it is specifying for terrain that is NOT hills thus does NOT grant elevated explicitly. So if you're playing with balconies, or train cars or obstructions that can be stood on have to be 1" or taller to give elevated target.

Accusing someone, especially someone who's reading this thread, of cheating without bothering to educate yourself about the rules involves makes you a jerk. And I'd use stronger words if the filter wouldn't catch them.

Tev

[Karl Eller]

Providing Elevation != Elevated Target. What grants the Elevated Target bonus is very clear (being 1" higher than the attacking model), which means the target must be physically 1" higher in order to gain the bonus. I would never accept "toe on" as granting the Elevated Target bonus in a tournament unless it was agreed to before the game started.

[Tevelyn]

Searching provided this interesting link
http://privateerpressforums.com/show...=1#post1092508

[PG_UndeadDan]

Tev - All your link does is bring more power to the moderate argument for exactly defining how the terrain works for a given event, be it an agreement between opponents or a litany of guidelines laid down by the TO.

[PG_The Captain]

It genuinely surprises me that in a game where people can get so antsy about having everything else so by the book can suddenly become so blasé when it comes to terrain. It's quite an incredible double standard to say that people may not be able to identify a Devastator if it has an Ice Axe, but everyone's perfectly fine playing by a rule which is in no rule book.

As long as there are no official terrain pieces conforming to the rules of Warmachine and PP does not enforce the use of such, all games will be played with the terrain that is available to players/TO's. PP sells a Devastator "as is" from a box, but they don't sell 1" high hills. And unless they start selling official terrain pieces, it is the responsibility of players, not the rulebook, to define how each available terrain piece is played. Personally, I'm happier with a little bit of abstraction instead of modern GW "the terrain does what the terrain does - forests don't block LoS, individual trees do" style.

Again, communication between players is the key.

[Chip]

Wow... the explicit rule for a hill says that it grants elevation to a model on it. Its worth noting that this means contacting it isn't enough, but anyone saying that the opponent from the OP is cheating needs to learn how to read.
"They simply provide elevation to models on them." is the EXACT wording involved.

The elevated target rule applying to TERRAIN above 1", so it is specifying for terrain that is NOT hills thus does NOT grant elevated explicitly. So if you're playing with balconies, or train cars or obstructions that can be stood on have to be 1" or taller to give elevated target.

Accusing someone, especially someone who's reading this thread, of cheating without bothering to educate yourself about the rules involves makes you a jerk. And I'd use stronger words if the filter wouldn't catch them.

Tev

All terrain provides elevation - you need more than an inch of it to get the Elevated target bonus. From Primal;

Unlike obstacles, hills do not impose any additional movement penalties, nor do they provide cover or concealment. They simply provide elevation to models on them.

Elevated Target : If the terrain is at least 1" higher than the attacker, it is an elevated target.

The only difference between a Hill and an Obstacle is that an obstacle needs to be climbed, and a hill can simply be walked up. Anyone who plays it differently is not playing by any known rules from any of the books. Seeing as you don't want me to call them a cheater, let's call them "a purveyor of house rule incorrectness".

As long as there are no official terrain pieces conforming to the rules of Warmachine and PP does not enforce the use of such, all games will be played with the terrain that is available to players/TO's. PP sells a Devastator "as is" from a box, but they don't sell 1" high hills. And unless they start selling official terrain pieces, it is the responsibility of players, not the rulebook, to define how each available terrain piece is played. Personally, I'm happier with a little bit of abstraction instead of modern GW "the terrain does what the terrain does - forests don't block LoS, individual trees do" style.

Again, communication between players is the key.

...Why would hills need to be in precisely 1" blocks? Someone on a hill 1.5" high has the Elevated Target bonus against a person on a platform .5" off the tabletop, and someone shooting at them from a tower 2.5" high gets the Elevated Attacker bonus. Someone could then shoot at the guy in the tower from a pile of crates 3.5" high to get the Elevated Attacker bonus against THEM.

I genuinely don't see the issue here.

[tensteam]

I have to agree this is simple. By reading the rules you need to be 1" higher than the attacking model to get the elevation bonus. Of course you are free to agree on anything before the game with your opponent, but if you didn't, don't try to get house rules into play when the situation is critical. The worse terrain you have the more things you need to clarify in advance.

[absent]

Here is your arguement, A model that is targeted that has elevation is not an elevated target. that is saying a=b but b=/=a. However really it's up to either you and the opponent, or a judge if need be.

If you agree to how the hill works pre game then fine, but you can't seriously make that arguement at a tournament to sway a judge that has ruled against you, in the OP's example the judge just ruled against his arguement, move on with your life and take away the lesson that you need to discuss terrain pre game.

[Karl Eller]

Here is your arguement, A model that is targeted that has elevation is not an elevated target. that is saying a=b but b=/=a. However really it's up to either you and the opponent, or a judge if need be.

If you agree to how the hill works pre game then fine, but you can't seriously make that arguement at a tournament to sway a judge that has ruled against you, in the OP's example the judge just ruled against his arguement, move on with your life and take away the lesson that you need to discuss terrain pre game.

Elevation is simply height, and hills giving you "elevation" does not specify how much. You need at least 1" of elevation in order to get the defensive bonus, so unless the hill grants at least 1" of elevation, no bonus for you.

[Jota]

Elevation is simply height, and hills giving you "elevation" does not specify how much. You need at least 1" of elevation in order to get the defensive bonus, so unless the hill grants at least 1" of elevation, no bonus for you.

+1

(tenchars)

[absent]

Elevation is simply height, and hills giving you "elevation" does not specify how much. You need at least 1" of elevation in order to get the defensive bonus, so unless the hill grants at least 1" of elevation, no bonus for you.

You did read the infernal reply that said it was best to follow the rules on pg 86 and discuss it with your opponent, but that the easiest and most consistent way is if you are toe on any hill you get the bonus, right?

English still exists in game term definitions by the way, a target that is elevated is an elevated target, if a hill simply gives elevation, and a target is on a hill, the target is an elevated target.

Lastly imagine a spell that gives elevation to any models in it's aoe, and someone lays down a paper cut out to indicate it's area of effect, would you tell me that you would not grant that models on it are elevated, because the piece of paper is less than 1" high?

anyway pregame pg 86 in prime mk2, thats the end of the discussion either way.

[Soulvayne]

You did read the infernal reply that said it was best to follow the rules on pg 86 and discuss it with your opponent, but that the easiest and most consistent way is if you are toe on any hill you get the bonus, right?

Only problem is the second part was Valanders personal opinion on the matter and not really an official infernal reply on the matter in an effort to keep the game moving smoothly. I'd agree it really is kind of up to the opponents to determine how the terrain works before starting the game. How it works for one meta, isn't the same for all of them.

[Karl Eller]

English still exists in game term definitions by the way, a target that is elevated is an elevated target, if a hill simply gives elevation, and a target is on a hill, the target is an elevated target.

A target that is elevated by at least 1" is an Elevated Target/Attacker, as per the Ranged Attack modifiers on p57 of the Prime rulebook. Simply being elevated isn't enough, as you could have a 0.5" elevation, which would NOT give the Elevated Target/Attacker bonuses. The hill rules on p86 of the rulebook simply says that the hills provide elevation, they don't tell you HOW MUCH elevation they provide. Being elevated alone isn't enough, you must be elevated by at least 1" in order to get the associated bonuses (again, p57, it's pretty clear).

Lastly imagine a spell that gives elevation to any models in it's aoe, and someone lays down a paper cut out to indicate it's area of effect, would you tell me that you would not grant that models on it are elevated, because the piece of paper is less than 1" high?

The spell effect would do exactly what it says it does. If it says it provides 1" elevation to all models within the template, then it does that.

You did read the infernal reply that said it was best to follow the rules on pg 86 and discuss it with your opponent, but that the easiest and most consistent way is if you are toe on any hill you get the bonus, right?

Yes, you should discuss hills (and any terrain) with your opponent before the game starts, however if nothing was mentioned, I would be entirely justified in assuming that a model had to physically be elevated at least 1" higher in order to gain the relevant bonuses, because that's how the rules are written.

[absent]

Wouldn't the infernal have said that in response to the hill question if it was true karl? Clearly it isn't true, when the hill says it simply grants elevation, he never mentioned anything other than that terrain is often varied and that you need to discuss it, but he never said anything about needing to be 1" high on the hill to get the defense bonus, in fact he said much the opposite. That only at what point do you get elevation from the hill needed to be discussed, and that his personal method is toe on any slope. This is very different than at least 1" high, so you are saying the infernal directly contradicted an explicit rule in his post, with his own house rule? Preposterous.

[absent]

Here is in fact another thread that a person says a hill simply grants elevation as a bonus, and is not contradicted by an infernal and rather again the infernal gives his personal preference for toe on giving full bonus

http://privateerpressforums.com/show...ight=elevation

[PG_carnage4u]

I've only been playing this game for about 7 years, and I've played against a lot of different people from all over the United states, but I've never seen someone double check to see if a hill is really the correct height for the bonus. As absent has said, and the rules say, talk about terrain with your opponent before the game starts if you have any questions.

[Karl Eller]

But how much elevation does the hill provide? 0.5"? 1"? 2"? What if there are two models on two different hills, who is elevated in relation to who? Without discussing it with your opponent beforehand, the only legal way to determine the height of the elevation is by measuring off the model.

Edit: My point is, talk it over with your opponent beforehand. It will solve 99% of your problems.

[absent]

If two models are both on hills, and you want to see if one is going to get the elevated penalty's and bonuses, and you didn't discuss levels of elevation before the game as the rule book dictates you do, i agree you will need to measure height in that situation, or call a judge if you can't agree and it's at an event. I've never seen it come up, however. If that is all you are arguing then i misunderstood.

[Blarmb]

My group always defines the height of a hill or other terrain. We've had the same exact hill piece (that's rather sloped and lumpy) and at it's apex is maybe 2" tall be 1" tall, 2" tall or even 3" tall on occasion. If you're on the hill you have that much elevation. Even if you're only actually 0.5" off the ground.

Hell, we have this one wall that is like 1" high, that is almost defined as a "4" High Wall". So it blocks LOS to large models even though a great many heavies loom over it's actual heigh.

[x3tsniper]

All our or sloped hills are counted as one inch. We have other terrain, that is tiered, and goes high enough to block LoS and be unclimbable.

[Maxus]

I was playing a game and my opponent had their caster on a hill, just barely (the bottom of the base was in B2B with the flat ground). I went to shoot his caster and he claimed a bonus to DEF for elevation. I said he wasn't greater than 1" above my attacking model so he wouldn't benefit from the hill. We paused the timer and went to ask the event organizer (who was self-described as not very familiar with the rules). He agreed with me, but my opponent continued to argue it so we asked a PG who was playing (obviously waited for him to pause his timer). The PG said my opponent was correct so I just let it go.

I'm going to reiterate what people have said, in any game, especially with people you do not know, go over the terrain pre-deployment. Do it before you roll to see who goes first and the second players choose sides. If there is something really ambiguous, I'll call a TO/rules person over and ask what is this piece of terrain to have an offical 3rd party ruling right there. On a personal note, I like hills with slopes, because I do not like to tip over many of my models so they possibly tip over (but its another reason to bring blank bases) but in a tournament setting I will ask, if a model is on the slope, or angled over the top, does it get the elevation bonus. And in complete honesty, if a game/tournament is using felt and says something is a hill, then I do assume that it provides elevation at a toe in.

I do agree with the argument that if a piece of terrain is defined as a hill, it provides elevation to the model. If it provides elevation, then you get an elevation bonus. Otherwise, why have the hill in the first place and define it as a hill, I would rather have nothing there (and severely limit the possibility of my wonderfully painted model tipping over), because that is the same effect.

mattieK said:

As the offender, I'd like to clarify a few points. First the situation is being taken out of context. At the beginning of the tournament the organizer said he was not very familiar with the rules and questions should be directed to two members of the local community. Second we defined all terrain features at the beginning of the game and the terrain in question was defined a hill. Third Primal pg90 Section Hills: Second paragraph "They simply provide elevation to models on them." I knew I was right and the TO didn't know the rules. So I asked one of the designated rules gurus regarding the rules to the game. I get it that there is a clause in the SR document that you need to accept judgement from officials. I played inside the box outlined by the TO at the beginning of the tournament and don't feel bad about the outcome

From what has been written from both players it sounds like:
There was a rules question
The TO was called over and asked a question
The TO made a ruling
The "offender" did not a agree with the ruling, and asked/argued for another ruling
Designated rule person was interrupted in their game, and asked a rules question
Rules person trumped TO, and TO changed their ruling.

I'm going to put this harshly, "As the offender", you were wrong. This is why I say you were wrong: At the beginning of the tournament, you knew that the organizer said he was not familiar with the rules, and questions should be directed to two specified people. The question was taken to this person who admitted that they are not familiar with the rules, and they made a ruling, and you needed to live with it instead of going to another person.

If your opponent called the TO over, you needed to interrupt them and say, you (the TO) said to bring rules questions to these people who you designated as rules people and not let the TO make a ruling.

If the TO was watching the game, and just butted in and said "this is the ruling", you needed to say hey TO you said to take rules questions to these people you designated and then get a ruling from the designated people. (this also gets into active vs passive judging, if the TO isn't versed in the rules, they shouldn't be active judging).

Now the TO should have known better, and gotten a "correct ruling" before making the ruling instead of making a ruling and then changing the ruling.

Arguing after the TO makes the ruling, when you knew they shouldn't be making rules rulings really does make you the "offender". You needed to live with the ruling, because you accepted the TO coming over and making that ruling instead of interrupting them and saying, you (the TO) shouldn't be making rulings because you (the TO) said to ask these other people.

Then after the game, the mistake needed to be rectified.

[mattieK]

Maxus you sir are a gentleman and a scholar. In retrospect you are correct. The TO was alerted since I thought it was going to be a very simple rules question and alas I was wrong.

Regarding hills. I view elevation as an effect and hills grant it. The rulebook specifically defines elevation and a separate line is designated to defining the bonus to DEF while the effect is active.

Apparently I'm a cheater but if I am so are all of the important players in the game. Flanzer, Wild Bill, Neutralyze, Watts, jamieP. I really don't think all of the competitive players in the world are playing this wrong. later.

[ScottEBJJ]

Maxus you sir are a gentleman and a scholar. In retrospect you are correct. The TO was alerted since I thought it was going to be a very simple rules question and alas I was wrong.

Regarding hills. I view elevation as an effect and hills grant it. The rulebook specifically defines elevation and a separate line is designated to defining the bonus to DEF while the effect is active.

Apparently I'm a cheater but if I am so are all of the important players in the game. Flanzer, Wild Bill, Neutralyze, Watts, jamieP. I really don't think all of the competitive players in the world are playing this wrong. later.

While I can attest none of them measure hills for exact heights, I can also attest that they all go over terrain pre-game. What each piece is, what bonuses it can grant, and where you need to be on them to get said bonuses.

If you do not have that conversation then you aren't doing your due diligence.

[mattieK]

While I can attest none of them measure hills for exact heights, I can also attest that they all go over terrain pre-game. What each piece is, what bonuses it can grant, and where you need to be on them to get said bonuses.

If you do not have that conversation then you aren't doing your due diligence.

you assume a lot about me

[x3tsniper]

Don't forget to decide before hand if a building is a building or an obstruction. It matters for windows, and whether or not it is destroyable are the biggest reasons I can think of. Nobody cares about water. Oo

[Kuarnix]

...Why would hills need to be in precisely 1" blocks? Someone on a hill 1.5" high has the Elevated Target bonus against a person on a platform .5" off the tabletop, and someone shooting at them from a tower 2.5" high gets the Elevated Attacker bonus. Someone could then shoot at the guy in the tower from a pile of crates 3.5" high to get the Elevated Attacker bonus against THEM.

I genuinely don't see the issue here.

They don't need to be in 1" blocks, though that would make it easier to stack and make multiple elevations. The point is that there are no "official" warmachine hill terrain pieces, ergo they must be home-made or recycled from another game, ergo they may not be sized or made appropriately for warmachine. Like I said previously, you can't charge up a stepped hill without pathfinder unless you are willing to make allowances for the terrain available to you (that's in the terrain rules, if anyone looks). I don't see anyone raising a fuss about that and it's a black-and-white qualitative trait of the terrain piece; I've never seen anyone argue that you lose distance charging down or up a sloped hill (because you're actually taking a longer path than you would be if it was flat). It boggles my mind that allowances can't be made for short hills but can be made for those things.

[ScottEBJJ]

you assume a lot about me

What? What exactly am I assuming?

All I said is that if you do not discuss terrain with your opponent pre-game, as noted in the rules, then you and they haven't done your due diligence. If an argument happens in game regarding whats on and off a hill it's very clear that the conversation I am talking about did not happen. At all or to the needed level.

There is absolutely no assumption in that statement