PDA

View Full Version : Clarifications on obstacles you may want to read



Macallan
03-17-2015, 11:47 AM
It seems that the obstacles rules are played differently from one area to another. Here are a few guidelines. I hope they will help.
---
1/ As written, obstacles do not grant elevation as they are less than 1" high.
Many players want their obstacles to provide elevation. Since terrain must be agreed upon before play, TO are free to declare beforehand that obstacles provide elevation.
2/ The intent is that obstacles do not provide cover and do not count as intervening terrain (for melee) if one model is on top and the other is down. If both models are down and the obstacle obscures the target then cover and intervening terrain apply.
3/ Climbing on top of an obstacle with Inhospitable Ground active costs 3" of movement and you get 1" of actual move.
4/ Pathfinder does not ignore the 1" penalty.
5/ A pushed or slammed model stops when it contacts an obstacle.
If you are down touching the edge of an obstacle (you are at the bottom) and are pushed toward that edge, then you contact the obstacle and you are stopped.
If you are on top of an obstacle and are pushed the movement is not prevented.

Bottom line intent: Obstacles should be consistent with hills for models on top of them and consistent with linear obstacles for models not on top of them.

ScottMcd
03-18-2015, 09:28 AM
Thank you for these clarifications, I rarely see obstacles used, likely because few people understand them. Your answers above do raise a few questions (at least for me).

1/ if an obstacle is declared to provide elevation, will you then take falling damage from being grown, slammed of or just walking off of it or is this a non- inch elevation like a hill?

3/ is this because the movement of 1 inch is doubled for inhospitable ground and adding that to the remainder of the original 2" penalty (1) equals 3" or is there a different formula? If you have pathfinder does the penalty under IG revert to 2" or remain 3"? (This may be what you refer to in #4, but I'm not sure).

The first part of your bottom line confuses me. How is it consistent to that models on top of an obstacle the same as on top of hills when you open up stating obstacles do not grant elevation as they are < 1" high?

Thank you.

Robobengt
03-19-2015, 12:43 AM
It's 1" to get on top of the obstacle regardless of if you've got pathfinder or not, I believe. If you got pathfinder and spend 3" of movement you should get 2" forward.

vintersbastard
03-19-2015, 03:52 AM
1/ if an obstacle is declared to provide elevation, will you then take falling damage from being grown, slammed of or just walking off of it or is this a non- inch elevation like a hill?
Presumably not; the obstacle is still less than 1" high (you've simply agreed with your opponent that it nonetheless provides elevation).


3/ is this because the movement of 1 inch is doubled for inhospitable ground and adding that to the remainder of the original 2" penalty (1) equals 3" or is there a different formula? If you have pathfinder does the penalty under IG revert to 2" or remain 3"? (This may be what you refer to in #4, but I'm not sure).
I believe you are correct - the 1" penalty is for moving up, while the rest is for moving forward.

Macallan
03-19-2015, 05:01 AM
1/ if an obstacle is declared to provide elevation, will you then take falling damage from being grown, slammed of or just walking off of it or is this a non- inch elevation like a hill?

3/ is this because the movement of 1 inch is doubled for inhospitable ground and adding that to the remainder of the original 2" penalty (1) equals 3" or is there a different formula? If you have pathfinder does the penalty under IG revert to 2" or remain 3"? (This may be what you refer to in #4, but I'm not sure).

The first part of your bottom line confuses me. How is it consistent to that models on top of an obstacle the same as on top of hills when you open up stating obstacles do not grant elevation as they are < 1" high?

Thank you.
No falling damage from hills so no falling damage from obstacles. See the bottom line intent.

For 2" you pay the 1" penalty and advance 1".
With Inhospitable Ground you pay the 1" obstacle penalty, as usual, then you pay 2" for the 1" advance.

ScottMcd
03-19-2015, 01:11 PM
Thanks for the clarifications!

magix
03-20-2015, 10:04 AM
No falling damage from hills so no falling damage from obstacles. See the bottom line intent.

So when is falling damage relevant then?

The Captain
03-20-2015, 01:35 PM
So when is falling damage relevant then?

When players agree before the game that being pushed off a particular terrain piece would cause falling damage. I've seen tables with built-in cliffsides and slopes, so you could end up in a place where you never climbed on top of an obstacle but you're still on the edge of a cliff. Such a cliff would probably count as impassable for purposes of movement in the opposite direction.

Wishing
03-20-2015, 01:56 PM
So when is falling damage relevant then?

Like the captain says, if you are pushed off some high terrain piece, most likely an obstruction of some kind with an access point, like a tower.

The OP explains that default obstacles are less than 1" high, and therefore aren't tall enough to fall from, or to provide elevation.
If you want extra-tall obstacles for some reason, you would have to house rule that these particular pieces grant elevation, in which case you could also say that you can take falling damage from falling off them, I guess.

Hyge
04-10-2015, 06:31 AM
Im not sure this is the right thread, but i have a question!

Can you get +2 Def in melee if LoS passes a buildings corner or an objective like Effigy of Valor which is an obstruction?

IceShadow
04-10-2015, 06:50 AM
Rules text: "A model with any portion of its volume obscured from its attacker by an obstruction gains +2 DEF against melee attack rolls."

ScottMcd
04-10-2015, 08:03 AM
Im not sure this is the right thread, but i have a question!

Can you get +2 Def in melee if LoS passes a buildings corner or an objective like Effigy of Valor which is an obstruction?

1. You should make a new thread for this next time, it will likely be locked without comment.
2. The effegy of valor is not an obstruction. It provides cover as if it were an obstruction.
3. You get the cover bonus, which works against ranged and magic attacks, for the effigy of valor. Since it is not an obstruction or obstacle, you do not get the +2 def bonus against melee attacks.
4. Obstacles, linear obstacles, and obstructions do provide a +2 bonus vs melee attacks if you meet the criteria posted above by Iceshadow.

rydiafan
04-12-2015, 09:38 PM
1. You should make a new thread for this next time, it will likely be locked without comment.
2. The effegy of valor is not an obstruction. It provides cover as if it were an obstruction.
3. You get the cover bonus, which works against ranged and magic attacks, for the effigy of valor. Since it is not an obstruction or obstacle, you do not get the +2 def bonus against melee attacks.
4. Obstacles, linear obstacles, and obstructions do provide a +2 bonus vs melee attacks if you meet the criteria posted above by Iceshadow.

These are all correct (although I am partially disproving #1).

Wishing
04-13-2015, 12:03 AM
The first part of your bottom line confuses me. How is it consistent to that models on top of an obstacle the same as on top of hills when you open up stating obstacles do not grant elevation as they are < 1" high?

I am confused by this part as well, which I haven't seen answered yet. The bottom line says that obstacles should be treated like hills for the purpose of models standing on top of them, but in the numbered list it says that standing on top of an obstacle does not provide elevation. Standing on top of a hill does provide elevation. So surely standing on top of an obstacle isn't the same as standing op top of a hill at all.

MrSwazzle
04-13-2015, 03:05 AM
I am confused by this part as well, which I haven't seen answered yet. The bottom line says that obstacles should be treated like hills for the purpose of models standing on top of them, but in the numbered list it says that standing on top of an obstacle does not provide elevation. Standing on top of a hill does provide elevation. So surely standing on top of an obstacle isn't the same as standing op top of a hill at all.

I think it is talking about how obstacles interact with models that are pushed or slammed. So if a model in top is slammed off the obstacle treat it like a hill, so there is no falling damage. If a model at the bottom is slammed and contacts the obstacle instead of treating it as a hill you treat it in the same way as a linear obstacle so the model would suffer an additional die of damage.

ScottMcd
04-13-2015, 06:43 AM
I agree with Mr, Swazzle's post above. The bottom line doesn't seem to be about the elevation part of a hill, but about the effects of being moved off of one as well as for cover and intervening terrain purposes.

Standing on top of an obstacle only provides elevation if the TO declares it (or in a friendly game, if the players agree before the game I suppose.

I would have preferred #1 read like this:

1/ As written, obstacles do not grant elevation as they are less than 1" high.
Many players want their obstacles to provide elevation, but just as people in Hell want ice water, it doesn't.

But since it isn't just discuss whether or not obstacles provide elevation.

Lastly:


These are all correct (although I am partially disproving #1).
1. Yeah, I got some right!
2. SHAME! :p