PDA

View Full Version : Stacking Terrain, Elevation, Consealment, & Cover?



DeathInFrance
05-11-2011, 05:58 AM
I'm sorry if this has already been discussed, but I haven't found it in my searches. Some of these questions might sound simple, but a friend pointed out that most of the rules in the Mk II book are for LOS & not things that grant DEF bonuses.

My questions are about Elevation & Terrain.

1) Do terrain & elevation bonuses stack? i.e. elevated concealment/cover

2) How does base size affect intervening terrain features. i.e. how large does an object need to be in order to grant concealment/cover for small, medium, & large based models?

3) What are the terrain height rules? i.e. a medium based model is standing behind something 1/4 of an inch tall that covers part of it's base.

4) How does one determine the order in which to address base rules (i.e. terrain) & their modifier (i.e. Hills* & Cover*)
*These are general examples of things that modify the base terrain rules, I'm not just looking for specifics on these two.

Thank you very much for reading this, & for any insight you can provide.

Not Dice
05-11-2011, 06:08 AM
For future reference, please break up different questions into individual threads.

DeathInFrance
05-11-2011, 06:20 AM
For future reference, please break up different questions into individual threads.

Sorry if my question is a bit confusing. The reason I posted all of them together is because I wanted to know how these four elements (Terrain, Elevation, Consealment, & Cover) affect with one another. If it helps we can look at them as four parts to one very long question :)

drachenfels
05-11-2011, 06:30 AM
1) yes
2) not really sure what you are asking here...
3) this is covered in the book under 'volume' and players decide before the game how tall terrain is and how it affects things near it or line of sight
4) once again not sure exactly what you are asking here. some examples would be best. (also cover is something that terrain or other effects generate, cover is not a type of terrain)

petegrrrr
05-11-2011, 06:31 AM
1) Yes.

2) size of an obstacle doesn't matter. If it is considered an obstacle or obstruction, it will grant whatever bonuses it should grant. a half inch wall grants cover the same as a 4 inch wall.

3) Base sizes have a defined volume and height. If an obstruction is as tall as that height, it blocks los to that base size. (small base is 1.75 inches, 2.25 for medium 2.75 for large).
so a wall that is 2 inches tall blocks los to small model, not a medium or large based model. Etc.

4) there is no order for base rules. A model has cover or concealment or elevation as soon as it meets the requirements. Is there an example of an issue where you think there would be timing implications?

rahal777
05-11-2011, 06:36 AM
I may be wrong in this but I believe that nothing under 1" tall grants cover (hence the "cover" side of the melee reach template)

DeathInFrance
05-11-2011, 07:13 AM
Great! Thanks so far guys, this has been very helpful. But I guess I have to give a specific example.

1) It sounds like a unit with a height elevation, in cover, gets a + 6 DEF modifier.

2, 3, 4) During a game, a medium based jack is standing on rocky terrain. The terrain has elevation, & LOS to the unit's base was obscured by 1/4 inch high step (it covered up to the jacks ankles). A ranged attack was launched against that model by a unit with arching fire. A +6 DEF modifier was added to the base DEF.

Thinking about that scenario, even if it were treated as an obstacle (it was indicated by the defending player as a hill, which according to the MK II rules do not grant concealment or cover bonuses), could that small amount of obscuring terrain grant a unit a cover bonus?

MrChom
05-11-2011, 07:15 AM
I thought that 1" was to check if you were close enough to cover to claim it...

amazonwarlord
05-11-2011, 07:32 AM
pg 57

A model within 1" of a terrain feature that obscures any portion of it's base from an attacker can gain either a concealment or cover bonus depending on the type of terrain, to it's defense against ranged and magic attacks. Concealment and cover bonuses are not cumulative with themselves or eachother, but are cumulative with other effects that modify a model's DEF.

height of the cover is not discussed.

The section on linear obstacles mentions < 1" height to define a linear obstacle. That's all I can see in regard to height.

amazonwarlord
05-11-2011, 07:40 AM
I may be wrong in this but I believe that nothing under 1" tall grants cover (hence the "cover" side of the melee reach template)

I wasn't sure what you were refering to so I got my template. That is to check your distance to cover for the
within 1" of a terrain feature potion of the rule

petegrrrr
05-11-2011, 08:29 AM
Thinking about that scenario, even if it were treated as an obstacle (it was indicated by the defending player as a hill, which according to the MK II rules do not grant concealment or cover bonuses), could that small amount of obscuring terrain grant a unit a cover bonus?

Yes.

The entire obstacle/obstruction is treated the same, unless you and your opponent agree to treat it differently.

Just like barely having your base in the forest gives you concealment, being behind a very short obstacle still gives you cover

rahal777
05-11-2011, 08:35 AM
I thought that 1" was to check if you were close enough to cover to claim it...
Ah, my mistake, and here I've been using the template on it's side this whole time.

DeathInFrance
05-11-2011, 08:44 AM
Ok, so because this is a little hard to articulate in words, I?ve found an image of the scenario in question. I?ve indicated to approximate locations for the two opposing models.

The circle in red indicates the Light Jack being targeted.

The blue is the attacking model.

10? distance between them.

The terrain in question is the tip of the hill between the attacking & defending units.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25113463@N03/5710132781/in/photostream

drachenfels
05-11-2011, 09:12 AM
to me that terrain piece is all just "hill". there are no linear obstacles, or other types of obstacles there. that 'lip' of rock would not be enough to 'realistically' impede movement. So to me and my playgroup that entire piece of terrain would just be a simple hill and provide elevation. At the most that hill could be considered rough terrain and thus impost movement penalties along the edge or in certain areas, but since that would be open to debate on where exactly those regions start and stop it would be simpler to not add rough to the piece at all.

Also once again terrain and penalties/benefits/features of specific terrain pieces you own would have to be discussed between you and your opponent (or agreed upon by the entire gaming group for sake of consistency if multiple different people share the terrain)

amazonwarlord
05-11-2011, 09:18 AM
agree with Drach ... unless stated during discussion of terrain I'd treat that as all open hill.

petegrrrr
05-11-2011, 09:20 AM
Hills are not linear obstacles. Hills are not obstacles of any kind, unless you and your opponent make up a house rule that they are and agree on it. So Hills never provide anything but elevation, barring some wakcy house rule.

drachenfels
05-11-2011, 09:55 AM
Hills are not linear obstacles. Hills are not obstacles of any kind, unless you and your opponent make up a house rule that they are and agree on it. So Hills never provide anything but elevation, barring some wakcy house rule.

i wouldnt directly say that... there can be some elaborate display terrain pieces that incorporate allot of elements that may end up with a piece/section of obstacles at the top... oddest situation i can think of is as follows...

A hill (a large one) atop this hill is a forest and a campsite. in the campsite is a large pile of boxes/crates of supplies. and along the perimeter of the campsite is a short stone wall.

now in this instance you have a hill, forest, obstacles and linear obstacles all on 1 piece of terrain. and depending on placement/exact build a model could gain the benefits of:
elevation +2 (hill)
cover +4 (stone wall)
concealment +2 (forest)
(then add in natural abilities for sillyness bordering on godly Def like target in mele +4, force barrier +2, camouflage +2)
against shooting.

PhilEPhil
05-11-2011, 10:20 AM
Boy this has gone off on a tangent for a rules forum post.

The answer to the rules questions were answered already.... hills do not provide cover or concealment. The only reason this would differ is if the players agreed that a specific hill would grant these effects prior to the game or if a terrain piece providing cover or concealment was placed ON the hill. Basically, you are asking people's opinions about a situation that is not a rules question.

If you are working 100% by the book that model would not gain cover or concealment because hills don't do that. If you agreed before the game that the hill would... then it does. If you disagree with your opponent then you need to ask an impartial 3rd person to decide for you or roll a die to decide. There is no other solution by the rules and this teaches you the importance of specifying terrain features and their properties before the game begins.

petegrrrr
05-11-2011, 10:22 AM
i wouldnt directly say that... there can be some elaborate display terrain pieces that incorporate allot of elements that may end up with a piece/section of obstacles at the top... oddest situation i can think of is as follows....

Then that is not a hill. It is an elaborate, individual terrain piece that incorporates a hill. Clarity is fine, but please don't confuse the issue when trying to answer a rules question.

he asked about a hill. He got an answer about a hill, and not about a wacky, multi obstacle/obstruction incorporating custom terrain piece :D

Not Dice
05-11-2011, 10:35 AM
Boy this has gone off on a tangent for a rules forum post.

And that is why the Infernals ask for individual questions to have separate threads.

Just to reinforce what was advised in post #2.

DeathInFrance
05-11-2011, 11:08 AM
Thanks Mod, I'll make sure to do that in the future.

But we digress back to the topic at hand, I've found everyone's input (be it opinion based, general group practice, or rulings from the book) very insightful. As a new player I now have enough insight on this topic to address any concerns I have when playing a game & it’s thanks to all of you.

I feel, thus far, everyone posting has been very polite to one another. Seriously though, who cares if someone gets a little passionate about their perspective? Would any of us even be reading this if were weren’t passionate about this game? I don’t think so.

Anyway, I want to thank everyone who’s contributed to this thread again. Very helpful. And to appease the moderators, I’ll make sure to keep my questions short next time. :)

petegrrrr
05-11-2011, 11:11 AM
There is no ruling needed. Everything is right out of the book so you should be all good to go!

DeathInFrance
05-11-2011, 11:23 AM
I agree, thanks again for the help guys! :D

Maudlin
05-11-2011, 08:49 PM
Questions answered.