PDA

View Full Version : Elevated Target and Cover bonus



Tylo
12-08-2011, 01:25 AM
Hello, all.
Please consider the following image, taken from Primal page 45:

https://img.skitch.com/20111208-83gsy64rs43m9hs2b1cxw198ds.jpg

Consider the Druid attacking the Titan with a ranged/magic attack:

Primal page 57:
"An elevated target(...) gets +2DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls"

"A model with cover(...) gains +4DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls"

And on cover, also on 57:
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any part of its base(...)"

So, the Titan would be at +6 DEF in this case, is that correct? This being the case, most of the roughly square-edged platforms would grant this much def to someone on top of them, and I'd already know my casters' new favorite spot on the table...

wargrim
12-08-2011, 01:43 AM
Depends, if you and your opponent agreed before starting the game that this kind of terrain is a cover providing terrain feature, you would gain +6 DEF. But such terrain isn't in default covering terrain.

Mod_Redphantasm
12-08-2011, 06:07 AM
Hills do not by default provide cover. However, you and your opponent may agree upon a terrain pieces rules before the battle so if you have suitable terrain you can make it do whatever you like ruleswise.

Tylo
12-08-2011, 12:01 PM
Thanks, guys! I'm seeing the role of terrain more as a 2D, 'bird view', with special rules attached to these templates than "what you see is what you get" battlefield representations, which was my first expectation.

For example, small models climbing 4"-tall obstacles, or climbing a 8" tower at the expense of only 1" , which I wouldn't consider as 'reasonable', so I'm now explicitly declaring these as suggested.

Valander
12-08-2011, 12:22 PM
Thanks, guys! I'm seeing the role of terrain more as a 2D, 'bird view', with special rules attached to these templates than "what you see is what you get" battlefield representations, which was my first expectation.

For example, small models climbing 4"-tall obstacles, or climbing a 8" tower at the expense of only 1" , which I wouldn't consider as 'reasonable', so I'm now explicitly declaring these as suggested.Yeah, the terrain rules are probably closer to that description than it might first appear. Do keep in mind that model volume (detailed in that same section on LOS) adds in a bit more 3d, but it is always, always ​best to discuss terrain effects of stuff on the board before anyone starts pushing models around and rolling dice. ;)