How come the stone terrace is considered dangerous terrain? There is no negative aspect for occupying or colliding with it like the other dangerous terrain as far as I can tell. Am I missing something?

I was wondering the same thing. The only rationale I could come up with was that they had to put elevated terrain into one category or the other... Or create 3 categories of terrain. It doesn't make thematic sense, but it makes game component sense.

I don't think the elevated keyword is inherently tied to dangerous terrain. We may see future terrain that is elevated but in the defensive category. I think it's just a matter of having chosen two terrain types that were the same size and shape, so they needed to be on the same card. Since each card has 1 dangerous and 1 defensive terrain, it was basically a coin flip between assigning forest or terrace to defensive or dangerous.

Originally when I saw it was dangerous and marked elevated, I thought that meant others could ignore LOS to shoot the occupiers. Oh well.

Its the high ground. Whatever ranged unit there is going to be a threat and will likely be attacked very quickly. That is what makes it dangerous.

1 hour ago, Orcdruid said:

Its the high ground. Whatever ranged unit there is going to be a threat and will likely be attacked very quickly. That is what makes it dangerous.

8 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

Only thing I underestimate is the amount of limbs he can keep