Overall, the rules are very well-written and seem to cover most situations, but I had a few things I wasn't sure about when it comes to terrain:

1) If a model is on Elevated terrain, it ignores other units and terrain when measuring line of sight. Does this mean that other units ignore units and terrain when targeting it as well, or is it one-way only?

2) For Deadly and Taxing terrain, do units suffer any ill effects for remaining in contact with it (or even occupying it) in subsequent turns, or is it only on the initial collision?

3) When Exposed terrain becomes occupied, does it stop being Exposed, since the unit is considered to basically take up the whole thing? Or does the unit "sink in" and no longer block line of sight?

25 minutes ago, Zetan said:

Overall, the rules are very well-written and seem to cover most situations, but I had a few things I wasn't sure about when it comes to terrain:

Ok, so referencing 81.9...

Quote

1) If a model is on Elevated terrain, it ignores other units and terrain when measuring line of sight. Does this mean that other units ignore units and terrain when targeting it as well, or is it one-way only?

RAW, it's just the unit on the terrain ... "When a unit occupying this terrain measures line of sight , it ignores other units and terrain."

Our only (current) example of Elevated terrain is a man-made structure with a wall/battlements, which makes sense, in terms of how the Elevated terrain works ... if a future elevated terrain was, say, a grassy hill, that would seem silly if it was not two way.

Quote

2) For Deadly and Taxing terrain, do units suffer any ill effects for remaining in contact with it (or even occupying it) in subsequent turns, or is it only on the initial collision?

The rules entry for both of of these terrain types starts with " When a unit collides with this terrain" ... I think the key thing to focus on here is the word collide - RAW it would appear that the effect only happens when the unit first buts up against the terrain, not on subsequent turns.

Of course, as far as Deadly goes, currently it's a moot point as the only deadly terrain we have cannot be occupied.

As far as taxing goes, my head canon is it's taxing to pull up and not enter (collide, but not occupy), or move into the terrain, however miserable, but not taxing to occupy, and something of a relief to leave!

Quote

3) When Exposed terrain becomes occupied, does it stop being Exposed, since the unit is considered to basically take up the whole thing? Or does the unit "sink in" and no longer block line of sight?

RAW, I would go with the unit still blocks line of sight ... "When a unit measures line of sight, it ignores this terrain ." - the key here is that it is instructed to ignore the terrain, not any occupying units.

Having said that, with the only current "Exposed" terrain being a swamp, it amuses me no end to think of an occupying unit neck deep in water and not blocking line of sight.

22 minutes ago, maxam said:

RAW, I would go with the unit still blocks line of sight ... "When a unit measures line of sight, it ignores this terrain ." - the key here is that it is instructed to ignore the terrain, not any occupying units.

the only problem with this is the unit effectively isnt on the board anymore. it is even possible that the unit was removed from the board when it occupied the terrain and replaced by a single figure from the unit.

1 hour ago, maxam said:

Ok, so referencing 81.9...

RAW, it's just the unit on the terrain ... "When a unit occupying this terrain measures line of sight , it ignores other units and terrain."

Our only (current) example of Elevated terrain is a man-made structure with a wall/battlements, which makes sense, in terms of how the Elevated terrain works ... if a future elevated terrain was, say, a grassy hill, that would seem silly if it was not two way.

Even with the battlements, I'm not sure this makes sense. If this is the way it works (and I agree that RAW supports this) it means that if there's a unit or terrain element in the way, you can't see the unit up on the battlements, but if there isn't, you can. Battlements wouldn't do that; they would make the unit up there harder to hit regardless of what was between them. Maybe grant them Cover or Fortified. The other thing that confuses me about this is that the Stone Terrace is considered "Dangerous"... I assumed because it leaves you more open to attack. If it keeps you hidden from enemies you would've been hidden from anyway but lets you attack them, doesn't that seem more defensive? Hopefully we'll get a ruling from an official source soon.

1 hour ago, maxam said:

The rules entry for both of of these terrain types starts with " When a unit collides with this terrain" ... I think the key thing to focus on here is the word collide - RAW it would appear that the effect only happens when the unit first buts up against the terrain, not on subsequent turns.

Of course, as far as Deadly goes, currently it's a moot point as the only deadly terrain we have cannot be occupied.

As far as taxing goes, my head canon is it's taxing to pull up and not enter (collide, but not occupy), or move into the terrain, however miserable, but not taxing to occupy, and something of a relief to leave!

Yeah, I think this RAW interpretation is hard to argue with. I was wanting to create terrain that would be painful (but still possible) to move through (like lava or whatever) but I guess I can either houserule that starting your turn there does the damage again or make it occupancy 0 and just say that nobody's actually willing to walk through that.

1 hour ago, maxam said:

RAW, I would go with the unit still blocks line of sight ... "When a unit measures line of sight, it ignores this terrain ." - the key here is that it is instructed to ignore the terrain, not any occupying units.

Having said that, with the only current "Exposed" terrain being a swamp, it amuses me no end to think of an occupying unit neck deep in water and not blocking line of sight.

As @Klaxas said, the rules allow the unit to be removed from the board... actual position of the unit inside terrain doesn't seem to be something the game wants us to track. The way the unit can face all sides and such makes me think that we're supposed to imagine the unit spreading out to fill up the entire area of the terrain, facing outward. If this is the case, I could see the terrain essentially losing Exposed while a unit is inside; the unit is considered to occupy the entire terrain element, so the entire terrain element now blocks line of sight. I think the ruling we eventually get will either be this or the comical "sinking in" idea, but I'm not sure about which.

@Zetan the stone terrace is dangerous terrain for two reasons.

1.) It is less defensive than the forest which provides cover.

2.) a ranged unit occupying elevated terrain becomes a priority target depending on where the terrain is on the board.

6 hours ago, Klaxas said:

the only problem with this is the unit effectively isnt on the board anymore. it is even possible that the unit was removed from the board when it occupied the terrain and replaced by a single figure from the unit.

Eh... the trays of miniature figures may not physically be on the game board, but the unit in the game world is still present...

I think the intent of the rule is that the terrain in question (a swamp) is "flat" and therefore not blocking LOS ... every other piece of terrain is "raised", even if it is only a field wall.

As i said, in the case of a swamp, I'm extremely happy to imagine a unit neck-deep in the swamp not blocking LOS ...

Actually considering this ... you're right ... thinking about the unit in the terrain ... if they're running about from side to side "as needed," they're effectively a skirmish formation, i.e. not presenting a unified block to LOS.

So, in the case of the Swamp, whether they're neck deep in water or walking on it, they're not going to block LOS.

5 hours ago, Zetan said:

Even with the battlements, I'm not sure this makes sense. If this is the way it works (and I agree that RAW supports this) it means that if there's a unit or terrain element in the way, you can't see the unit up on the battlements, but if there isn't, you can. Battlements wouldn't do that; they would make the unit up there harder to hit regardless of what was between them.

You're absolutely right - D'Oh! I wrote my reply at 3:30am, and definitely had cover confused with LOS!

Quote

Yeah, I think this RAW interpretation is hard to argue with. I was wanting to create terrain that would be painful (but still possible) to move through (like lava or whatever) but I guess I can either houserule that starting your turn there does the damage again or make it occupancy 0 and just say that nobody's actually willing to walk through that.

Yeah, hopefully there will be terrain released in the future with new keywords that will cover this, but until then we have to house rule(!)

Quote

As @Klaxas said, the rules allow the unit to be removed from the board... actual position of the unit inside terrain doesn't seem to be something the game wants us to track. The way the unit can face all sides and such makes me think that we're supposed to imagine the unit spreading out to fill up the entire area of the terrain, facing outward. If this is the case, I could see the terrain essentially losing Exposed while a unit is inside; the unit is considered to occupy the entire terrain element, so the entire terrain element now blocks line of sight. I think the ruling we eventually get will either be this or the comical "sinking in" idea, but I'm not sure about which.

Yeah, I think @Klaxas is right (see my response above).

Elevated makes plenty of sense.

If I'm on top of a hill high enough to let me see over the top of intervening obstructions, unless that hilltop is sloped *toward* the enemy (In this case, it isn't the terrace has a flat top). I'm the one who controls line of sight.

I move forward to the edge of the hill, I can see you to shoot. I withdraw away from the edge, or crouch down, you lose line of sight. The point here is that holding the high ground means you determine when there is a clear shot. Holding the low ground, you're at the mercy of the people up high.

Hills worked the exact same way in Battlelore. You get rewarded for being in the terrain. You don't get rewarded when other people are in the terrain.

As for the open terrain... yeah that's probably going to be worked into an FAQ at some point. Somebody fire off a rules question email. As of now I plan on playing it that occupied terrain blocks LOS period, simply because for literally ALL other range considerations, the entire terrain footprint is considered to be the occupying unit edge.

Oh, there's a place we can email rules questions?

Yep! Find the "Contact Us" link, then go to "Customer Service," then you'll see a link for submitting rules questions.

I've submitted two, so far, but haven't received a response yet.

I've got one in at the moment RE: Line of Sight requirement for ranged abilities.

I'd make it a simple blanket rule that if you have los and can attack then that unit has los to you as well.

18 minutes ago, keltheos said:

I'd make it a simple blanket rule that if you have los and can attack then that unit has los to you as well.

But again, this means that all units are getting rewarded for the positioning of one unit.

That doesn't make any sense.

True, but you're getting the advantage of standing above everyone. I'd also give you cover if you were the elevated target. Balance it out for elevation, but there shouldn't be a rule where you can place a unit and it can see other units but they don't have a means to see it. Maybe that's their intention that the lack of los is the 'cover' or whatever, but los (to me) should never be a one way street only.

11 minutes ago, keltheos said:

True, but you're getting the advantage of standing above everyone. I'd also give you cover if you were the elevated target. Balance it out for elevation, but there shouldn't be a rule where you can place a unit and it can see other units but they don't have a means to see it. Maybe that's their intention that the lack of los is the 'cover' or whatever, but los (to me) should never be a one way street only.

I disagree.

Play with it as is a few times and see if it's as bad as you worry.

I will, that's just a standing design element in games. Interested to hear why they'd depart from it in this game if it's legit.

5 minutes ago, keltheos said:

I will, that's just a standing design element in games. Interested to hear why they'd depart from it in this game if it's legit.

I mean, they did the same thing in Battlelore, and it worked out. The idea is that if you get to a hill, you've done yourself a solid, and you get rewarded with more targets.

If all you did is wander into range, you don't get to benefit from the positioning of the enemy unit.

This game is ALL ABOUT POSITION (and maneuvering).

Physically speaking, if I'm on the high ground, I can easily break line of sight at will simply by crouching down, but on the low ground you can't.

True. But battlelore's a boardgame with regulated hexes. Boardgames play out much differently in that regard IMO than minis games.

Like I said, I'll try it and it's not a deal breaker by any means, just an odd rules choice in a minis game to me.

4 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

Physically speaking, if I'm on the high ground, I can easily break line of sight at will simply by crouching down, but on the low ground you can't.

Speaking as a soldier and as a historian and as an archer, you can't do that and still engage with the enemy unless you have good rifles.

42 minutes ago, Taki said:

Speaking as a soldier and as a historian and as an archer, you can't do that and still engage with the enemy unless you have good rifles.

Or you're a fantasy skeleton in a world where crazy blood drinking dudes fire bone spines out of their forearms.

22 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

Or you're a fantasy skeleton in a world where crazy blood drinking dudes fire bone spines out of their forearms.

it s about as ridiculous as thinking that you can simply crouch and fire your longbow, sure and expecting that the crouching should provide more protection than the armor depicted. But then, maybe we're playing with movie physics and not real ones

As both a fantasy skeleton and a guy who can fire bone spines out of my forearms (I don't drink blood anymore though - 22 years clean), I can tell you this game's wildly abstracted, and I'm pretty sure units in Elevated terrain cannot be targeted more easily.

As a side question, do the skellies have longbows? I thought longbows were much, well, longer.

26 minutes ago, JasonGlass said:

As both a fantasy skeleton and a guy who can fire bone spines out of my forearms (I don't drink blood anymore though - 22 years clean), I can tell you this game's wildly abstracted, and I'm pretty sure units in Elevated terrain cannot be targeted more easily.

As a side question, do the skellies have longbows? I thought longbows were much, well, longer.

Sure picked the wrong week to quit drinking blood... *swig*