2 questions about flat elevation

[Hansel]

1. If a model is partially within the shadow of a flat elevation, does it receive cover from a model on top of the elevation that is shooting at it? Bonus: It doesn't receive cover if the model on top is making a melee attack, right?

2. p. 17, "Flat Elevations: Models attacking down a flat elevation add the difference between the target's Ht and the elevation's Ht to their distance to the target." So, if I have a Ht 3 model at the bottom of a Ht 2 elevation, does that mean (3-2=1) that the model above, attacking me, adds +1 to the distance? That's what this would seem to mean, but doesn't make sense if you're looking at "realism", which is why I'm asking. Or is it, (2-3= -1), that the model above, attacking me, subtracts 1 from the distance? It would seem, intuitively, from the rules, that this isn't the case, but the rules just say, "the difference", which seems to mean whatever difference there is, positive or negative.

Additionally, if I have a Ht 1 model a the bottom of a Ht 2 elevation, (2-1=1), does the model above me add +1 to the distance?

I suppose the real question is, what do you subtract from what? The height of the elevation from the model, or the height of the model from the elevation? And then do you just treat negatives as 0?

Thanks!

[karn987]

1. If a model is partially within the shadow of a flat elevation, does it receive cover from a model on top of the elevation that is shooting at it? Bonus: It doesn't receive cover if the model on top is making a melee attack, right?

2. p. 17, "Flat Elevations: Models attacking down a flat elevation add the difference between the target's Ht and the elevation's Ht to their distance to the target." So, if I have a Ht 3 model at the bottom of a Ht 2 elevation, does that mean (3-2=1) that the model above, attacking me, adds +1 to the distance? That's what this would seem to mean, but doesn't make sense if you're looking at "realism", which is why I'm asking. Or is it, (2-3= -1), that the model above, attacking me, subtracts 1 from the distance? It would seem, intuitively, from the rules, that this isn't the case, but the rules just say, "the difference", which seems to mean whatever difference there is, positive or negative.

Additionally, if I have a Ht 1 model a the bottom of a Ht 2 elevation, (2-1=1), does the model above me add +1 to the distance?

I suppose the real question is, what do you subtract from what? The height of the elevation from the model, or the height of the model from the elevation? And then do you just treat negatives as 0?

Thanks!

1) No they don't get cover if they are partially within the shadow. They only get cover if they meet the normal restrictions for gaining cover (Page 15) which requires the model to be within 1" of a piece of Blocking terrain (or touching obscuring terrain) that the LOS passes through. For LoS you look Top Down on the field and thus the line won't pass through the Elivation.

2) Ahh I found it finally, on page 40 >.>

Look at the examples, its not the negative. If your on a Ht 3 Terrain and attacking a Ht 2 model, you add +1" to your range to the target. You can only reach down so far, the distance won't decrease. Your really after the absolute value which in plain English is the difference. The difference between 2" and 3" is 1" after all.

For attacking up it is the same way. You take the model attacking up the terrain's Ht and take the difference of that and the terrains Ht. So if Ht 2 was attacking a model on a Ht 3 piece, he adds +1" to the range to the target.

Your just reading into it to much, this rule is based on realism. If I am above you, I have to reach down to attack you and if you are bellow me, you have to reach up to attack me. Either way the difference in your Ht and what I am standing on is how much extra distance their is.

Hope that helps :/

[Hansel]

It does help, and sorry about the page mixup (I was looking at the other Flat Elevations page!).

Last clarification: So if my model at the base of the elevation has a larger Ht than the elevation (say, Ht 3 model, Ht 2 elevation), then someone on the elevation also has to add +1 to the distance?

[karn987]

It does help, and sorry about the page mixup (I was looking at the other Flat Elevations page!).

Last clarification: So if my model at the base of the elevation has a larger Ht than the elevation (say, Ht 3 model, Ht 2 elevation), then someone on the elevation also has to add +1 to the distance?

Nope.
Because at this point you are no longer attacking down or up the Elevation. The model is not shorter then the Elevations height so you are no longer going "down" or "up", it is simply resolved as normal from that point on.

The rule strikes me as if it is supposed to be intuitive and reflect reality in a lot of ways. So if you think about it from that perspective, it all lines up =) You have to reach down to attack someone shorter then what you are standing on and if they are to short, you wont be able to attack them. And same thing for the guy below etc.

[Hansel]

Awesome, thanks.

[Keltheos]

What K said.