Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5074260" data-attributes="member: 71571">This is misrepresenting our argument.Our argument is that the rules flat out state that if you do not have cover, you become unhidden, and that allies do not count as cover for this purpose.This is a fact.  This is straight from the rules itself.What we then state is that if it IS possible to use allies in the first place, it's a moot point -because- you become nonhidden immediately.See, what we are doing is attacking the premise that you can use allies as cover for stealth.  What -you- are doing is assuming that premise is true, and using that to deny what is a fact.An example of this argument in a different form:Our case:I look up, and see the sky is blue.  You present a case that the sky is not, in fact blue, and we counter that if that is the case, then clearly something must happen to the light to reach us to give it that blue color.  Regardless, we still see a blue sky.Your case:You present a supposition that the sky is not blue.  If the sky is not blue, you continue, it cannot be the case that we see a blue sky.  Therefore, because we cannot possibly see a blue sky, the sky cannot, in fact, be blue.It's a circular argument, and a poorly built one at that.  You cannot assume your premise is true, use that to 'disprove' something else (especially something that is -defined as true-), then use that 'disproof' to make the claim your case must be true.------------------------------More over, the argument that it 'increases tactical depth' is misleading.  Tactics involves choices on both sides.  The option to become stealthed is an option.  As well, however, the ability to make a move that renders your opponent unstealthed is -also- an option.  Tactics isn't about always being able to do what you want.  It's about being able to outplay someone else.  Being able to hide behind allies does not meaningfully add to the tactical aspect of the game for that reason.  What you are really doing is not arguing Rules as Written or Rules as Interpreted.  You're arguing from a Rules as Would Grant Me Advantage which is a very poor standpoint when it comes to debates over Rules as Written.And Rules as Written is explicit:  If you have no cover, and allies do not count as cover, you are not hidden.  Period.  Simple. Concise.The logical incongruence occurs when you start to add the rediculous notion that because of the absense of the mention of allies in a previous statement, that this a) somehow magically means they intend allies as cover for entering stealth despite a written rule stating allies do not count as cover for keeping stealthandb) this somehow magically negates the existing rule and acts as a contradiction, meaning that it does not apply as written, but requires some bizarre interpretation that it is checked for when -you- change the situation, rather than that the situation never happens to begin with.The corollary to Specific Beats General, I'll call it Drake's Corollary, is that in the absense of a contradiction, you apply the general rule.  Because that's what it is there for.In this case, the absense of mentioning allies, either as cover or not as cover in getting stealth is NOT a contradiction of the specific rule saying that you do not count allies when maintaining stealth.  On top of this, the specific rule for allies not counting as cover DOES contradict the rules for cover in the case of stealth.Therefore, you apply the rule regarding allies not as cover (Specific beats General) and you do not apply this non-existant trump that you've invented solely to make your case for your house rule.  (Drake's Corollary).</blockquote>

Verification