Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CajunAzn" data-source="post: 5076478" data-attributes="member: 87718">So at least, WAR, we are agreed the rules allow for ally-based stealth, in the manner I have described.&nbsp;The 'e-trophy' will simply be a clarified (by-the-rules) application of stealth at my table, which is the whole point I started this thread in the first place.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ok fuzzle, I really didn't want to get side-tracked into a discussion about this, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt about the ranged attack limitation. But if you insist on pressing this point (even though, WAR, it will have no effect on the rules for stealth) then let's examine the rule: &nbsp;&nbsp;(In my own personal opinion, this passage is simply meant to show that melee attacks are the exception to the normal cover rules, whereas ranged attack do follow the normal rules.) &nbsp;Nowhere does it specifically say allies can't grant superior cover for ranged attacks. Is &quot;Superior Cover&quot; also not a form of 'cover'?&nbsp;But that is for another rules debate thread, because even if you are right, simply saying &quot;since ranged rules work like this, that means you can't apply the normal cover rules for stealth&quot; is not a valid WAR argument.&nbsp;I know it's tough, but as I learned, on this forum, it's about the literal rules and only the literal rules.&nbsp;===&nbsp;So let's stick to the topic at hand and determine is my proposition: Ally can grant superior cover for a stealth check, but you simultaneously need a non-ally source of concealment/cover to stay hidden.
legal by the rules?&nbsp;&nbsp;Draco, samir, eriktheguy, abdul (if you're still following) I would really like your opinion on this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CajunAzn, post: 5076478, member: 87718"] So at least, WAR, we are agreed the rules allow for ally-based stealth, in the manner I have described. The 'e-trophy' will simply be a clarified (by-the-rules) application of stealth at my table, which is the whole point I started this thread in the first place. Ok fuzzle, I [I]really[/I] didn't want to get side-tracked into a discussion about this, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt about the ranged attack limitation. But if you insist on pressing this point (even though, WAR, it will have no effect on the rules for stealth) then let's examine the rule: (In my own personal opinion, this passage is simply meant to show that melee attacks are the exception to the normal cover rules, whereas ranged attack [I]do[/I] follow the normal rules.) Nowhere does it specifically say allies can't grant superior cover for ranged attacks. Is "Superior Cover" also not a form of 'cover'? But that is for [I]another[/I] rules debate thread, because even if you [I]are[/I] right, simply saying "since ranged rules work like this, that means you can't apply the normal cover rules for stealth" is not a valid WAR argument. I know it's tough, but as I learned, on this forum, it's about the literal rules and [I]only[/I] the literal rules. === So let's stick to the topic at hand and determine is my proposition: [INDENT]Ally can grant superior cover for a stealth check, but you simultaneously need a non-ally source of concealment/cover to stay hidden. [/INDENT]legal by the rules? Draco, samir, eriktheguy, abdul (if you're still following) I would really like your opinion on this. [/QUOTE]

Verification