Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5080910" data-attributes="member: 2011">It is totally unclear here as to whether the word cover here is meant in the generic sense (i.e. cover as in one is currently reading in the section of rules on cover) or cover in the specific sense (i.e. cover as in normal cover +2, not superior cover +5). The second sentence implies that it is the former, but it is not crystal clear.So since we do not know which it means, we cannot assume one or the other. We have to look to other rules to determine this. The very next paragraph:Regardless of what was meant in the first paragraph, the second paragraph here is an explicit rule. It is THE explicit rule to determine the difference between cover +2 and superior cover +5. The PC gets superior cover if 3 or 4 lines are blocked and that blockage can be via an ally (i.e. an enemy of the attacker).We have an unclear rule (which can be interpreted either way) and a totally crystal clear rule (which can only be interpreted in one way).Sorry, but the crystal clear rule wins in a RAW debate. The unclear rule has to be interpreted as supporting the crystal clear rule (which it can), one cannot say that the crystal clear rule is a generic rule and the unclear rule is a specific rule that overrides it and we must interpret the unclear rule in a specific way. That's not RAW, that's wishful thinking. Both of these rules are generic rules. Neither is a specific override.Having said that, I believe that RAI is that one only gets +2 cover via an ally.It's also interesting to note (because of silly grid issues) that:[code]. . C. B .A . .if B is C's ally, C has superior cover +5 from A for ranged attacks. . .A B C. . .if B is C's ally, C has cover +2 from A for ranged attacks[/code]So yes, I do think RAI is that allies only supply cover and not superior cover, but I don't think that is RAW.</blockquote>

Verification