Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8099800" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Rules do not say this. But yes, it is reasonable common sense assumption that you will know location of another creature you can see. Yes. And as (like you just agreed,) our baseline detection relies on being of able to see, that has now gone out of the window!There is no difference between may and can in this context. The sentence merely means that it is possible to detect an invisible creature, not that such detection is automatic.Seriously, more you try to rules-lawyer this, more you keep contradicting yourself. Just stop. I understand that you very much want the rules to validate your position, but they simply are too vague for that. You can play it however you want regardless of what the rules do or don not say. Just accept that you're interpreting the mess to suit your tastes like all of us.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 8099800, member: 7025508"] Rules do not say this. But yes, it is reasonable common sense assumption that you will know location of another creature [I]you can see. [/I] Yes. And as (like you just agreed,) our baseline detection relies on being of able to see, that has now gone out of the window! There is no difference between may and can in this context. The sentence merely means that it is possible to detect an invisible creature, not that such detection is automatic. Seriously, more you try to rules-lawyer this, more you keep contradicting yourself. Just stop. I understand that you very much want the rules to validate your position, but they simply are too vague for that. You can play it however you want regardless of what the rules do or don not say. Just accept that you're interpreting the mess to suit your tastes like all of us. [/QUOTE]

Verification