Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9430251" data-attributes="member: 6801228">No, I was not arguing against that rule. I was saying that while I like that as a general rule, I would want to make sure specific scenarios (which could be argued to still fit within that rule, via &quot;cover&quot;) are still allowable. Something like clinging to the ceiling as a patrol passes under you should still be good enough, in the right circumstances, even though you technically have no cover. The poster then commented on how all of my examples involved only quick breaks from cover, and I wanted to emphasize that the time out of cover isn't necessarily important, because being alone in an area but without cover within that area shouldn't necessarily break stealth. You would argue that is not being without cover, and that is fine, I won't disagree with you on that, but I wanted to make that point more explicit rather than rely on shared understanding.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9430251, member: 6801228"] No, I was not arguing against that rule. I was saying that while I like that as a general rule, I would want to make sure specific scenarios (which could be argued to still fit within that rule, via "cover") are still allowable. Something like clinging to the ceiling as a patrol passes under you should still be good enough, in the right circumstances, even though you technically have no cover. The poster then commented on how all of my examples involved only quick breaks from cover, and I wanted to emphasize that the time out of cover isn't necessarily important, because being alone in an area but without cover within that area shouldn't necessarily break stealth. You would argue that is not being without cover, and that is fine, I won't disagree with you on that, but I wanted to make that point more explicit rather than rely on shared understanding. [/QUOTE]

Verification