Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mal Malenkirk" data-source="post: 4360258" data-attributes="member: 834">I did state that the 50% thing is IMO, repeatedly.&nbsp; Mathematically, it's limpid to me.&nbsp; But in itself, it has no bearing on gameplay. I'm allowed to express my opinion and I got to say that where you find me condescending, I find your disproportionate reaction a bit annoying, Shalimar.&nbsp; Considering using your friend as cover, here's what the RAW says:✦ Creatures and Cover: When you make a rangedattack against an enemy and other enemies arein the way, your target has cover. Your allies nevergrant cover to your enemies, and neither allies norenemies give cover against melee, close, or areaattacks.My understanding is that creatures granting cover against ranged attack to their allies is an exception since they don't do it for enemies, nor do they do it for melee, close and area attack.Granted, stealth isn't included in this list of things a creature don't grant cover for but then it is the combat section after all and it's the only mention of creature being considered cover in a specific situation.For what it's worth, a playtester (posting under Mouseferatu) stated that he asked designer Andy Collins that question and was told that the intent was that allies don't grant cover for stealth purpose.&nbsp; It was a off-hand comment and its value depends on the reliability you attach to the reputation of this poster (myself I have found him a very serious contributer to the rule forum) but it's the best I could find for an authoritative source with the search function.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=232546&amp;highlight=allies+stealth" target="_blank">Here.</a>I tend to agree with that assessment.&nbsp; I expect the rule was only meant to grant cover against missiles and such.I don't particularly care one way or the other and won't comment on it again.&nbsp; I like arguing about rules but I'll keep it to the rules forum in the future.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mal Malenkirk, post: 4360258, member: 834"] I did state that the 50% thing is IMO, repeatedly. Mathematically, it's limpid to me. But in itself, it has no bearing on gameplay. I'm allowed to express my opinion and I got to say that where you find me condescending, I find your disproportionate reaction a bit annoying, Shalimar. Considering using your friend as cover, here's what the RAW says: ✦ Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. [B]Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks.[/B] My understanding is that creatures granting cover against ranged attack to their allies is an exception since they don't do it for enemies, nor do they do it for melee, close and area attack. Granted, stealth isn't included in this list of things a creature don't grant cover for but then it is the combat section after all and it's the only mention of creature being considered cover in a specific situation. For what it's worth, a playtester (posting under Mouseferatu) stated that he asked designer Andy Collins that question and was told that the intent was that allies don't grant cover for stealth purpose. It was a off-hand comment and its value depends on the reliability you attach to the reputation of this poster (myself I have found him a very serious contributer to the rule forum) but it's the best I could find for an authoritative source with the search function. [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=232546&highlight=allies+stealth"]Here.[/URL] I tend to agree with that assessment. I expect the rule was only meant to grant cover against missiles and such. I don't particularly care one way or the other and won't comment on it again. I like arguing about rules but I'll keep it to the rules forum in the future. [/QUOTE]

Verification