Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

GW made the following ruling regarding stealth and who in a unit gets it:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490286a_Warhammer_40,000_Rulebook_FAQ_V1_1.pdf

Q: If only some of the models in a unit have the Stealth special rule, does the whole unit benefit from the +1 cover save? (p76)
A: Yes. In effect the ones with the Stealth special rule ensure their colleagues also find good places to hide.


It seems to me this could open up a lot of unintended results.
For example, I have been thinking of taking a squad of Scouts in one of my builds, and instead of buying Camo Cloaks for all Scouts,
I can pretty much buy one cloak and the rest of the unit is now 'stealthed" unless he is removed.

Is this the case or am I reading this wrong?

Would you pull a stunt like this or would you, in the spirit of the game, buy each Scout a camo cloak? Or perhaps just 5 cloaks in a 10-Scout squad?

Honest answers appreciated...

davidgr33n wrote:GW made the following ruling regarding stealth and who in a unit gets it:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490286a_Warhammer_40,000_Rulebook_FAQ_V1_1.pdf

Q: If only some of the models in a unit have the Stealth special rule, does the whole unit benefit from the +1 cover save? (p76)
A: Yes. In effect the ones with the Stealth special rule ensure their colleagues also find good places to hide.


It seems to me this could open up a lot of unintended results.
For example, I have been thinking of taking a squad of Scouts in one of my builds, and instead of buying Camo Cloaks for all Scouts,
I can pretty much buy one cloak and the rest of the unit is now 'stealthed" unless he is removed.

Is this the case or am I reading this wrong?

Would you pull a stunt like this or would you, in the spirit of the game, buy each Scout a camo cloak? Or perhaps just 5 cloaks in a 10-Scout squad?

Honest answers appreciated...

Scout squads by Camo Cloaks by the 'unit' you have no option to take individual models with a Camo Cloak in the unit except for including Sgt Telion in a unit. And yes that is precisely what GW intended with this ruling.

Considering the wording in C:SM is, "The squad may buy camo cloaks for.." meaning no buying it for individual models. It's all or none unfortunately.

Yeah, Yak and Lone have it right. Its either take Telion or take them for their entire squad. There is no in between.

Not sure that I agree with it, but thats why GW gets to make the rule... lol...

Well it also works with a Necron Tomb Spyder generating a Scarab Swarm.
I'm sure there are other applications as well.

you have to buy cloaks for the whole unit
sry

time wizard wrote:Well it also works with a Necron Tomb Spyder generating a Scarab Swarm.
I'm sure there are other applications as well.

No, the Necron FAQ has a specific ruling for Tomb Spyders/Scarabs in relation to their 'vulnerable to blasts' and 'stealth' abilities (they only apply to the Scarabs in this particular case).

yakface wrote:

time wizard wrote:Well it also works with a Necron Tomb Spyder generating a Scarab Swarm.
I'm sure there are other applications as well.

No, the Necron FAQ has a specific ruling for Tomb Spyders/Scarabs in relation to their 'vulnerable to blasts' and 'stealth' abilities (they only apply to the Scarabs in this particular case).

Hmmm. Missed that one. Just checked and you are quite correct.
Thanks Yakface!

Biggest problem with that faq ruling is a IG commisar lord with camo cloak giving 50 blobbed gaurdsmen stealth... such a pain when they go to ground then get rallied each turn, :p

yakface wrote:

time wizard wrote:Well it also works with a Necron Tomb Spyder generating a Scarab Swarm.
I'm sure there are other applications as well.

No, the Necron FAQ has a specific ruling for Tomb Spyders/Scarabs in relation to their 'vulnerable to blasts' and 'stealth' abilities (they only apply to the Scarabs in this particular case).

Quick question on that, wouldn't the newer more up to date FAQ take precedence over the older and much outdated codex?

nsdocholiday wrote:

yakface wrote:

time wizard wrote:Well it also works with a Necron Tomb Spyder generating a Scarab Swarm.
I'm sure there are other applications as well.

No, the Necron FAQ has a specific ruling for Tomb Spyders/Scarabs in relation to their 'vulnerable to blasts' and 'stealth' abilities (they only apply to the Scarabs in this particular case).

Quick question on that, wouldn't the newer more up to date FAQ take precedence over the older and much outdated codex?

Yes, a newer up to date Necron FAQ would replace the old Necron ruling, but its a dangerous slope to assume that the general rulebook ruling on the subject automatically replaces the Necron ruling. I agree that from a purely 'RAW' standpoint the two are contradictory, but GW often makes rulings based on other reasons, so they've already made it clear how they want Scarabs/Tomb Spyder units to be played with regard to these rules. It is just an exception to the standard rulebook FAQ ruling...perhaps because they believe that Tomp Spyders gaining Stealth from Scarabs is ludicrous...who knows? But the fact is, it does remain in the Necron FAQ and there isn't any firm indication that we should suddenly start ignoring that ruling (so we can't).

I believe there are a few other cases where the new general rules FAQ contradicts a codex's FAQ; in all cases I agree with Yak, we should use the Codex FAQs because they are more specific(they are nearly always "Yes unit X can do Y" or "No unit X cannot do Y").

To provide an example of "The FAQ says it works, so it does; even when that breaks the rules": We go by the FAQ ruling that a SW IC with saga of the hunter can outflank with a unit of SW Scouts because the FAQ says since the saga grants the IC "Outflank" he can, even though the IC has neither "Scouts" nor "Infiltrate" and as such the SW Scouts unit would lose both of those rules(therefore be ineligible to outflank).

alright thanks guys.