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.

So I recently played a game with a friend. My necrons vs. his eldar. In his list he took a squad of pathfinders and infiltrated them into a building across from some immortals. When I tried to take away the pathfinder's stealth rule using Zahndrekh he argued that their +2 does not come from the actual stealth rule. To quote the book: "Any cover save they use is improved by +2 instead of the usual +1 conferred by stealth." He believed and tried to argue that the +2 doesn't come from their stealth rule and is entirely separate so I couldn't take it. I decided to drop the argument and find out later. I still think I would have been able to take away his stealth and benefited from negating that +2 to his cover saves.
So could I have taken away his stealth or not?

The Pathfinder rule modifies Stealth to grant a +2 bonus instead of +1. If (for some reason), the pathfinders lose Stealth, then they would lose the +2 bonus. At least, as an Eldar player, that's how I would play it.

The extra +2 still comes from the Stealth rule; it says that they get +2 instead of the usual +1 conferred by Stealth, not that they get +2 instead of Stealth.

What it is simply saying is that their Stealth rule gives +2 instead of +1.

So yes, you could've taken it away.

Thanks. That is what I thought.

Could you not just take away the Pathfinder rule? Or is it USRs only?

It is only USRs only. Which was why there was another debate about the hit and run and furious charge of harlequins. That one is more cut and dry though as the harlequin ability literally says it gives them each universal special rule. The problem with the pathfinders was that he thought the way it was worded meant the +2 he gained to his cover was completely set apart from the USR of stealth. He basically saw it as: You get a +2 to your cover save instead of the +1 save from stealth, and that each save was mutually exclusive from on another (that it wasn't stealth which was granting the +2 save).

you could compromise by reducing it by one so he would only get +1 cover save but personally i would play it as being separate to stealth. it says instead of =1 conferred by STEALTH (?)

Da dakka boy wrote:you could compromise by reducing it by one so he would only get +1 cover save but personally i would play it as being separate to stealth. it says instead of =1 conferred by STEALTH (?)

I agree with this. Call it +1 stealth and +1 for the pathfinders upgrade.

Yeah you got robbed : /

It's pretty cheesy but it does seem reasonable to read the rules in such a way as to support the opinion of the Eldar player in this situation.

It would break down into the following form.

"Any cover save they use is improved by +2" (this is a part of the pathfinder special rule and has nothing to do with the Stealth USR)

"instead of the usual +1 conferred by the Stealth rule" (this is just telling us you don't get to take the Stealth bonus on top of the pathfinder bonus)

I would argue both readings are valid, although I would err on the side of the Necrons in this instance in that removing stealth should probably remove the bonus entirely.

See the word that stands out to me in the codex is "usual". Basically by having that, it is saying "normally you get the normal +1 to stealth, but for pathfinders that bonus is now +2." by including the word "usually" GW has tied the two saves together under stealth. That is how I see it.

I honestly can see how it can be construed either way.
Usually you get +1 from Stealth, instead you get +2
or, you get +2 Cover Saves that doesn't stack with Stealth.

Either way can be right, and I don't see any need to argue it (personally). As I said, I would play that if you lose Stealth, you lose the +2.

I would say you're right. The Pathfinder rules modifies their already existing stealth rule. If you take away their stealth special rule it has nothing to modify, thus is effectively useless.

I can see how he can misread that. If it was just a +2 to cover save, there would be no need to mention the stealth rule at all.

Pathfinders get stealth, and +2 from it instead of the normal +1 from stealth.

You can remove stealth from them, meaning they lose the +2.