Is stealth cumulative?
It says that Stealth and Shrouded are cumulative. This says obviously that Stealth and Shrouded add up to a +3 cover save. But does it also mean that multiple instances of these rules are additive? For example IG veterans with Forward Sentries at less than 8" distance or 12-24" during night fighting.
My guess is "no". While the text could legitimately be taken to read that they're each cumulative in some poorly defined general sense, it doesn't actually make any sense in context; why would they specify the shrouding is cumulative in stealth's entry, and vice-versa?
Originally Posted by DoctorTom
They don't, but there is a fluff argument that "stealth" and "shrouded" from nightfighting should stack with other sources of the rules.
Seems like a poor argument, to me, then.
d
My demons, the nightmares of Antioch IV:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...48#post5847948
Want sexy demon on demon action?:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156939
Personally, I think it makes sense that a unit that's hard to see would be even harder to see at night, but unfortunately the rules don't account for that. The rules specifically say that multiple instances of the same special rule aren't cumulative, and from what the BRB says the only thing that it notes as being cumulative with each other are Stealth and Shrouded (since if it didn't state that, the whole "Use the best save available" thing would come into play, and people might consider stealth redundant if you had Shrouded).
If Stealth cumulative then there would be no need for Shrouded - it would just be Stealth x 2.
What they really needed to have done is put in something like "If the unit already has Shrouded it instead gains the Stealth Universal Special Rule" in the 24" to 36" bracket which fixes the better cover if you're closer stupidity.
This topic has already been discussed in a precious post. Stealth and Shrouded are both cumulative with each other and the other rule. Read the USR carefully. Remember 'and' is inclusive. So if you have the stealth rule, camocloaks and night fight range or some other special combination they all stack. It can be easy for some builds to get 2+ cover saves.
It makes perfect sense to me in that for this USR you can take it multiple times. Now you can't take camocloaks twice but you can take stealth or shrouded twice. Look at harlequins for example.
You either have stealth or you don't. So 3 X stealth still means the unit has the "stealth" USR which is +1 cover save.
You need to prove that stealth isn't a binary attribute.
Because they're cumulative with each other. One doesn't rule out the other.
It's going to require a FAQ to clear up. That said, I think that bonuses conferred by nightfight should actually affect all applicable units. It seems ridiculous that a unit with stealth wouldn't get the additional stealth bonus from hiding in darkness. Granted, ridiculous rules are always present... however, I think that the 'stealth and shrouded are cumulative' rule is intended to function such that every unit can take advantage of nightfight, regardless of USRs that are already in effect. Until GW specifically clears that up, it is only RAI, as RAW is not clear.
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." Page 32. At the start of the special rules section.
Last edited by Bubble Ghost; 25-07-2012 at 23:45.
Idiots... nothing can live forever.
I can't tell which side of this argument you're even on. Anyway, as Bubble Ghost notes, that's a given. What's in question is whether the specific rules override that general rule.
That only works for my argument. The fact that they can stack with each other does not imply that they can stack with themselves. But being able to stack, period (which is the other possible interpretation), would necessarily imply that they stack with each other.
You can't read "A and B are S" as both "(A is S) and (B is S)" and "(the combined set A and B) is S". But, due to the nature of S, the former does imply the latter, while the latter does not imply the former.
EDIT: And really, "Stealth is cumulative." is just not something you'd write. You'd write "Multiple Stealths are cumulative" or "Stealth is cumulative with itself." You can't just "be" cumulative, you can only be cumulative with something. And the only special rule stealth is cumulative with, is shrouding, and vice-versa.
Last edited by Nurgling Chieftain; 25-07-2012 at 23:12.
I think that stealth and shroud clearly over rule the general USR rules.
I agree they can stack both themselves and each other. The word 'and' is inclusive. If they were only meant to stack with the othe other they would have written that stealth stacks with shroud in one entry and shroud stacks with stealth in the other. They reference both in both USR descriptions.That only works for my argument. The fact that they can stack with each other does not imply that they can stack with themselves. But being able to stack, period (which is the other possible interpretation), would necessarily imply that they stack with each other.
Huh? I think I get it but this is confusing. Guess I need to refresh my high school algebraYou can't read "A and B are S" as both "(A is S) and (B is S)" and "(the combined set A and B) is S". But, due to the nature of S, the former does imply the latter, while the latter does not imply the former.
Ok, so think about how messed up this would be. A unit has shroud and night fight is in affect. If the unit is with 12" they add +2 to cover, at 12-24" stealth stacks with shroud and they get +3 cover, then at 24-36" they get what? It makes perfect sense they should get +4 cover, not +2. Same logic for stealth and night fight. (+1 within 12", +1 within 24" & +3 over 24"). It's completely inconsistent.EDIT: And really, "Stealth is cumulative." is just not something you'd write. You'd write "Multiple Stealths are cumulative" or "Stealth is cumulative with itself." You can't just "be" cumulative, you can only be cumulative with something. And the only special rule stealth is cumulative with, is shrouding, and vice-versa.
By allowing stealth and shroud to stack with themselves and each other it all adds up!
Capt. Jaelinek has accurately summed up my sentiment.
I freely admit that I didn't quite grasp Nurgling Chieftain's logical examination, but his edit make a good argument: Cumulative isn't an intrinsic property. It has to be cumulative with -something-. It still isn't as ironshod as it could be; fortunately so: The alternate interpretation allows for more balanced and consistent gradients during play.
I personally feel that stealth and shrouded should stack with each other as well as themselves, otherwise you result in the silly situation where a unit with shrouded will have a better save in the 12~24" range increment than the 24"~36" increment during NF.
Compilation of my Necron Batrep detailing the conquest of the Sautekh Empire - The Sautekh Chronicles
"You are but ephemeral whereas we are forever"
- Imhotekh the Stormlord
I also think all sources should stack, even with themselves. Imagine Tau Stealth Suits being even more difficult to target while nightfighting occurs. It would be logical.
But... I am totally unsure if that is what the rules imply!
+1, everyone seems to have ignored what you said!
++The Vanus Temple++
Everyone here is aware of the general rule of which Bubbleghost reminds us. The specific issue is whether it is voided by the rules for stealth and shrouded.
Stealth and shrouding are not specifically stated to stack with themselves. Emphasis on specifically, which means that when GW wants a rule to stack with itself, the wording will be such that there won't be any doubt about it.
Of course I'm wondering if Stealth and Jink stack.....but I suppose that is off topic hahaha.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote