Scout rules FAQ

[Grey Mage]

Second Argument against an improved cover save- where does it say that the Stealth rule stacks?

 

A combat cloak gives its model the stealth special rule... if telion gives them all the stealth special rule... where does it say they stack for a total of +2? Its not in his rules, the cloaks rules, or the section of universal special rules let alone the stealth rule itself.

 

So at most you save 30pts instead of 3pts... if you can convince your opponent that your right, wich I disagree on because of my earlier argument.

[greatcrusade08]

No stealth doesnt stack, you either have it or you dont... the rules say "stealth USR gives you +1 to cover save".

 

Gc08

[Grey Mage]

So if Camo cloaks give you stealth, and lets say for sake of argument telion gave you stealth... youd still only get +1 anyways.... eh?

 

Thats my point.

[Ryjak]

The 2+ cover save comes from using a Tech-Marine to 'Bolster Defenses', as this bonus effects the terrain, or simply using terrain with a base 3+ Cover Save.

[Grey Mage]

Mrrh.... at best you save 27pts for something you could do without him. I thought people had been saying he gave you an "extra point" of stealth. Yegads.

[brakkar]

Not here lol, i meant stealth replaced having to get cloaks for scouts

[Ryjak]

Just a reminder this is an off-topic train, but at least now I see why GreatCrusade felt a need to write a Scout FAQ... also, I see you followed my suggestion and re-wrote it. I'll hold my comments on the re-write for another day.

 

Something has occured to me. Lets say you have a unit of Scouts equipped with camo-cloaks in some area terrain with a 4+ Cover Save, and you end up attaching an IC to them... maybe a Librarian. This unit then gets shot by a Demolisher Cannon, and every model takes a wound. Does the Librarian benifit from the Scout Unit having Stealth? Why or why not?

[greatcrusade08]

im quoting my own work... isnt that the first sign of madness??

 

independent characters do not confer special rules to units they join, unless specifically stated in the USR or character profile, stealth is not mentioned as part of these exceptions.

 

I believe this goes both ways as the unit wont confer rules to the IC unless stated... The stealth doesnt confer to IC's so the librarian would only get the basic cover save and more likely get squished

 

GC08

[Ryjak]

Dang it! You weren't supposed to answer that question; I wanted to hear how an explanation from the "Telion grants Stealth" camp.

[Gornall]

If the IC is attached, then it's part of the unit, aka, the Libby get's the stealth save. It doesn't refer to models, it refers to units. An IC joining another unit forms 1 unit. If any of the models in that unit have the Stealth USR, then the entire unit gets the +1 because the RAW says "All the unit's cover saves are improved by +1." I know it doesn't really make sense from an RAI standpoint, but that's RAW for you. Heck, I should be arguing against it, as one of my common opponents runs a max squad of Wraithguard with Conceal, Eldrad, and the Phoenix Lord that has Stealth, giving them a minimum 4+ cover save at all times... fortuned to boot. Talk about painful. :)

[brakkar]

Actually i'm probably going to surprise some when i say the libby wouldn't get the save because he's an IC.

 

My argument that Telion confers stealth is because he isn't an IC but an upgrade character, and cannot be taken without scouts or seperate from them. Therefore he would confer it on the scouts. The librarian on the other hand can be attached to them or leave so therefore wouldn't get it as he would follow IC rules.

[OwlandMoonGuy]

Personally, I don’t believe there’s any issue in this case. The new rules for wound allocation removed the ridiculous, “mixed armor rules” from 4th edition. Therefore, it’s now very easy to apply differing saves within a single unit.

 

So if you had a Scout squad in typical cover (4+ save) without Cloaks including Telion, only Telion would benefit from the Stealth rule and therefore receive a 3+ cover save. After wounds had been allocated, apply the appropriate save accordingly.

 

When it comes to purchasing upgrade gear for the squad, the rules never enforce any kind of order per when they are applied. As in, should you upgrade characters before you add gear? A: You can do so in any order you like. i.e., In a ten man squad, upgrade Telion who gets Stealth included in his upgrade cost and then upgrade the 9 other scouts with cloaks for 27 pts.

 

As stated, the rule for adding or removing USR’s to units is all derived from IC’s which Telion is not. I don’t see any justification to say that his USR would automatically transfer to his squad based on his upgrade.

 

That’s my take anyway. -OMG

[Ryjak]

What OwlandMoonGuy just said, x2.

[Ideaus]

plus you look at the points of telion, if you were in teh opion that his stealth rule applys to the whole squad then you save 27 points there, plus the ability to pick off any member of a squad you like, and the ability to make your heavy weapons extremly accurate and the acute senses ability and a heavy 2 rending, pinning weapon and a better ws and bs all for 50 pts i dont't think so, other wise he is a steal

[brakkar]

But you also can't use his ability to pick off any member or heavy 2 rending pinning if you use his ballistic skill on the heavy weapon.

 

Don't get me wrong he is a steal regardless of whether you agree with conferring stealth or not. I've used his bs a few times already to great effect with a ML in a scout squad. And as for the rest of the abilities it still comes down to dice rolls. yes if i'm rolling good and everything hits it's great, but like anything else dice rolls rule all.

[pingo]

This debate on whether Telion grants stealth to the squad is interesting and I've flipped my view over the course of it. I think he does not grant stealth to the unit if you follow RAW. Perhaps he should, given that he's supposed to guide and teach the scouts, but until GW say for definite, I think it's better to be cautious, buy the camo cloaks, and make the point moot.

 

 

What I was wondering about was the Cerberus launchers stacking their leadership penalty. The thing that makes me doubt you can do this is that the rule says that the assaulted unit 'has their leadership reduced by 2'. If it said something like 'modified their leadership by -2', then that, at least to me, would be clearer as it could be modified more than once. However if two LSSs unload scouts who assault the same unit, and then the assaulted unit have their leadership reduced by 4, then their leadership is not 'reduced by 2', it is reduced by 4.

 

Perhaps this doesn't make a lot of sense and I'm thinking too much. What is for sure, it would benefit from an official ruling by GW. Anyway, this is my interpretation from reading the rule. Whether I am right or not is immaterial to me, I just wondered what everyone else thought.

[Mal]

What I was wondering about was the Cerberus launchers stacking their leadership penalty. The thing that makes me doubt you can do this is that the rule says that the assaulted unit 'has their leadership reduced by 2'. If it said something like 'modified their leadership by -2', then that, at least to me, would be clearer as it could be modified more than once. However if two LSSs unload scouts who assault the same unit, and then the assaulted unit have their leadership reduced by 4, then their leadership is not 'reduced by 2', it is reduced by 4.

 

Perhaps this doesn't make a lot of sense and I'm thinking too much. What is for sure, it would benefit from an official ruling by GW. Anyway, this is my interpretation from reading the rule. Whether I am right or not is immaterial to me, I just wondered what everyone else thought.

 

Actually that wording makes sense, after all -4 =/= reduced by 2.

 

I cannot say what RAI is... but then nobody can... but from that wording it looks like the cerberus launcher doesn't stack.

[greatcrusade08]

I cannot say what RAI is... but then nobody can... but from that wording it looks like the cerberus launcher doesn't stack.

 

the point does make some sense, but again we are talking about a single speeder that reduces the targets leadership by 2, modifies, reduces, it all means the same.

the second speeder will also reduce the target leadership by 2 as its in its rules to do so.. there is no subheading under that rule that states they dont stack and like i said we have many examples in the rules that modifiers do stack!

Ultimately its a grey area which is why its here ;)

 

LSS 1 reduces enemy Ld by 2

LSS 2 reduces enemy Ld by 2 also

 

Thats a reduction of 4 which ever way you look at it

 

Gc08

[Mal]

I have to disagree there mate...

 

-2 modifier wopuld work the way you suggest... the phrase 'units leadership is reduced by 2'.. lets show this by an example...

 

Unit has leadership 9..

 

The targets leadership is reduced by 2, there for the target tests on a 7 (please note its leadership value is still 9).. So add in a second Cerebus... units leadership is reduced by 2... once again.. 9-2=7.

 

The key here is the units leadership value isn't modified.... small difference but a very important one.

 

Units leadership is reduced by 2 =/= Units leavership value is modified by -2.

[pingo]

Ultimately its a grey area which is why its here ;)

The most certain statement in this thread! ;)

 

Playing devil's advocate (as it can sometimes help...), it doesn't say the 'the speeder reduces' but the enemy's leadership 'is reduced', which seems somehow subtly different. It's talking from a different perspective if you like.

 

I just felt that when the second speeder arrives, the enemy's leadership is already reduced by 2, so I couldn't convince myself that RAW you could reduce by a further 2.

 

Also, it is true that it doesn't say it doesn't stack, but equally it doesn't say it does. (try saying that after a few beers...)

 

Reducing leadership by a potential 6 points also seems very harsh. But it's a tough world, so that's probably not a very good argument.

 

I dunno: perhaps you're right, but I can't get rid of the uncertainty ;)

 

EDIT: and what Mal says...

[greatcrusade08]

This argument would only follow if the rule said reduces base leadership by 2.. with soo many modifiers in this game we can agree that values are fluid..

the rule is for a single speeder, the enemies Ld is reduced by 2.. so Ld9 becomes Ld7

The second speeder woudl reduce the enies leadership by 2 also.. so the now modified Ld of 7 becomes Ld5.

 

And as i mentioned before we have examples of rules stacking to use as a rule of thumb here.. always important when dealing with grey area rules

 

Reducing leadership by a potential 6 points also seems very harsh. But it's a tough world, so that's probably not a very good argument.

but to get this you have to sacrifice your whole FA slots on what are glass speeders.

[Mal]

If the arguement is for stacking is that modifiers stack as a rule of thumb then what happened to the stealth rule earlier?

 

There are example 'as a rule of thumb' both for and against stacking... so we only have wording to go by... since RAW and RAI is all in the wording its very very important.

[greatcrusade08]

If the arguement is for stacking is that modifiers stack as a rule of thumb then what happened to the stealth rule earlier?

 

Apples or Oranges mate... pick one.

 

the stealth rule isnt about stacking

Stealth provides +1 cover save, you can only ever have stealth once at its a special rule, therefore the most stealth can ever get you is +1 cover save

 

Gc08

[Mal]

And where does it say that the Cerebus launcher reduces leadership by 2 each.

 

The important thing with this 'grey area' in my opinion revolves around the wording, and as we all know GW wording isn't too great, but its what we have.

 

So in my opinion the Cerebus Launcher reduced the leadership by 2, but doesn't modify the base leadership value.

 

So redardless of how many are in range, the leadership only gets reduced by 2.

[pingo]

As Obi-Wan Kenobi said: ' ... many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view'.

 

I don't feel that either side of this debate is going to prove one way or the other, or convince the other side. Which is a shame as it's probably not a rare situation. And eventually I want two LSSs!

 

Saying that, I am inclined to agree with Mal. If we look strictly at RAW, I feel it does not permit you to stack the -2 leadership. The wording seems to suggest this more strongly to me than it does allowing stacking. Perhaps that is not the intention, but when the intention is not clear we are force to interpret as best we can.

 

Perhaps it's best to roll for it at the start of a game or something.