The Disadvantages Of Ignoring Stealth

My understanding in previous editions was that if a model ignored Stealth, it could not “shoot through” models with Stealth i.e. stealth models would blocked LOS. I just wanted to check if that was still true with the Mk4 rules.

Also, out of sheer academic curiosity, is there any situation where a model has a rule that says it “can” ignore Stealth, meaning it can choose not to and therefore shoot through Stealth models? And if so, can it choose not to ignore Stealth on some models and ignore it on others for the same attack, e.g. to shoot a Stealth model hiding behind other Stealth models?


The key part of Stealth relevant to this question is:

If you ignore Stealth, that rule no longer applies, and intervening models are once again intervening models . :slight_smile:

So, the first part is accurate. Ignoring Stealth does potentially put LOS-blockers in your path, depending on the circumstances.

As for the second part: without a full-text rules search of some sort, I can’t answer that. :slight_smile: Eyeless Sight straight-up ignores Stealth. Fire Pit defenses remove Stealth.

But…who knows. :slight_smile:


I can’t think of anything that is optional offhand.

1 Like

The thing is, the wording is “This model is not an intervening model…”: it does not say something like “attacking models ignore this model”.

To my mind there’s an argument that when the attacker ignores Stealth, the target doesn’t lose Stealth. So if it still has Stealth, then the “intereving model” clause is still in effect because not being an intervening model is a property that it has as long as it has stealth.

I know I’m not doing a good job of explaining this, try to think of it like the old issue with Prowl and models that ignored Concealment: ignoring Concealment doesn’t mean that model loses Concealment, so it doesn’t lose Stealth, so ignoring Concealment doesn’t allow a model to ignore the Stealth that a Prowl model gains from Concealment.

Do you get what I’m saying? For the record I think that that the stealth-ignoring model shouldn’t be able to shoot through Stealth models, I’m just saying that I’m not sure how the current rule wording interacts.

I think I get what you’re saying, but I think you’re just stuck in a recursion problem. :slightly_smiling_face:

Think of it like this:

If you ignore a rule, you ignore that rule. You can’t both ignore it and still be affected by it.

A model is an intervening model. It has Stealth, meaning it is no longer an intervening model.

If you ignore the rule, you ignore the effects of the rule. That means this:

“A model is an intervening model. It has Stealth, meaning it is no longer an intervening model. “

…becomes this:

A model is an intervening model.

Make sense? :slightly_smiling_face:

I don’t think recursion is the problem, in programming terms I guess it’s more of a scope issue; I think my thought process was something like “If you ignore the rule, then the parts of the rule that directly refer to you are not applied”.

Whereas I think what you’re saying is “If you ignore the rule, the ENTIRE rule effectively does not exist for the duration of the interaction”.

Which makes sense when you put it that way. I’m not exactly sure it’s a “universal rule” (e.g. the Concealment/Prowl example), but I see how it applies in this case.

I always thought the intent of Eyeless Sight was to apply the first bit when drawing line of sight, and the second bit when attacking a model with stealth or concealment, and the last bit (immune to blind) all the time.

It’s just missing plain text that would clear it up.

Ignore clouds when drawing LOS.
Ignore a model’s concealment and stealth when attacking that model.
Immune to blind.

It makes sense to me like this because concealment only applies when attacking something with it, and stealth is in the same phrase.

Imo, abilities that ignore stealth should be written to explicitly say that, and it would clear up any confusion. Abilities that remove stealth… just remove it and all of its features.

I think you’re making this more complicated than needed.

As you quoted, Eyeless Sight ignores Stealth. It doesn’t ignore parts of Stealth. It doesn’t conditionally ignore Stealth. It doesn’t ignore Stealth when it feels like ignoring Stealth.

It ignores Stealth, the whole Stealth, all the time, because there are no limiting clauses.

1 Like

In this case if you ignore stealth then the model in question will be an intervening model


Ya, no. I get how it works. I just agree with soul samuri. The intervening model bit feels weird. It doesn’t have to be.

It also feels weird that an arcane attack more than 5 misses, but a friendly spell will land, and to either friendly or enemy, the stealthy models aren’t intervening. It’s a very pick and choose ability. Like, why can you (friendly) see them, but I can’t?

I wouldn’t have minded seeing the bit about intervening dropped in this edition. They’re still there, blocking things. I just can’t see them well enough to target them.

I know it isn’t changing either. I just like to poke at things that feel strange to me