Stealth, adjacency, and outwit

[Hack-n-slash]

From the FAQ:


figure with the OUTWIT power cannot cancel the STEALTH power of a figure that is in hindering terrain. OUTWIT requires a clear line of fire and the STEALTH power states that “any line of fire drawn to this character that crosses hindering terrain, including the square that this character occupies, is treated as though it crosses blocking terrain.” Since a clear LOF cannot be drawn to a STEALTH figure that is in hindering terrain, that figure’s STEALTH cannot be Outwitted.


From the Powers and Abilities Chart:


STEALTH. Hindering terrain blocks line of fire to this character. (Optional) Any line of fire drawn to this character that crosses hindering terrain, including the square that this character occupies, is treated as though it crosses blocking terrain.


From the rulebook:


Characters on opposite sides of blocking
terrain or on different elevations (see Terrain,
p. 18) are not considered adjacent.
X X X


From the rulebook:

Your character must be adjacent to and on the same elevation level as a target to perform a close combat action.,

It seems to me that if we use the FAQ's logic to declare that adjacent models cannot outwit stealth (or other powers wielded by stealthed models), then we must also prohibit close combat attacks from those same models:

A close combat attack requires adjacency, which does not occur on opposing sides of blocking terrain, which stealth generates!

Thoughts? Comments? Obvious logical flaws? Bueller? Anyone?

[Tsannik]

Stealth will only make Hindering terrain act like Blocking terrain when Line of Fire is drawn.

This is why it is possible to attack a Stealthed figure with a Close Combat actions (as most of those actions do not require Line of Fire to be drawn).

A normal close combat attack does not require Line of Fire tobe drawn.

[Styrix]

At the same time, they should probably rule that Outwit needs line of site OR Adjacency. That way, with Batman standing next to Black Panther, they can outwit each other.

I had a Tourney last Wednesday where I parked my Nightwing next to his Batman, and we couldn't outwit each other. It seemed a little too wierd, and my opponent didn't know this ruling until it was too late (his Batman died).

Note for clarity: I am asking that they change the official ruling as Tsannik mentions below. Thanks as always Judge T!

[Tsannik]

For the record:

Excerpt from Outwit on the PAC:
This character must be within 10 squares of the target and have a clear line of fire to that figure

It is ruled that Outwit needs Line of Fire.



I see what you are asking, though... you're asking for a change so that the ruling is Line of Fire or adjacency.

[Hack-n-slash]

Stealth will only make Hindering terrain act like Blocking terrain when Line of Fire is drawn.

This is why it is possible to attack a Stealthed figure with a Close Combat actions (as most of those actions do not require Line of Fire to be drawn).

A normal close combat attack does not require Line of Fire tobe drawn.

It requires adjacency.
Doesn't determining adjacency require LOF to be drawn?

:)


I see what you are asking, though... you're asking for a change so that the ruling is Line of Fire or adjacency.

Yes, that would be the idea. :D

**

Also, can you provide some insight into the no-LOS/LOF required for barrier ruling? Forming a barrier through three solid walls seems a tad odd for most, if not all, of the barrier-makers.

[Xanth]

It is indeed odd but that is the way it works. You could always house-rule it though that LOF is required.

[Tsannik]

It requires adjacency.
Doesn't determining adjacency require LOF to be drawn?

Adjacency, in and of itself, does not require Line of Fire to be drawn.

The only time Line of Fire is drawn is if the action specifically states for it to be drawn.