This seems to be going around and if Normalview/Queb/etc. wouldn't mind clarifying based on the known info...

In order to turn off Stealth, does Gambit cancel Stealth, or the Special Power that grants him Stealth?

Hopefully this is clear enough. My understanding would be that he'd have to cancel the Special Power (along with all the extras it gives him) in order to turn off his Stealth. But I can see a line of reasoning where the special power grants those powers and then each can be treated individually.

Anyone able to point me to where I should have looked before asking?

Not sure where to look, but that is a good question.... if you have to turn off the SP, that could really hurt.....

It's a tricky question - there are no clear statements on the issue in the rulebook.

My gut feeling is that Gambit should be allowed to just deactivate Stealth though, and I did find an entry in the FAQ that sorta backs me up:
The bolded phrase certainly applies in this case - it seems Gambit could simply choose to not use Stealth (Stealth is an optional power, after all).

I think it really comes down to Logic of the character. Although there are a few cases where rules are not physically accurate, they tend to be as realistic as possible. Therefore, if Gambit were to try to use L/C, Running Shot, and Stealth all in the same action in the comic books, he would break his leg. I mean jumping, throwing cards (accurately I might add), and then somehow disappearing? Gambit's good, but he's not THAT good.

Unfortunately, the rules of this game do not always create logical situations.
Besides, Gambit can't use all three powers together - Running shot and Leap/Climb are incompatible. So it would be more like running into the shadows while firing or leaping into cover...

Since Gambit only uses Stealth, the same way Batman Allies use Stealth, this post by nbperp from More questions... should resolve everything:Gambit also uses Stealth, so he doesn't have to cancel the SP to not be Stealthy, just opt not to use it. Yet another difference (though this one has advantages) between possessing and using a power. The fact that choice is made at the beginning of an action and lasts for the duration of that action is also clarified.


BoT

Oooh, that's a good catch. Well, as always, new rules and mechanics change some aspects (including what I mentioned in my last post). I didn't think about how the new script on the TA might change something like that.... a SP/Feat/TA giving you the option to USE a power (which was previously only granted) gives you the option to not use a power without turning it off. Huh..... interesting.

Gambit does not HAVE stealth. He can USE stealth. Big difference.

He just chooses not to use it.

What a weird weird rule system.

I was of the mind that if you wanted to turn off the Stealth, you'd cancel the whole power, thus providing consequences for different situations.

Going by the citations made though, I suppose that he can basically do whatever he pleases (within rules of compatibility).

Weird.

Jackstar,

When Avengers came out there was a lot of discusion about SPs and what the term "use" means. It was pretty much a new term and at first with all the previews we just got initial gut interpretations and specualtion on what we all thought it meant.

After awhile Norm posted 3 major posts on the WK forum addressing the issue. There was also several other discusions that continued on on the envoy forum, one of which lead to the Batman Ally ruling.

I had considered doing a CritHit article on the nuances of this, but there was still some stuff that gets confusing from time to time.

Here are some threads worth reading on the subject:
(the difference between POSSESSing a power and USINg a power)
http://forum.wizkidsgames.com/showthread.php?t=167182

(WITH vs HAVE in relation to SPs)
http://forum.wizkidsgames.com/showth...02#post1479402


(Avenger SPs with some basics of the term "use")
http://forum.wizkidsgames.com/showthread.php?t=165644

That's the way that it was initially told to us by the RA... but that was before GD clarified for him, apparently (from the quote that BoT listed). That's good to know that it's been clarified like that, and I hope it'll be in the next E&C doc so it's more than "just a forum ruling" like the old adjacency ruling was wen Nanobots came out

Thanks. I thought I'd been keeping up on things, and when I played Gambit at the PR, I went with what made sense... I guess it's better to learn I was wrong so the guys at my venue can find out about it, too.

Looks like I need to read up before my sealed on Sunday.