Hi I'm new

Stealth question

If I challenge with two characters one with stealth and one without and nominate a defender to bypass, will I be able to bypass defender with both or just the stealth character

You can choose 1 character for each character with Stealth you declared as an attacker, and none of the chosen characters can be declared as defenders for the challenge.

The key point here is that the rules specify you can bypass one character for each attacker with stealth that has been declared, not that you can bypass one character per attacker, so long as at least one of them has stealth.

soo........, in plain english, what is the answer to the OP's question because I would like to know as well.

For each character with stealth declared as an attacker, you choose 1 (non-stealth) character that cannot be declared as a defender this challenge. So if you have one character with stealth and one character without stealth, you choose 1 character that cannot be declared as a defender this challenge.

The character without stealth doesn't change anything here at all - he's still contributing his STR to the challenge.

If the above answers weren't clear to you, I think you may be confusing how characters are declared as defenders. After characters are declared as attackers for a challenge (each character declared is participating in the same challenge), the opponent can choose to declare defenders. He's not defending against each character individually, he's declaring defenders for the challenge. You then add the total str of one side against the total str of the other to determine the winner.

Thanks, yes I think I fully understood the above answers I was just wanting a simple yes or no to clarify that I did understand correctly.

It turns out I did get it right so it's all good, it just seemed quite strong that a stealth dude could pair up with an OP non stealth dude, so just wanted to check we were doing it right

Anyway thanks for the reply

And indeed I turns out I did, although a yes would have saved you much typing

In all fairness, your post didn't ask a yes/no question or imply that you were seeking to check your understanding, so it's not particularly surprising that it was interpreted as seeking a full explanation.

And indeed I turns out I did, although a yes would have saved you much typing

In all fairness, your post didn't ask a yes/no question or imply that you were seeking to check your understanding, so it's not particularly surprising that it was interpreted as seeking a full explanation.

Sorry dude, my unedited post had a few smileys and was intended to be written with humour which didn't translate through - no offence and cheers for the reply