Daily Reminder & PSA: Stealth =/= Invisibility

DrugsForRobots··6 votes·606 views

“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.”


Stealth is not necessarily invisibility, and invisibility is not necessarily stealth. The two are connected, but they are not the same. They cannot be used interchangeably.

Stealth is a mindset and playstyle. Stealth is achieved when you take great care in concealing your movements around the map. It's about skirting the edge of a ward's sight, approaching from an unexpected - unprotected - direction, and ambushing a single enemy en route to gank your ally, with the poor fool having no idea you were watching and waiting for him the whole time. It's about making sure you deny as much info as possible about your whereabouts. If you are truly stealthed then your opponent has no idea what your current position is. Stealth often requires a degree of patience and an awareness of how sight works that most players (at my skill level) don't have.

  • For example, did you know that wards grant a second or two of lingering sight after they die? Don't just kill a ward and run off - wait. Don't give the enemy any sense of what direction you went.
  • If you're pushing a lane, be aware of the enemy minions sight radius. So often I'll see my opponents (and teammates) telegraph when they're roaming bot or top because they walk out of lane in clear sight of the enemy minions.
  • If you're waiting in a brush, and see an enemy pass, wait til they get beyond your field of sight - you will be beyond theirs and can follow them.
  • If you're in the enemy jungle, pay attention to the minion wave. The minions' sight extends into the jungle in certain areas (like the lane entrance to Krugs.)

Invisibility on the other hand, is just a powerful form of untargetibility that creates ambiguity as to your position. Every champion has access to invisibility from level 1. This might seem like an outrageous claim, but who would deny that brush turns you invisible? Or cutting corners around terrain, or being enveloped in the Fog of War? It is true, that some champions can become invisible on demand - those champs erroneously being called 'stealth' champions.

  • Many of these instances of invisibility are too short to create much ambiguity, such as Vayne and Wukong.
  • Unfortunately, some instances of invisibility have a duration that's so long as they effectively become stealthed (in the sense I described above) such as Rengar, Twitch, and Evelynn, and to a lesser extent, Shaco.
  • True Sight is a special form of sight that removes the untargetibility aspect from spells and abilities that grant invisibility, often in a way that leaves little room for the user of invisibility to outplay.
  • Most instances of invisibility do not have tell-tale signs or audio clues inherent to their function. The exceptions are Rengar, who has his ! icon and unique SFX; Evelynn, who has her distance radius model; and Shaco, who has his puff of smoke.

I think this is something worth clarifying, as I haven't seen any Rioters or players make the distinction between the one or the other. I hope this will be useful to the community in creating awareness of the vision game, and perhaps maybe give the Rioters something to think about. This is also one in a series of posts I'll be making in the coming days as preseason draws near, as Riot has hinted at doing something about 'stealth' (I assume they mean invisibility) and TBH I find the topic fascinating and see no one else talking about it.

  1. A Shaco Main thinking about Warwick, and why Warwick's update is crucial to the Vision Game

  2. Unpopular Opinion: We shouldn't have Pink Wards on a trinket or SS

  3. Xypherous calls wards 'sight sticks' and says something about them 'feels off' - and he's 100% right

GL;HF! Shaco


Tsze-lu said, “The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?”

The Master replied, “What is necessary is to rectify names.”

“So! indeed!” said Tsze-lu. “You are wide of the mark! Why must there be such rectification?”

The Master said, “How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve.

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.

Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.”

-- Confucius, Analects

11 Comments

DeathBurst2 votes

Yet another nice post, I hope some Rioter will stumble upon it ^^

DrugsForRobots1 votes

Thanks. I really find it odd that vision is so rarely discussed or explored.

Here's the 4th:

Xypherous calls wards 'sight sticks' and says something about them 'feels off' - and he's 100% right

OneMustFall1 votes

I would say being in a brush is being stealthy, not being invisible. Your definitions are contradicting each other.

DrugsForRobots1 votes

I don't think they do.

Whether or not being in a brush is considered stealth depends on the situation and scenario:

If I'm chasing you, and you walk into a brush, you aren't being stealthy. I saw you walk into the brush, I know you're in there. I can't target you, however, because brush effectively makes you invisible.

If I was walking by the brush and had no clue you were in there, and suddenly you jumped out and ambushed me, that would be using stealth. Likewise, if you didn't ambush me (for some reason) and instead just waited til I had passed by and beyond sight range of your brush, you would be using stealth - I didn't have info on your position / whereabouts before, and I still don't know where you are (I didn't know you were hiding in the brush.)

Iceember1 votes

Hmm. Read all of your posts now and they are very well thought out. Being a Shaco main you make interesting points both for and against invisibility and I like how well structured your arguments are. I guess my question is this:

What are your opinions towards champions with a limited invisibility such as Akalis shroud and Teemos passive? Should their invisibility be treated the same way as champions that have a more mobile ability or should they have a class of invisibility of their own?

DrugsForRobots1 votes

I think Akali's invis and Teemo's invis are relatively healthy, being limited in their own ways. In both cases you know when they've gone invis (unless Teemo was stealthy and took up his position before you had info / sight of the area, such as beating you back to lane and hiding before you or your minions see him). They could stand to have an additional quirk that gave the enemy a way of outplaying their invis inherently.

For example, I've often thought model collision should reveal Teemo. If I saw him go in that bush, there's no reason that I wouldn't be able to 'find' him in that bush. Riot has given Teemo the QoL buff of being able to move around while in brush, which would give him some means of outplaying despite having the con of 'model collision reveals'.

You ask: "Should their invisibility be treated the same way as champions that have a more mobile ability or should they have a class of invisibility of their own?"

I think all champion induced invisibility should be the same in one regard: True Sight cancels it. Despite all the differences in execution and perks and quirks, True Sight exists as the way of countering that kind of invis (the other kind of invis being what the Fog of War and brush provide). That said, the forms that True Sight comes in could be softer, as I touch on in my post about Pink Wards.

What you call 'a class of invisibility' sounds like what I've been calling 'tell-tale signs' and audio / visual clues - what Riot calls 'individualized solutions to the stealth champions'. As you can see in that clip, 20thCenturyFaux hints that that's what they're moving towards, despite being disdainful of Shaco's smoke cloud and the 'predator shimmer' (which I think would be a cool tell-tale sign for Kha'Zix.)

I hope this has been helpful and given you something to think about! Glad we could get a discussion about these things going. :)

DrCyanide1 votes

Invisibility on the other hand, is just a powerful form of untargetibility that creates ambiguity as to your position.

Sorry, I find it slightly ironic that in a post about definitions you miss-used "untargetable".

I play mages for the most part, with lots and lots of skillshots. I can't hit an untargetable champion with a spell (think Fizz Vladimir ). I can most certainly hit a champion hitting in a bush, regardless of if I can see them or not.


I question re-defining stealth/invisibility when not using the language we have available to us in game.

item 3649 : Stealth ward item 2043 : "Reveals invisible units" item 3187 : "A stealth detecting mist" item 2047 : "Grants detection of nearby invisible or unseen units" item 3341 : "warning against hidden hostile units and revealing/disabling invisible traps and wards"

I feel like you used "stealth" when you should have used "hidden".

DrugsForRobots1 votes

I don't think I miss-used 'untargetable' at all.

Fizz and Vladimir aren't just untargetable, but invulnerable as well. They cannot be damaged or CC'ed. Untargetable means just that - they can't be targeted. As Shaco, neither Fizz nor Vlad can Q me because those abilities require a target and invisibility is a powerful form of untargetability. Fizz's E and Vlad's W both make them invulnerable to a large extent (certain things like Ignite will still tick down if already on them, and the fountain laser ignores their invulnerable status.) Likewise Zhonya's Hourglass makes you untargetable and invulnerable as well. It even says so in the description.

As far as using the language available to use that the game puts forth, your example only illustrates my point. Riot has been using invisibility and stealth interchangeably. I also think the word 'hidden' is implicit in the definition of stealth.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, 'stealth' is: the act or action of proceeding furtively, secretly, or imperceptibly. In other words, hidden. :)

Tyto Mors1 votes

{quoted}

Sorry, I find it slightly ironic that in a post about definitions you miss-used "untargetable".

I play mages for the most part, with lots and lots of skillshots. I can't hit an untargetable champion with a spell (think Fizz Vladimir ). I can most certainly hit a champion hitting in a bush, regardless of if I can see them or not.


I question re-defining stealth/invisibility when not using the language we have available to us in game.

item 3649 : Stealth ward item 2043 : "Reveals invisible units" item 3187 : "A stealth detecting mist" item 2047 : "Grants detection of nearby invisible or unseen units" item 3341 : "warning against hidden hostile units and revealing/disabling invisible traps and wards"

I feel like you used "stealth" when you should have used "hidden".

unless you have vision on someone, you cannot target them. i believe that is why he uses the word untargetable, because regardless of whether or not you hit them in the end, doesnt mean that you were able to even target them in the first place. vlad cant use his transfusion on you if he cant see.

EDIT: i didnt see his response to you, and im going to have to disagree with his definition for invulnerable, considering how they still take dmg, zhonya's yes. but fizz and vlad are still capable of taking DOT

DrugsForRobots1 votes

In my defense, I did say DoTs applied to them before they became invulnerable would still tick down. And the League of Legends wiki defines their untargetibility as 'partial invulnerability' - the partial being due to the DoTs still ticking down.

Tyto Mors1 votes

ya, the key word being "partial". i personally dont agree with riot on the term partial invulnerable, if susceptible to damage, you are not at all invulnerable, but being untargettable is different, you just cant be hit by anything during that time. fizz can become untargettable, taric can make people invulnerable to all damage, where as zhonyas makes you both invulnerable and untargettable.

but this has become less of an issue with your statement then it is about riots definition of words.

More from Gameplay

More by DrugsForRobots