N/A stats

[CarstairsCowboy]

I just had a really quick question. In 5th edition rules, is a stat that is listed as N/A counted as being zero?
Ex: Strength=N/A means that their strength is zero, and therefore even though they can roll to wound they automatically fail.

[Vipoid]

I just had a really quick question. In 5th edition rules, is a stat that is listed as N/A counted as being zero?
Ex: Strength=N/A means that their strength is zero, and therefore even though they can roll to wound they automatically fail.

It might help if you said what unit/gun you're referring to.

A unit with no strength profile can't roll to wound, unless it has a special rule that allows it to do so (poison, for example).

[wyvirn]

I'm going to say no, because GW usually puts a '0' or a '-' to denote a zero score. If they put an 'N/A' or 'X' in some stat line, there is usually a rule defining why you don't use the score or what to use for the 'X'.

[Sami]

If a stat is 0 then they put 0. Some pure assault models without access to grenades have BS 0 for example.

Things with X or N/A usually have special rules attached to them to explain how they work. For example, all Dark Eldar splinter weapons are Strength X, and you use the rules for Poisoned Shooting Weapons (in the codex) to determine how they wound targets. It even defines what type of weapon they count as when on vehicles.

[CarstairsCowboy]

To clarify, I am referring specifically to the Tau markerlight, which is a 4th edition rule book that has its strength and ap values listed as N/A. The reason I ask is that in a tournament I recently heard the argument that the markerlights were technically a strength X weapon where the aplication of markerlight tokens counted as a special form of wound, and that therefore coversaves could be taken against them, and the judge ruled in their favour. I was wondering if this was a plausible argument, or if it could be countered by arguing that the N/A was actually representative of - and therefore the token was separate from a wound.

[Lothlanathorian]

I can see how, logically, cover saves would apply (still have to point at your target and hit them with it and things that get in the way still, you know, get in the way), but, from a rules perspective, you didn't inflict a wound so they don't get to make a save.

[primeth]

dunno. cover saves section actually doesn't talk about wounds. it talks about taking cover from incoming "shots" I would say yes they get a cover save.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

The cover saves section doesn't tell you things like that. You still have to go to the armor save section. And there the book talks about wounds. Else, if you only use the rules there, you do not know how you can take a cover save or what that 4+ cover actually means.

Anyway, you actually take saving throws, any saving throws, after wounds are inflicted and for the wounds inflicted, as stated on top of page 20, and before removing casualties. This includes cover saves, as they too are mentioned. So no wounds, no casualties, no saves.

It is a bit "unfluffy", but unless there is something in the markerlight rules, it is RAW.

[Sami]

Yep, no saves from Markerlights. You only take saves against wounds, glancing hits and penetrating hits. Markerlights cause none of these. Markerlights would have N/A on those stats not because they auto-wound, but because they do not wound at all. You roll to hit and that's it.

[CarstairsCowboy]

And this is where the confusion stems from. The argument was on the basis that the tokens came after rolling to hit, and are therefore a form of automatic wound that does not inflict casualties. If I remember correctly, the logic went like this.
1) Roll to hit.
2) Roll to wound.
3) Wounding takes place after rolling to hit, with special rules for wounding applied in this stage
4) The section on wounding does not actually state that wounding will cause casualties, which come after failed saves and are mentioned in the next section, meaning that the wounds themselves do not cause the casualties
5) Additional special effects take place after saves have been rolled and the shooting unit is finished for the shooting phase
6) The additional effects for marker lights take place after the unit firing the marker lights (or in the case of networked markerlights, the model) are finished for the shooting phase and it is a later unit's turn
7) Thus marker light tokens occur in the wound step of the shooting phase
8) This then means that marker light tokens are wounds since they can only be applied in the wound step of the shooting phase, even though they do not need to roll in the wound step
9)Since the marker light tokens are therefore wounds, non-casualty inducing but wounds none the less, cover save can be taken against them

At this point the judge caved and agreed with the logic. I know there are holes in it, but it is still one of the more solid arguments that I have heard.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

Yes but on arguements like that, that seem solid you say "The BrB says to make saving throws before removing casualties, not after taking wounds. If you want to roll you must then remove anyone that fails as a casualty while also suffering all other effects for the unit that is left".

Sounds right?

[CarstairsCowboy]

To which one can reply that in the first line under the Remove Casualties section, a clear distinction is made between wounds and casualties, saying "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." Later, the paragraph says that for each unsaved wound you remove one model from the table. However, it has already been established that the marker light tokens are wounds that do not cause casualties, meaning that no models need to be removed from play. Also, you did not quote the whole line, which continues as "...the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw." This clearly indicates that the save is taken after the wounds roll. Ultimately, as far as I can tell, the logic presented for both sides is circular. You simply pointed to one segment of Rules As Written and then extrapolated in favour of no saves being taken against marker lights, and the player for saves being taken against marker lights can point to an equally valid segment of Rules As Written and make a counter argument following the same logic. Repeat.

[Sami]

That entire argument is invalidated by the wording on Markerlights which explicitly state that you place a marker for each bit. Even if the markerlight would go on to cause wounds afterwards (say it was S4), that still wouldn't stop you from placing a token down for each successful hit, nor wound passing a save remove a token. Saves negate wounds, not hits.

Judge was an idiot, and I get the feeling the guy who raised the issue was deliberately playing dumb to gain an advantage.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

I am saying you could argue. His logic is not RAW. Wounds and casualties are things defined in the BRB. There are wounds, there are not special cinds of wounds, or things just like wounds. Wounds "show how much damage a model can take before it dies...". So wounds are defined, just not in the section for shooting. But you need to read the whole book.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

I know there are holes in it...

That's not an argument with holes in it, that's a hole that somebody is pretending is an argument. The sole key term of his premise is nothing more than something this guy made up out of thin air.

[Tethylis]

9)Since the marker light tokens are therefore wounds, non-casualty inducing but wounds none the less, cover save can be taken against them

If that was true, then why only cover saves? surely armour saves could also be taken against these 'wounds' too?

[Vipoid]

Annotations in red.

And this is where the confusion stems from. The argument was on the basis that the tokens came after rolling to hit, and are therefore a form of automatic wound that does not inflict casualties. If I remember correctly, the logic went like this.
1) Roll to hit.
Correct.
2) Roll to wound.
Impossible - the weapon has no strength score, so can't possibly roll to wound.
3) Wounding takes place after rolling to hit, with special rules for wounding applied in this stage
Only if the weapon is actually capable of inflicting wounds. For example, the DE shattershard is a template weapon that forces all models hit to take a toughness test, or be removed from play. Surely you wouldn't claim that a roll to wound would be required for this?
4) The section on wounding does not actually state that wounding will cause casualties, which come after failed saves and are mentioned in the next section, meaning that the wounds themselves do not cause the casualties
This may seem shocking, but wounds do, in fact, cause wounds - which then lead to casualties for (hopefully) rather self-explanatory reasons.
5) Additional special effects take place after saves have been rolled and the shooting unit is finished for the shooting phase
Depends on the weapon - some effects may take place immediatly after the target is hit (such as Entropic Strike against vehicles), and may replace the normal sequence of events (Shattershard and Markerlights both have effects which take effect immediatly after the target is hit, and negate the usual 'roll to wound' stage, along with all subsequent stages).
6) The additional effects for marker lights take place after the unit firing the marker lights (or in the case of networked markerlights, the model) are finished for the shooting phase and it is a later unit's turn
Not sure what you mean by this. The unit gains counters immediatly after being hit, but the counters can only be 'spent' by other units that fire afterwards.
7) Thus marker light tokens occur in the wound step of the shooting phase
Incorrect - they replace the 'to-wound' step and all subsequent steps. They cannot possibly roll to wound, because they have no strength value, and nothing that allows them to roll against a particular number (like Poison).
8) This then means that marker light tokens are wounds since they can only be applied in the wound step of the shooting phase, even though they do not need to roll in the wound step
Incorrect. Once again, they replace the to-wound step, and all subsequent steps. This does not make markerlight counters wounds by any stretch of the rules.
9)Since the marker light tokens are therefore wounds, non-casualty inducing but wounds none the less, cover save can be taken against them
Except they're not wounds, so cover saves can't be taken against them.

At this point the judge caved and agreed with the logic. I know there are holes in it, but it is still one of the more solid arguments that I have heard.

Sorry, that's not a solid argument. That's corkscrew-logic after being fed through another, bigger corkscrew.

[CarstairsCowboy]

Sorry, that's not a solid argument. That's corkscrew-logic after being fed through another, bigger corkscrew.

Your point? That is just logic. It also happens to be logic supported by the majority of the staff at the local GW. The thing is that it is an out dated codex that needs to be re-written and re-defined, or at least an FAQ. As much as anyone here could present an argument against, the corkscrew logic is still logic, and used correctly, as the person in the tournament did, it is very convincing, especially in a snap decision situation. Either way, I am in the camp that says you can take cover saves, since logic dictates that if you can dodge a lascannon or plasma cannon then you can dodge a laser pointer.

[Charistoph]

Your point? That is just logic. It also happens to be logic supported by the majority of the staff at the local GW. The thing is that it is an out dated codex that needs to be re-written and re-defined, or at least an FAQ. As much as anyone here could present an argument against, the corkscrew logic is still logic, and used correctly, as the person in the tournament did, it is very convincing, especially in a snap decision situation. Either way, I am in the camp that says you can take cover saves, since logic dictates that if you can dodge a lascannon or plasma cannon then you can dodge a laser pointer.

Even one you don't know is there? We don't know the "real world" mechanics that Marker Lights work under. We do know there is a guiding visible light laser used to help target due to the story of the Valkyrie's Mark, but beyond that, we don't know, and that's just fluff. The only way the target knows it's being targeted is when their buddy tells them.

Again, RAW is under the fact that Marker Light counters do not get Saves because there is nothing to Save, and the counters are added before and instead of any Wounding.

[Vipoid]

Your point? That is just logic.

It's logic based on multiple fallacies.

Which makes it logical (to a given definition of the word), but not correct.

That is just logic. It also happens to be logic supported by the majority of the staff at the local GW.

Then either your local GW is staffed by squirrels, or they have no idea as to the rules of their own game.

The thing is that it is an out dated codex that needs to be re-written and re-defined, or at least an FAQ.

No, it doesn't. It just doesn't need idiots twisting the rules, and flat out making stuff up, just to gain an advantage.

As much as anyone here could present an argument against, the corkscrew logic is still logic, and used correctly, as the person in the tournament did, it is very convincing, especially in a snap decision situation.

Whilst I accept that mistakes can be made when a snap-decision is required, that does not change the fact that the argument is based on numerous fallacies.

Either way, I am in the camp that says you can take cover saves, since logic dictates that if you can dodge a lascannon or plasma cannon then you can dodge a laser pointer.

A fluff justiication is irrelevant, unless you can actually back it up with solid proof ruleswise.