N/A stats

[CarstairsCowboy]

Ultimately the point is moot, because I just emailed the GW FAQ team and we will see what they say on the issue.

[wyvirn]

Hate to burst your bubble, but they already did.

Q: Can a unit go to ground if affected by attacks that
do not allow covers saves or cause wounds (e.g. a flamer)? (p24)
A: You might, but such a move would be foolish, as it would have no effect other than stopping
the unit from doing anything of its own volition in its next turn. In other words, the only benefit of
going to ground is to increase a unit’s cover save, so if you don’t have to
take any cover saves don’t bother!

Note that marker light does not cause wounds as defined by the BRB, so to claim they cause 'nonlethal' wounds is just a logical non sequitor. Since the marker light does not cause wounds, it does not trigger a save to be needed.

Also, look at this the other way around: when you fail a save, you take an unsaved wound. So you can take your pick of the 2 outcomes: Not getting a save for the marker light as normal, or trying to take the cover save and taking a wound if you fail in addition to the marker light's effects.

[Mr_Rose]

Ultimately the point is moot, because I just emailed the GW FAQ team and we will see what they say on the issue.

Oh dear.
That's hardly a valid source of accurate data; customer services (you can't actually talk to the "FAQ team" directly, BTW, at least in part because no such formal structure exists) are widely notorious for giving three different answers to simple yes/no questions when it comes to the rules of the games. No one here will accept their answer as conclusive, whatever it is, because there is a decent chance of getting the opposite answer if you or someone else asks them again.

[Overlord Krycis]

*Sigh*
This one again...?

Markerlights specifically state in their own rules that they do not cause wounds and that the effects of the markerlight (the tokens) are applied after the roll to HIT.
A cover save can only be taken after rolls to wound/a wound has been caused as it is part of the "Saving throw" mechanic.
So where exactly in the BRB does it give the mechanic or solution to taking a saving throw of ANY kind from HITS caused and not WOUNDS caused?

Seriously...because I can't find mention of that in either of my rulebooks.

Also, GW Staff members are people too and are prone to all the same problems as the rest of us (they can be swayed by confusing corkscrew logic too), this doesn't mean that they are right.
Working in a GW Store does not automatically make you the defacto rules decider nor does working for Customer Services down in HQ...

[CarstairsCowboy]

Hate to burst your bubble, but they already did.

Note that marker light does not cause wounds as defined by the BRB, so to claim they cause 'nonlethal' wounds is just a logical non sequitor. Since the marker light does not cause wounds, it does not trigger a save to be needed.

Also, look at this the other way around: when you fail a save, you take an unsaved wound. So you can take your pick of the 2 outcomes: Not getting a save for the marker light as normal, or trying to take the cover save and taking a wound if you fail in addition to the marker light's effects.

I would like to point out that your quote is unrelated, as it only refers to whether or not a unit can go to ground and has no bearing on the argument. Second, your argument therefore does not apply in regard to my cover save, since it has already been stated in your own quote that the unit that has gone to ground will have an increased cover save, even though it is not required to make one. Also, the wording "if you don't have to take any cover saves..." does not explicitly state that I could not take cover saves against a shot that could not wound, while simultaneously not suffering any of the effects related to failing a cover save.

[CarstairsCowboy]

Oh dear.
That's hardly a valid source of accurate data; customer services (you can't actually talk to the "FAQ team" directly, BTW, at least in part because no such formal structure exists) are widely notorious for giving three different answers to simple yes/no questions when it comes to the rules of the games. No one here will accept their answer as conclusive, whatever it is, because there is a decent chance of getting the opposite answer if you or someone else asks them again.

Actually yes, I can. gamefaqs@games-workshop.co.uk This is not the email for customer service. This is in fact the email for the FAQ team.

[Sami]

It doesn't need a FAQ as it's clearly stated in the rules. The Tau codex required many FAQs - defining how Markerlights work is not one of them. The tokens represent hits, not wounds. If a unit had some way of negating successful hits on it then there would be some ambiguity and a FAQ would be required.

Time and time again the rulebook, codexes and FAQs reinforce that you take saves against wounds, not hits. Regardless of whether a Markerlight did somehow cause an imaginary wound, the tokens are applied on hit, so saving the wound wouldn't matter as the tokens have already been placed and there is no wording to say remove them if you pass a save against a wound (imaginary or otherwise) caused by a Markerlight.

And GW staffers have a reputation for not knowing a thing about the game (not all of them!).

[Lothlanathorian]

Q: Can a unit go to ground if affected by attacks that
do not allow covers saves or cause wounds (e.g. a flamer)? (p24)
A: You might, but such a move would be foolish, as it would have no effect other than stopping
the unit from doing anything of its own volition in its next turn. In other words, the only benefit of
going to ground is to increase a unit’s cover save, so if you don’t have to
take any cover saves don’t bother!

I've enlarged the important parts of the question so that you can see the relevance. English can be tricky sometimes.

[Vipoid]

I would like to point out that your quote is unrelated, as it only refers to whether or not a unit can go to ground and has no bearing on the argument. Second, your argument therefore does not apply in regard to my cover save, since it has already been stated in your own quote that the unit that has gone to ground will have an increased cover save, even though it is not required to make one. Also, the wording "if you don't have to take any cover saves..." does not explicitly state that I could not take cover saves against a shot that could not wound, while simultaneously not suffering any of the effects related to failing a cover save.

Consider this:

A Tau unit fires a markerlight at one of your units, and hits.

How to you propose the Tau player rolls to wound?

[Sami]

Also, if it's an automatic wound, then any failed saves would mean that a model takes a wound and probably removed as a casualty. You know, I'm sure Tau players would be happy with this change

[wyvirn]

I would like to point out that your quote is unrelated, as it only refers to whether or not a unit can go to ground and has no bearing on the argument. Second, your argument therefore does not apply in regard to my cover save, since it has already been stated in your own quote that the unit that has gone to ground will have an increased cover save, even though it is not required to make one. Also, the wording "if you don't have to take any cover saves..." does not explicitly state that I could not take cover saves against a shot that could not wound, while simultaneously not suffering any of the effects related to failing a cover save.

I was sorta hoping you would read between the lines here, but I'll spell it out for you: because marker lights do not cause wounds, you can't take saves from them. Otherwise going to ground would help you against the marker light by increasing your cover save, and that FAQ would be redundant.

[Mondobot]

Ah, this old chestnut. It has been done to death. You can only take saves against wounds, Pg 20 of the rule book, under armour saves "roll a d6 for each wound the model has suffered". The rules then go on to specify types of save etc. Markerlights do not cause wounds so never trigger the ability to save. They stop after hitting and place a token.

[DoctorTom]

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.

Corkscrew logic may be logic; faulty logic is also logic, but it does not make it correct. The rules for taking saves are in the removing casualties section, and (as has been noted here) appplies to models that take wounds. You would have to show explicitly where a Tau markerlight counts as inflicting a wound (you can't, since it gives a specific effect instead of taking wounds) or where in the rulebook you can specifically take a cover save in a situation other than when taking damage.

As for the corkscrew logic for taking cover saves, then why doesn't that same logic support taking armour or invulnerable saves against the markerlight?

[CarstairsCowboy]

I've enlarged the important parts of the question so that you can see the relevance. English can be tricky sometimes.

Yes, apparently it can be, since you failed to enlarge the one important word from that sentence, which is OR.

[CarstairsCowboy]

I was sorta hoping you would read between the lines here, but I'll spell it out for you: because marker lights do not cause wounds, you can't take saves from them. Otherwise going to ground would help you against the marker light by increasing your cover save, and that FAQ would be redundant.

And yet the last two pages have been demanding Rules As Written. If the argument for taking cover saves against marker lights cannot "read between the lines" then it is equally acceptable to require you to provide explicite proof to the contrary in the form of Rules as Written.

[CarstairsCowboy]

Corkscrew logic may be logic; faulty logic is also logic, but it does not make it correct. The rules for taking saves are in the removing casualties section, and (as has been noted here) appplies to models that take wounds. You would have to show explicitly where a Tau markerlight counts as inflicting a wound (you can't, since it gives a specific effect instead of taking wounds) or where in the rulebook you can specifically take a cover save in a situation other than when taking damage.

As for the corkscrew logic for taking cover saves, then why doesn't that same logic support taking armour or invulnerable saves against the markerlight?

I am not an advocate for taking armour or invulnerable saves against marker lights, nor does the logic apply in that case, because that would be increadibly foul play. In this case the corkscrew logic would support armour and invulnerable saves being taken against marker lights, but a reasonable player would not do so.

[Mondobot]

Proof by RAW?, read my post above, respond to it with a RAW argument... oh wait you can't there isnt one!

[CarstairsCowboy]

Proof by RAW?, read my post above, respond to it with a RAW argument... oh wait you can't there isnt one!

Page 19, To Wound Chart. "Note that N on the chart means that the hit has no effect". This clearly indicates that if the hit cannot wound, then the hit itself is discounted. Which means that markerlights, which have no strength value, cannot wound, and therefore their hits are discounted. Go ahead, you can have my cover saves, I will take away your markerlights.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

Two problems (or, really, general categories of problem) with that argument:

1) Strength "N/A" isn't on the chart, so no result of "N" is invoked in the first place. And "N/A" also means that strength is not applicable, which means that references to strength are meaningless, as opposed to simply meaning that the strength is 0.

2) The specific rules for markerlights override the general rules for firing weapons anyway, in such cases where they would contradict each other. (Even though, as noted in #1, in this case they do not.)

On the original topic, markerlights do not override the normal rules for saves (except for their explicit use to lower cover saves for subsequent fire), so the normal rules apply (or rather fail to apply) in their normal course.

[Lothlanathorian]

Yes, apparently it can be, since you failed to enlarge the one important word from that sentence, which is OR.

OR was not important to the statement unless you are reading it all. The OR points out that if something doesn't allow cover saves OR that thing doesn't cause wounds, then going to ground would be pointless since it would increase a save you DO NOT GET TO TAKE. Since Markerlights are a thing that either doesn't allow cover saves OR cause wounds, you don't get to take cover saves. I know my logic may not be barrel rolling hard enough for you, but, well, here, I'll be helpful and just completely erase the information that is irrelevant to your question, but, that is conveniently answered in this FAQ:

Q: Can a unit go to ground if affected by attacks that
do not cause wounds? (p24)
A: You might, but such a move would be foolish, as it would have no effect other than stopping
the unit from doing anything of its own volition in its next turn. In other words, the only benefit of
going to ground is to increase a unit’s cover save, so if you don’t have to
take any cover saves don’t bother!