N/A stats

[Sami]

Specific > Generic

For most weapons, the effect is to cause a wound. Hence, if it is unable to do so, the hits are discarded. This says nothing for weapons with special rules which trigger on successful hits. These have extra rules on top of what is in the codex. Markerlights explicitly spell out the exact ways Markerlight tokens can be removed. That's it. All in that box. While the hits don't go on to wound, the rules for Markerlights have already told you that the tokens are only removed by subsequent unit firing (or when the phase ends), and nothing about rolling to wound.

This is honest to god one of the stupidest threads I've seen in a long time.

Saves taken against hits
Weapons which can't wound automatically causing wounds, yet unsuccessful saves don't remove the wound
Saved wounds negating To Hit effects

Next up, can you take Feel No Pain against Markerlight hits?

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.

I've highlighted the part where the argument falls apart. Markerlights are special forms of hits as explained in the Markerlight rules.



I'm out of this thread - gl all!

[Vipoid]

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.

Firstly, as Nurgling Chieftan has said, N/A isn't the same as S0. You can't possibly roll to wound, because you cannot compare N/A to the target's toughness to find out what you need to wound.

Second, a hit that failed to wound still hit the target, so you still get a markerlight token.

Finally, how can you take a cover save (or any save, for that matter) against a wound that didn't happen? Even if you make every cover saves, all you've done is discount nonexistant wounds. Markerlights need hits to get counters, not wounds.

[Tethylis]

Another FAQ post worth pointing out would be this

Q: Do psychic shooting attacks grant cover saves? (p50)
A: Yes, as long as they cause wounds. Cover saves are
taken against wounds caused by psychic shooting
attacks, not against any other ‘weirder’ effects of the
psychic power.

Although the initial question is talking about PSA's i believe the conclusion would apply just aswell here.
So if for example a Necron Cryptek with a tremorstave shoots at, hits and wounds an enemy unit then the enemy could take cover saves against the wounds caused but even if it passes every save so that no wounds are suffered then it will still be affected by quake rule from being hit by the weapon. Basically the quake rule, along with markerlights, entropic strikes and other non-wound effects would fall into the other 'weirder' effects catagory, against which no saves can be taken.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

Yet noone has adressed the original "greatest argument in the universe" that since wounds happen after "to hit" rolls and the tokens are given after "to hit" rolls, the tokens are wounds!

I propose instead to treat all wounds like tokens! No one dies from shooting any more!

[Vipoid]

Yet noone has adressed the original "greatest argument in the universe" that since wounds happen after "to hit" rolls and the tokens are given after "to hit" rolls, the tokens are wounds!

I propose instead to treat all wounds like tokens! No one dies from shooting any more!

You should definatly try this at a tournament.

[Charistoph]

Yet noone has adressed the original "greatest argument in the universe" that since wounds happen after "to hit" rolls and the tokens are given after "to hit" rolls, the tokens are wounds!

I propose instead to treat all wounds like tokens! No one dies from shooting any more!

Umm, hunh? Where does it say that Markerlight hits Wound?

Oh, yeah, no where. Why? Because they don't have any applicable Strength or Special Rule to Wound with.

Shall we argue the porcine nature of hedgehogs, then?

[Vipoid]

Umm, hunh? Where does it say that Markerlight hits Wound?

Oh, yeah, no where. Why? Because they don't have any applicable Strength or Special Rule to Wound with.

He was jokily referring to this post, which uses the hilariously-flawed argument that anything following the 'to-hit' step must either be or count-as a to-wound roll:

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.

[primeth]

wow. I think I've been converted after this thread. I will point out that if your model is in cover, a single markerlight typically isn't going to negate your entire cover save from the actual shots anyway. and if you've got multiple markerlights on a unit, probably means its a priority and is likely going to be shot to oblivion, whether you like it or not.

I know opinion here(especially in a RAW thread) has little value, However I do believe it is appropriate to give a cover save to markerlight hits. while I do agree that it is "technically" not allowed by RAW. Then on the other hand Tau have so many current issues I wouldn't even ask a tau player to give up one of the neatest things they have.

"The most important rule is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct, or mere guidelines- the choice is entirely yours." BRB Page 2

[Konovalev]

wow. I think I've been converted after this thread. I will point out that if your model is in cover, a single markerlight typically isn't going to negate your entire cover save from the actual shots anyway. and if you've got multiple markerlights on a unit, probably means its a priority and is likely going to be shot to oblivion, whether you like it or not.

I know opinion here(especially in a RAW thread) has little value, However I do believe it is appropriate to give a cover save to markerlight hits. while I do agree that it is "technically" not allowed by RAW. Then on the other hand Tau have so many current issues I wouldn't even ask a tau player to give up one of the neatest things they have.

"The most important rule is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct, or mere guidelines- the choice is entirely yours." BRB Page 2

Indeed, and I feel it is appropriate to make all space marine armies re-roll successful hits in both shooting and close combat to represent the machine spirit being angered. This is technically correct because the codex states that space marines offer prayers to their weapons machine spirits yet there is no mechanism in game for this to occur.

Therefore, we must treat the prayers as we do N/A stats and autofail them. Failing to pray to their weapons as the codex requires then clearly will upset the machine spirit.

[Sami]

I also feel it is very much RAI that the strength of my splinter weapons is actually the range multiplied by the AP. After all, "X" is the symbol for multiplication, hence my Splinter Cannons have a strength of 36" x 5, so a strength of 180". As the only time you can equate a range to strength is with tank shocking / ramming, every successful splinter hit counts as either a 180" tank shock or ram depending on their target.

[blurrymadness]

I also feel it is very much RAI that the strength of my splinter weapons is actually the range multiplied by the AP. After all, "X" is the symbol for multiplication, hence my Splinter Cannons have a strength of 36" x 5, so a strength of 180". As the only time you can equate a range to strength is with tank shocking / ramming, every successful splinter hit counts as either a 180" tank shock or ram depending on their target.

Nice thing about Ramming 180 inches is that it can be up to a str60 hit if you're lucky!


RAW:
1. Tau Codex - Markerlights cause tokens on all HITS; this is unarguable; You don't fail to hit or fail to wound based on saves. Take your saves if you really feel justified; the tokens are still there.
2. Eldar FAQ - PSA FAQ describes how only wounds can have saves taken after them
3. BRB FAQ - Flamers and things that cause no wounds can be responded to with "go to ground", but it doesn't help as you can't use cover saves against such thing
4. Logic of the wounding/saving section in the BRB


Also; how the balls did anyone call tokens wounds?

[TheGreatDalmuti]

It's not only that someone called tokens wounds. It's that a judge agreed.

[Vipoid]

It's not only that someone called tokens wounds. It's that a judge agreed.

That is certainloy worrying.

Also, this just seems like a really strange thing for a judge to cave into. I mean, I understand that an argument can be made more believable if it's well-presented. And I know that many rules are a little uncertain, so I could easily understand a judge agreeing with a set of apparently-logical steps on any one of them.

But this... no.

Just... no.

I mean, I've looked at CarstairsCowboy's post, explaining the guy's argument - it consisted of 9 steps, of which 8 were either based on obvious fallacies, or just made up on the spot. Just the fact that the judge carried on listening after step 4 is depressing enough.