Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just to preface this post my club plays it that majority armour rules do NOT come into effect when using the shield drones.  Even though they have their own invulnerable save and the book makes it seem like models without a save get tagged first, we play it that their base save is the one to go off of.  If you play similarly to this then read on.  If not, then don't bother because this situation would never occur in your games.

Lone broadside with a shield drone.  The 'unit' takes a template hit and actually fails one of it's 2+ saves.  I assign the wound onto the shield drone and remove it as a casualty.  I think I'm pretty smart until I relize that now I have to take last man standing tests with my broadside every turn!  Damn you Games Workshop!

I don't have alot of experience with my Tau so I'm hoping that some of you out there can find a passage somewhere in the dex that excludes lone models that take drones as wargear from having to take last man standing tests when their drones die.

First, remind me why drones don't count for majority armor again? They appear to have the save of the unit they're with to me.

Anyway, yes, drones do count as models and can cause last man standing tests.

But is this unrealistic? I know if I was fighting and had some robots to protect me and they all were destroyed I'd be a little put off.

They do count by RAW. We just play it that they negate the majority toughness and armour rules by assuming the same stats as their controller. We feel pretty confident that that was the intent or else there would be absolutely no reason for that. That, and shield drones are completely useless if the drone controller has to take hits before they do. To re-iterate though, we do agree that by RAW they do count for majority and are therefore useless.

Thanks for the response by the way. I was hoping we played it wrong, but alas, no joy for the Tau.

Sorry for the double post but after re-reading your post it occured to me that you may have actually wanted the RAW breakdown of why shield drones suck. If you were being sarcastic just ignore this.

In the armour save rules it has a line like "must remove models that don't get a save first" or something which would mean that I would actually have to take a hit on the broadside before the drone since he gets no save while his drone does. Lame! Then, it actually tells us further on that units may have models with different armour or invulnerable saves and to use the majority armour section for those situations. In the mixed armour section it tells us that if the armour types are of equal value to start with the worst. In this case the Broadside who has no save vs the weapon would be worse.

They could have fixed all of this by simply leaving out the part about invulnerable saves and just saying that only base stat armour values are used for the mixed armour rules, but of course we have been failed again.

Yes, by strict RAW if you have a Broadside with two shield drones and it takes a Lascannon hit, the 'Side should take the hit automatically and die, killing the drones too. Which obviously makes shield drones pointless. Again.

GW really are a bunch of crassly stupid idiots, aren't they?

That was what killed me! Even with our house rules the drone still failed me. Now that's a powerfull suck to claw through not only the normal rules, but the rules we devise to fix it. Powerfull suck.

To calm down a bit though. I just have a hard time refering to anyone as a "crassly stupid idiot." I feel for them and I understand that not every situation can be play tested, but come on! I mean, they actually take up space in their FAQ with the idiotic argument about the drone controller not having a 'wargear' drone controller but leave out major points like how we get around mixed armour with their apparently useless shield drones.

I know if I was fighting and had some robots to protect me and they all were destroyed I'd be a little put off.

And I will say it again, Ed Maule, the most quotable man on earth...

-I thought the v3 rules for sheild droned did make sence.


-The Codex:Tau stated that the player taking fire assigns the hits to models..." When shooting at Tau units containing drones, hits must be allocated before rolling to wound.  All drones that can possibly be hit must have hits allocated to them before any are allocated to the rest of the unit "

-The drones take the hits of larger weapons and make thoes saves, but as a down side they only take a number of hits up to the quantity of drones in the unit, all other hits must be allocated to the suits (or what have you).  Hence the drone controller death removes drones rule.  On the point of artillery, the drone hovers over the unit (perhapse even ramming the incoming shell).  If in this case you roll more hits than there are drones the rest of the unit takes the hits(under their saves) representing chucks of debris (and drone parts ) hitting the unit.

-POINT: The rules seem not only logical, but fair (1 Crisis+ 1 Shield Drone take two LC hits...one 4+ inv is rolled and one 3+ is not rolled...drone saves, crisis pops, both removed).

-To the point of Ld from fire checks, they are also very good.  If you have ever been fired apon it sucks but when the soldier next to you is hit, you feel even more vulnerable.  In 40k, if you are taking enough heavy fire to lay waste to sheild drones it gives you the chance to reasses your possition.

-perhaps i was confused about the problem with that ruling.  I still play by that rule using old drone stats ignoring majority saves/toughness (a per model per hit basis).  Please do fill me in if this is very wrong or misconstrued in any way

Thank you and Good gaming to you

I'm still not seeing it.

If a broadside and two shield drones get hit, why is the broadside dead? My reading is that you put the shot where ever you like, as they are all T3, 2+ armor save models.

The "no save" rule kinda says that you remove models that don't get a save first. It's something noone plays by. It's not in the mixed armour section, it's in the remove casualties section and it shouldn't be there.

Drones don't suck if you play them properly. I'm not talking tactics, I'm talking rules wise. They are bad for moral, due to casualty moral checks and last man standing, but they're worth it. Better a chance of being alive (passing ld8) than dead. Also, BASS only fall back at half speed, due to counting as in terrain.

Freefall: I agree. The V3 rules did make sense, but now we're in V4 of the rules and there is a new codex so that whole section about drones being first removed is no longer in existence. Instead, we now have mixed armour and Toughness rules and the shield drone way around it is that they assume whatever Toughness and Save their controller has. Unfortuntely the rules are written in such a way as to leave us in the lurch in this situation.

Now, after a game tonight HonkeyBro and I got into a prety heated discussion about why I think the entire armour save rule section (including Mixed Armour) fails us horribly and why he thinks it works fine and dandy. Here's his argument:

Point 1: The mixed armour rules supercede the entire passage for taking saves not just the part about rolling them all together. So, we are to ignore the part about removing models that don't get a save first. Instead, we travel right to the mixed armour rules and hash it out from there.

Point 2: Since the rulebook tells us to refer to the mixed armour rules in the case of units containing multiple armour saves and invulnerable saves we must always use the mixed armour rules when shied drones are present. Remember, that because of his belief in Point 1 we skip right over removing models that don't get saves.

Point 3: Since the mixed armour section doesnt mention invulnerable saves as being in a seperate set we can simply assign the wounds to whomever we want. In this case the first wounds will always go to the shield drones and they may then make their invulnerable saves.

My argument was that that's sure wierd for the rulebook to tell us to use the mixed armour rules and then when we get there the rules actually tell us to lump all of them together anyways, but other than that I had no real solid argument against it.

So, I guess if no one can disprove the points above (which depend on each other to work) we can actually change the shield drones from completely useless to only slightly pointless.

Inv every game I played there was always a rule that kick in to kill the suit before the drones. Either a torrent of fire rule in the shooting or assault phase, a sniping of the controller or power fist on the independant character. In the end I was paying a lot of points for something that was not doing its job of protecting the suit. The only place I am thinking now of using shield drones is in a farsigth list.

I don't believe anyone can fundamentally disprove the rule that no-save models are removed first. (I wish they could.)

To play by the RAW in this case spoils the point of shield drones and ruins Broadsides as a unit. A major point of the Tau Empire codex was to reverse the nerfing of shield drones which led to them and Broadsides disappearing from the Tau armoury between late 2004 and mid-2006. With Broadsides gone, and Sniper Teams nerfed by the latest FAQ as well, Tau are back to only one Heavey Support choice.


"To calm down a bit though. I just have a hard time refering to anyone as a "crassly stupid idiot." "

Normally I would too, but GW is a multi-million dollar global corporation which has been developing its rules for 25 years. As they still make the same basic mistakes, it really does identify them as crassly stupid idiots. (I'm not saying I could do better, but I'm just a guy with a job and a family and some hobbies, not a multi-million dollar corporation with dozens of employees whose sole purpose is to make wargames rules.)

It took the USA about 25 years to go from early jet flight to landing an man on the moon. Surely fixing the shield drone problem is a bit easier than that?

"...to landing an man on the moon."

...or at least pretending to...

The tournament I'm going to has just ruled that 3+ and 3+/4+ aren't the same save. So unless you have more shield drones than crisis, you have to take a wound on the crisis. Sucks. Dropped my shield drones.

Holy crap! Honkey Bro was right! Everyone, start gathering animals and stock piling food! The apocalypse is nigh!

Check this out:

Page 76 BGB (mixed armour section). In the bottom left paragraph there is an example of a unit consisting of:
8 x 3+ save models
3 x no save models
1 x 2+ save model

The example tells us that the squad recieved 9 wounds and that the first 8 must be applied to the 3+ save models because they are in the majority. Then, the owning player can decide whether or not to take the last wound on the 2+ save model or the no-save models. If the 'no-save rule' kicked in before we went to the mixed armour section then there wouldn't be any no-save models left since they would have been removed first leaving 6 wounds to carry over.

So there it is. Scary, I know.

In the event of a shield drone and broadside taking a single lascannon wound the procedure is as follows (per RAW)
1. To determine which model takes the wound we are sent to the mixed armour section per the rulebook on the bottom right of page 25
2. We figure out which armor type is in the majority. Broadside = 2+ Shield Drone = 2+
3. With no majority the wound can be assigned to either model

The only argument to be made against is whether or not the invulnerable save somes into play when determining armor types. Apparently, the tournament onlainari spoke of has ruled that inv saves are used for determining that. That's a dangerous assumption though since there is really no way to solidly argue that a 4+ invulnerable is worse than a 2+ normal save or vice versa.

Would this also then apply to  a marine squad with an independant character with an invulnerable save? Welcome to the world of Lascannon snipers!!

Actually, I was making the point that (according to the mixed armour section) the lascannon can be applied to the invulnerable save model or the normal save model as long as both have the same armor save in their statline.

For example:
5 assault marines = 3+ save
1 chaplain = 3+ save with a rosarius 4+ inv

A single lascannon shot causes a wound on the squad. Since we use the mixed armour rules on page 76 over any of the other rules (including removing no-save models first) we determine that there is no majority (all 3+) and the owning player can decide whether or not to use his invulnerable save (and risk an insta-kill on his chaplian) or simply remove an assault marine.

Being a SM player, it was my understanding that, using the above example, I always had the option of taking a lascannon hit on my Chaplain...risking losing him but actually getting a save against the shot. The same logic can be applied to shield drones. I would let my Tau opponents take hits on their shield drones.

I think the mixed armor rules ONLY apply to regular saves. Tournaments that have Invulnerable saves counted as the calculation for mixed armor I think are breaking the rules. Thus the drones and broad should all have a 2+ regular save, making drones worth while. I'd simply not play a tournament where Inv. saves count as a part of the normal statline for mixed armor.

One other thing i'd gripe about is this, in the example the BBB gives,  pg 27 has a model saving against a shot and THEN removing models that don't receive a save from the weapon, meaning the makers of this game can't follow their own rules (removing models with no save first).

Next, to be REALLY technical (And avoid this whole malarchy) the rules state you remove models WITH NO ARMOR SAVES FIRST, this would be models that have a "-" in their armor entry.    Then you work out the armor relationship, if its mixed armor keep on going, by pg 76 rules, if not then you use the regular rules.   In this way all broadsides and drones have a 2+ armor save.

A broadside being shot by a lascannon DOES NOT technically mean the broadside has NO SAVE, it means that the broadside's armor is ineffective.  This is true however for the other drones since both the drones and the broadsides have a 2+ save when coupled with a broadside.  This means one of two things:

Either A: The broadside gets lumped togehter with the drones anyways because it still has a technical armor save, its just worthless (meaning broadside deoesn't get targeted first).  Allowing for the player to put the shot on the drones

OR B: The player could argue that both the broadside and the drones have no armor save against the lascannon.  This is also technically true because the drones and broadside have their armor rendered useless against a lascannon shot.   This allows the player again to decide which model will be selected.   Should the player chose to have the lascannon shot hit the drone THEN the invulnerable rules come into play.   Thus its a procedural issue.   You decide if the shot at first penetrates regular armor, in this case all models would be considered "with no armor save".   Pick a target to have the shot hit (All three would be viable targets) and player chooses a drone, THEN the invulnerable rule kicks in. 

Hope that works

ATIRage has stated the way people actually play it. Without this, Shield Drones have no function.

ATIRage: "Next, to be REALLY technical (And avoid this whole malarchy) the rules state you remove models WITH NO ARMOR SAVES FIRST, this would be models that have a "-" in their armor entry. Then you work out the armor relationship, if its mixed armor keep on going, by pg 76 rules, if not then you use the regular rules."

The point that I made above is that per the example given to us in the mixed armour section this is the incorrect way to play it. If your squad contains mixed armor or models that have invulnerable saves you follow the mixed armour rules and ignore the part about removing models with no save first.

No thats not what the rules state, from my read it only discusses invulnerable saves at the very end. It just assumes the calculation for armor saves based on just that, your natural armor saves (This of course means that drones and battlesuits would all have the same save, and the invulnerable would be the after the fact instance). In the one example it gives for invulnerable saves isn't even an example, it just says that "Of course if the model has an invulnerable save, it is at liberty to use it."

NO WHERE in the mixed armor rule does invulnerable save get lumped into the armor calculation for mixed armor.

IE it says count up the units with each type of armor
3+
4+

What you are assuming is that the invulnerable save counts as a classification of armor
3+/4+ in your interpretation is an armor class

However!!!!! this is not the case, my guess is that 40k players have simply gotten used to just noting their armor as x+/y+ for convenience to let people know what is and isn't invulnerable. HOWEVER, it is not in itself an armor classification to have an invulnerable save.

Thus under what I believe to be the correct interpretation
2+/5+
2+
2+/4+

all get one category of armor saves; 2+.

Let us also note that in the state lines for terminators in SM they all have listed one thing 2+. There is no 2+/(5+) in any of the entries, nor the state lines. This leads me to one possible conclusion, that the 2+/(5+) notation that we are used to seeing is purely out of convenience for the player to more quickly assess the invulnerable saves of units. Invulnerable saves are however, NOT an official type of armor save for the purposes of mixed armor rulings.

Posted By ATIRage on 08/28/2006 2:29 PM
I'd simply not play a tournament where Inv. saves count as a part of the normal statline for mixed armor.

I wish I had that luxury! Maybe I'll speak to him one on one during the tourny to see if he changes his mind for next year. As is, it's just screwed with my fluff, the competitiveness of the army hasn't really decreased (swapped a 169 crisis unit (one elite) for 2 77 crisis (two elites)).

ATIRage, the outcome of our argument is the same, but we are taking seperate paths to get there. The rules do in fact state that there is a difference between an invulnerable save and an armor save as listed on page 26 BGB last paragraph:

"Sometimes a unit will contain models with a mix of different Armour Saves and Invulnerable Saves. This complex situation is explained on pge 76..." Please recheck this as I'm going off memory at the moment.

So, with that in mind along with the example of thrall wizards still being around during step 4 (I think) of the mixed armour section we can eliminate the theory of no-save models being removed first when the unit contains a mixture of either armor types (like the ones found in the statline) or invulnerable saves. No one here is claiming that the statline reads 2+/5+ for anything except the tournament organizers that onlainari wrote of. However, a unit that contains one model with a 2+ and another model with a 2+ save and a 4+ invulnerable save are subject to the mixed armour rules. The great part is that once we get there they make no further mention of invulnerable saves (besides CC) so we're free to apply the wounds to either model. Also, since we skip right ahead to the mixed armour section we don't have to take wounds on models without a save since that would negate the entire mixed armour section anyways.

Hopefully, this makes sense, but I can try to explain it again if I need to.

 

Glaive:

I'm right with you. Playing that differing invulnerable saves (or cover saves that differ from the model's invulnerable save) use the mixed armor rules and count as a seperate armor type is by FAR the easiest way to handle this complex situation. 

The main problems with this solution are:

A) Most people don't play this way (they play that only armor determines mixed armor types, as the RAW seems to indicate in the mixed armor rules).

B) It makes the effectiveness of models with an invulnerable save within a unit that doesn't have an invulnerable save (like Shiled Drones) based entirely upon how many wounds the unit takes. If the unit doesn't take more wounds than it has models, the invulnerable save isn't going to be used.

 

ATI: The big "issue" with using only "armor" saves to determine mixed armor sets is that if there are differing invulnerable saves (and/or differing cover saves) within a single armor type "set" the mixed armor rules do not specify how to allocate the wounds between the differing invulnerable/cover saves. Most people just make something up to cover the situation but the rules don't cover it.

That, and the no-save "rule" on page 24 makes allocating a wound to a model with an invulnerable save pratically impossible.

 

There is simply no easy way out of this issue that will please everyone and is simple.

 

Actually, I think there is.

My theory is that Invulnerable Saves don't count as Armor Saves. Why? They're just not the same.

There are three types of saving throws: Armor, Invulnerable, and Cover. Each is different from the last. The only commonality is that they're saving throws. At least, that's how I read the rules. AP only negates Armor Saves, Invulnerable saves are usually a bit worse than Armor Saves and more expensive, and you can only get a Cover Save when you're in cover. Those are the key differences.

Keeping that in mind, processing the situation with Mixed Armor rules classifies both the Broadside and the Shield Drone as having a 2+ Armor Save, because that's what they have. The Shield Drone has a 4+ Invulnerable Save, but that shouldn't matter when determining types of Armor Saves. Therefore, you can apply the lascannon shot as you like among the unit, most likely assigning it to the Drone. The fluffy way of thinking about it is that the Drone dives in front of the shot - exactly as they're designed to work.

I also disagree that the Broadside should be counted as having no save. Kroot have no save. Broadsides always have a save, their save just doesn't matter in the face of a lascannon shot.

Yeah, I think I'm explaining my theory very badly. Basically what feuderache just said is what I've been trying to say in the last few posts. Here are the major points:

The 'no save rule' and the Mixed Armour rules are mutually exclusive. In other words we would only use the 'no save rule' if we were NOT using Mixed Armour. This is conveyesd to us by the sentence on page 24 that states "If the unit has models which have different armour types, see the Universal special rules section for the Mixed Armour rules (see page 76)."

Now at this point it still is not crystal clear that this sentence means to ignore the previous rules in the paragraph or not until we get to page 76 and begin reading those rules "... in these cases the normal casualty removal and Armour Save rules are modified slightly."

Even after reading that it can be argued either way because of the vague wording, but the clincher is that when we read further we notice that the example they use to illustrate point 4 actually uses models with no Armour save at all. They simply wouldn't still be there if we were using the 'no save rule.' So, that is how we get to the fact that if we are using the Mixed Armour rules we are not using the 'no save rule.'

So how does this help the poor broadside with a shield drone? The bottom right of page 25 reads "Sometimes a unit will contain a mix of different Armour Saves and Invulnerable Saves. This complex situation is explained on page 76. The broadside and shield drone are a unit with a mix of armour saves and invulnerable saves so we go to the Mixed Armour Section.

When determining who is in the majority we see that there is a model with a 2+ save and another model with a 2+ save creating one armor 'set.' There is no distincion made for models recieving invulnerable saves. Even when it specifically mentions invulnereble saves (in the CC section at the end) it still uses the majority armor type to determine who must be wounded first. Then, the models that recieve the wounds are free to make any invulnerable save they are allowed.

So to get back to the broadside and shield drone we can decide to place a lascannon shot on the shield drone (since both models are in the same armor 'set'), and the drone can make its invulnerable save against the shot.

To me, this appears to be an easy way to play that is also using the strict RAW interpretation. It doesn't happen often, but I believe the RAW has actually come through for us in this situation.

That's how my bro and I play, and honestly I feel like it is/should be the way others play, no sense in ripping tau players off.