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.

Hi all, I thought the answers to these are common knowledge but I played T'au vs T'au in a small local tournament today against the TO and he had some surprising views on how savior protocols and markerlights work. Please let me know if I was wrong in my interpretation, being vs the TO who has more local clout I backed down instead of dragging on the discussion.

Savior protocols: He said that if I fail the roll for allocating to a drone, the target unit does not get a save. I don't see any wording about skipping the save step that follows the allocation step, obviously the drones don't save vs mortal wounds but the battlesuit should imo.

Markerlights: He said that a hit with a markerlight doesn't count until the unit has finished ALL of it's attacks. So my fire warriors don't benefit from their shas'ui firing first with a ML. I thought it was good practice to shoot ML one at a time to ensure full benefits.

I've sent these questions to the FAQ team, they probably should have been in our codex errata already.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
Hi all, I thought the answers to these are common knowledge but I played T'au vs T'au in a small local tournament today against the TO and he had some surprising views on how savior protocols and markerlights work. Please let me know if I was wrong in my interpretation, being vs the TO who has more local clout I backed down instead of dragging on the discussion.

Savior protocols: He said that if I fail the roll for allocating to a drone, the target unit does not get a save. I don't see any wording about skipping the save step that follows the allocation step, obviously the drones don't save vs mortal wounds but the battlesuit should imo.

Markerlights: He said that a hit with a markerlight doesn't count until the unit has finished ALL of it's attacks. So my fire warriors don't benefit from their shas'ui firing first with a ML. I thought it was good practice to shoot ML one at a time to ensure full benefits.

I've sent these questions to the FAQ team, they probably should have been in our codex errata already.

So, both of his "interpretations" are flat out incorrect. Saviour Protocols is an extra step after you've been wounded but before rolling to save. If Saviour Protocols doesn't pass, you continue on and do the save rolls, damage rolls etc. as normal. Markerlights can 100% be fired first to try and benefit the firing unit. The rules literally require you to make each models shots one at a time. Once the markerlight hits, it's hit and thus the unit has a markerlight token on it. Neither of these need an FAQ because the rules are literally explicit in how they work.

Simply put, if someone claims "The rule says X", ask them to show you where it says X.

The TO shouldn't be a TO. He is just wrong on both of those rules.

Thank you both! He did read it out but didn't change conclusion then got backed up by the next table over. :Sighs through forehead slit:

 quickfuze wrote:
The TO shouldn't be a TO. He is just wrong on both of those rules.

If they are house rules, then the TO is not wrong on both of those rules. and he can be a TO just fine.

We talked through it the next day when the tensions of the event were not so present and he came around to the common interpretation.

Both interpretations were flat out wrong, agreed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
The TO shouldn't be a TO. He is just wrong on both of those rules.

If they are house rules, then the TO is not wrong on both of those rules. and he can be a TO just fine.

Except that they don't appear to be houserules, they appear to be a flatly wrong interpretation of the rules.

And, unless the houserules are included in the tournament info, they shouldn't apply.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
The TO shouldn't be a TO. He is just wrong on both of those rules.

If they are house rules, then the TO is not wrong on both of those rules. and he can be a TO just fine.

Except that they don't appear to be houserules, they appear to be a flatly wrong interpretation of the rules.

And, unless the houserules are included in the tournament info, they shouldn't apply.

You cant really know if they are houserules or not unless you ask the TO in question.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You cant really know if they are houserules or not unless you ask the TO in question.

Any houserules used by a tournament should be included in the tournament information.

Otherwise, people can't plan around them. While it's fine to keep some things (like the exact missions used, or whatnot) hidden till the day of, basic rules should NOT be kept hidden.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You cant really know if they are houserules or not unless you ask the TO in question.

Any houserules used by a tournament should be included in the tournament information.

Otherwise, people can't plan around them. While it's fine to keep some things (like the exact missions used, or whatnot) hidden till the day of, basic rules should NOT be kept hidden.

Of course they should, I never said otherwise.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You cant really know if they are houserules or not unless you ask the TO in question.

Any houserules used by a tournament should be included in the tournament information.

Otherwise, people can't plan around them. While it's fine to keep some things (like the exact missions used, or whatnot) hidden till the day of, basic rules should NOT be kept hidden.

Of course they should, I never said otherwise.

And if they aren't they aren't in effect period even if he normally plays. And if they were OP would have seen them there.

tneva82 wrote:


And if they aren't they aren't in effect period even if he normally plays. And if they were OP would have seen them there.

Incorrect, they can be in effect. Some TO's have houserules and do not use a info pack.

This conversation seems to have become rather circular.