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,

Don't know if this a standard knowledge or not, but I am reading through the savior protocols rule of the T'au drones.

"If an infantry or battlesuit unit within 3" of a drone is wounded by an enemy attack, roll a d6. On a 2+ you can allocate the wound to the drone instead of the target. If you do, the Drone suffer 1 MW instead of normal damage."

What is "wounded" in this scenario? Is it rolling a succesful roll to wound, or is it not saving said wound and suffering an actual wound?

Example: A Riptide is the target of a unit ofa heavy bolter. HB unit scores 2 hits and 1 wound.

Scenario A: The Riptide rolls its armor/invul save for the wound. If it makes it, all is good. If it loses it, a drone can suck it up on a 2+.
Scenario B: The drone takes one for the team on a 2+. If a 1 is rolled, the riptide needs to roll its armor save.

Which scenario is true?

It's B.

You have to choose to use it before making an armour save for the riptide.

Additional info:
As the drone takes it as a mortal wound, it does not get it's armour save. Shield Drones do get their 5+ roll to ignore it though.

Also remember mortal wounds are all separate attacks. So if you're hit with a 3 damage Smite, that's 3 separate saviour rolls, for potentially 3 dead drones.

Just had this rules debate with a friend. It is all sucessful wound rolls not failed saving rolls. Meaning, you decide if you want to put the wounds on the drone before you roll saves. Also, if you have 5 separate wound rolls and only one drone, do them one at a time. If the drone dies on the first wound roll, the rest go on the crisis suit (or whatever you're trying to save)

As above.

If you've rolled for riptide's armor/invul save, then you've started the "Saving Throw" step of "Resolving Attack" step of the phase.

Savior protocol comes into effect when a wound is assigned to a model, which is a step prior to "Saving Throw" phase.

That's good and bad at the same time for the T'au player. It's bad because he can't get to save twice. But then a drone can suck up a whole lascannon wound before the d6 wounds happen and just suffer a single MW, which it can also save on a 5++...

topaxygouroun i wrote:
That's good and bad at the same time for the T'au player. It's bad because he can't get to save twice. But then a drone can suck up a whole lascannon wound before the d6 wounds happen and just suffer a single MW, which it can also save on a 5++...

That's actually precisely what savior protocol is for... If you were to roll for each unsaved wound, that would mean you have to roll for savior protocol 6 times against a 6D wound.

Note that shield drones can attempt to save the MW it takes on a successful savior protocol roll.

 skchsan wrote:


Note that shield drones can attempt to save the MW it takes on a successful savior protocol roll.

The above is incorrect.

You can not make save rolls (armor or invuln) for Mortal Wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


Note that shield drones can attempt to save the MW it takes on a successful savior protocol roll.

The above is incorrect.

You can not make save rolls (armor or invuln) for Mortal Wounds.

They’re not. They have an ‘ignores Wounds’ rule. So they can do as described.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


Note that shield drones can attempt to save the MW it takes on a successful savior protocol roll.

The above is incorrect.

You can not make save rolls (armor or invuln) for Mortal Wounds.

They’re not. They have an ‘ignores Wounds’ rule. So they can do as described.

"Ignore Wounds" is not a save. DeathReaper is correct in asserting you cannot take saves against mortal wounds.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


Note that shield drones can attempt to save the MW it takes on a successful savior protocol roll.

The above is incorrect.

You can not make save rolls (armor or invuln) for Mortal Wounds.

They’re not. They have an ‘ignores Wounds’ rule. So they can do as described.

Anything that is an 'ignores Wounds’ rule is not a save roll.

They can not do as described, as he said "Note that shield drones can attempt to save the MW..." Which is blatantly incorrect. Shield drones can not attempt to save the Mortal Wounds, they can use their 'ignores Wounds’ rule against it though.

Important distinction.

On a second read, you'll see that I said the 'MW transfered to the drone via successful savior protocols roll' can be mitigated once again - which was the concern of the OP's second post. It doesnt say savior protocol saves the drone against mortal wound.

There's no reason to mope about riptide being unable to roll save and then transfer the unsaved wound since the option to convert whatever damage into a single MW and then try and ignore it is the better option.

Everyone knows MW cant be "saved". It should be obvious when someone refers to a MW being "saved" means using Ignore wound mechanism.

Stop trying to derail the discussion with petty technicalities.

 skchsan wrote:
On a second read, you'll see that I said the 'MW transfered to the drone via successful savior protocols roll' can be mitigated once again - which was the concern of the OP's second post. It doesnt say savior protocol saves the drone against mortal wound.

There's no reason to mope about riptide being unable to roll save and then transfer the unsaved wound since the option to convert whatever damage into a single MW and then try and ignore it is the better option.

Everyone knows MW cant be "saved". It should be obvious when someone refers to a MW being "saved" means using Ignore wound mechanism.

Stop trying to derail the discussion with petty technicalities.

It is not a "petty technicality"

It is an important distinction. Especially for those that are newer to the game or do not have English as their first language.

Stating:

 skchsan wrote:
Note that shield drones can attempt to save the MW it takes on a successful savior protocol roll.

Could confuse people into thinking they "can attempt to save the MW" (MW meaning Mortal Wound). Which is clearly incorrect.

Threfore it is not being petty, it is being thorough because not everyone is experienced with 40K and not everyone has English as their primary language. Stating something as blatantly incorrect as what you did never helps.

You are being pretty petty though...

Yeah, in game terms it's not a save. In colloquial English it is. We get it, move on.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


Note that shield drones can attempt to save the MW it takes on a successful savior protocol roll.

The above is incorrect.

You can not make save rolls (armor or invuln) for Mortal Wounds.

They’re not. They have an ‘ignores Wounds’ rule. So they can do as described.

"Ignore Wounds" is not a save. DeathReaper is correct in asserting you cannot take saves against mortal wounds.

But wrong about the functional issue presented.

Wording nitpicks are great and all but it didn’t need 19 more posts in this thread. If he’d said “it’s not a save but you can ignore the wounds”, fine, but he just said “wrong”, implying the whole thing wasn’t possible and thereby being misleading for the sake of a well ackshually.

Sometimes being polite and accurate is useful when trying to correct accuracy. Just saying “WRONG” adds nothing. The effect being described was correct. If one of the words used was wrong mention that, don’t just post as if it was 100% wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
You are being pretty petty though...

Yeah, in game terms it's not a save. In colloquial English it is. We get it, move on.

Indeed. One post suggesting amended wording was warranted, not all this.

 Stux wrote:
You are being pretty petty though...

Yeah, in game terms it's not a save. In colloquial English it is. We get it, move on.

I am not "being pretty petty though" I am posting correct rules so people do not get confused.

and I have moved on. We all know (now) that a save is something very specific in game terms.

His post had an error, i corrected it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You are being pretty petty though...

Yeah, in game terms it's not a save. In colloquial English it is. We get it, move on.

I am not "being pretty petty though" I am posting correct rules so people do not get confused.

and I have moved on. We all know (now) that a save is something very specific in game terms.

His post had an error, i corrected it.

No, you confused matters by correcting in an incomplete way, and are then being obtuse about it under the pretence of technicality. Which is petty.

Seems we are done here.