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.

I couldn't find this in the rulebook. Suppose you target your grav weapons at an enemy unit consisting of one model with a 2+ armor save and one model with a 3+ armor save. Do you wound on a roll of 2+ or 3+?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Do you wound on a roll of 2+ or 3+?

Yes, probably.

Looks like something else that needs an FAQ.

Unknown. How graviton weapons work against mixed saves has never been clarified by GW. The general consensus has been to use "majority saves", but of course that doesn't provide any guidance here (since, in the case of ties, majority toughness tells you to take the "highest" toughness... what does that imply in this case? 2+ is normally the "better" of the two, except in this specific case).

As wounds are allocated to the closest model, I would suggest rolling each shot separately based upon the closest model. Just pretend each one is a different group of weapons.

 DanielBeaver wrote:
Unknown. How graviton weapons work against mixed saves has never been clarified by GW. The general consensus has been to use "majority saves", but of course that doesn't provide any guidance here (since, in the case of ties, majority toughness tells you to take the "highest" toughness... what does that imply in this case? 2+ is normally the "better" of the two, except in this specific case).

The 3+, as that gives the same benefit as the higher toughness would to another weapon

The idea would be to take the one more beneficial to the defender, in the event of a tie. In the spirit of the ruling, it seems to be this. But depends on your opponent and your levels of pedantism when interpreting rules.

 milkboy wrote:
But depends on your opponent and your levels of pedantism when interpreting rules.

'Pedantism' doesn't enter into it, since there is no rule to interpret in this situation.

 insaniak wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
But depends on your opponent and your levels of pedantism when interpreting rules.

'Pedantism' doesn't enter into it, since there is no rule to interpret in this situation.

That's why pedantic. Because a detailed rule is required.

Seeing the enemy squad would get a 2+ save (versus AP3 or higher) doesn't that merit wounding them on a 2+ ?

I think what saves they get should be independant of whether it is easier or harder to wound them. In the mixed toughness example, saves were not mentioned.

By the example of mixed toughness, it is reasonable to assume the advantage goes to the defender in ties. However, as mentioned, there are not detailed rules governing this unfortunately.

No, as you aren't giving them the benefit of the better value. Withequal toughness you gain the benefits of the better value to wound against, same principle should apply here

Not necessarily by any means. That's your opinion. Grav works differently than conventional ranged weapons.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Not necessarily by any means. That's your opinion. Grav works differently than conventional ranged weapons.

One has some rules support, and is consistent. The other isnt

It's not real support IMO .

Benefit to the defender, has precedent with Toughness.

3+, now it needs an FAQ, but its consistent with established precedent in a very similar situation.

Precedent says use the higher value (note that multiple Toughness does not say better value, but higher value). 3 is higher than 2. Therefore precedent says 3+.

Would be a wound pool that changes depending on target.
Would roll individually until first target dead and then change for the next target (same weapon profile!). Best I could do to use the rule as written.

 Happyjew wrote:
Precedent says use the higher value (note that multiple Toughness does not say better value, but higher value). 3 is higher than 2. Therefore precedent says 3+.

The problem here is you are trying to equate apples with oranges . It is not a direct correlation .

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Precedent says use the higher value (note that multiple Toughness does not say better value, but higher value). 3 is higher than 2. Therefore precedent says 3+.

The problem here is you are trying to equate apples with oranges . It is not a direct correlation .

Yet uses an existing method, as opposed to making up an entirely new method

That I concur with .

 Talizvar wrote:
Would be a wound pool that changes depending on target.
Would roll individually until first target dead and then change for the next target (same weapon profile!). Best I could do to use the rule as written.

Pretty sure this is how it would work there is no need for a faq pretty much.

Say you have 4 Grav hits and 2 models one with 2+ , one w/ 3+.

You allocate the 1st hit to the 3+, he rolls to wound versus that
You allocate the 2nd hit again and so on.


There's no need to actually need a faq.

Hollismason wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Would be a wound pool that changes depending on target.
Would roll individually until first target dead and then change for the next target (same weapon profile!). Best I could do to use the rule as written.

Pretty sure this is how it would work there is no need for a faq pretty much.

Say you have 4 Grav hits and 2 models one with 2+ , one w/ 3+.

You allocate the 1st hit to the 3+, he rolls to wound versus that
You allocate the 2nd hit again and so on.


There's no need to actually need a faq.

Nothing about the grav rules lets you make hit pools as opposed to wound pools

I may have gotten that backwards then or something.

- edited -

I would definitely play it 3+, since it preserves the spirit of the existing rule (using the value that is better than the defender). As for how it's ACTUALLY supposed to work, who the hell knows.

I think that the closest thing we have to this situation is what happens in normal shooting, where the dead-tie will benefit the target, not the shooter. In absence of any clearer rules, I'd take that as a precedent to use 3+ as the value needed to wound.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Would be a wound pool that changes depending on target.
Would roll individually until first target dead and then change for the next target (same weapon profile!). Best I could do to use the rule as written.

Pretty sure this is how it would work there is no need for a faq pretty much.

Say you have 4 Grav hits and 2 models one with 2+ , one w/ 3+.

You allocate the 1st hit to the 3+, he rolls to wound versus that
You allocate the 2nd hit again and so on.


There's no need to actually need a faq.

^ This !

Thanks !

So you're making up an entirely new rule - hit pools- how?

And why do you bother, when an existing method can be used?

Using the Majority Toughness system is so much simpler.
It's already in place, and works well.

Allocating hits is a hassle, can't roll them together.

Actually I've had this situation kind of come up specifically with Burning Chariots and Slaanesh chariots.

I get to allocate where the hits go correct?

Well the problem is each model in that unit has a different profile. So they'd roll to wound the Herald that has no save but a invulnerable only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Would be a wound pool that changes depending on target.
Would roll individually until first target dead and then change for the next target (same weapon profile!). Best I could do to use the rule as written.

Pretty sure this is how it would work there is no need for a faq pretty much.

Say you have 4 Grav hits and 2 models one with 2+ , one w/ 3+.

You allocate the 1st hit to the 3+, he rolls to wound versus that
You allocate the 2nd hit again and so on.


There's no need to actually need a faq.

^ This !

Thanks !

So you're making up an entirely new rule - hit pools- how?

And why do you bother, when an existing method can be used?

There's nothing in the rules that says you have to roll all of the dice at once I don't think, plus it's the most fair method?

I play Grav weapons, and I'd play it so the tie goes to the defender, as it were. It should be looked at just like majority toughness to wound, which defaults to the higher toughness. It should then translate to being harder to wound with the Grav weapons as well, making it the 3+.

I don't have my rulebook with me right now, but I believe Grav weapon rules state that you use the "highest" armor save, not the "best". If memory served me correct, then the rules literally tell you which number to use.