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.

col_impact wrote:
But is there any solid reason not to play RAW? That would mean rolling 1 die at a time and dealing with each model one at at a time.

Because that is not RAW. The rules as they are written do not cover a unit with different saves characteristics.

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:
But is there any solid reason not to play RAW? That would mean rolling 1 die at a time and dealing with each model one at at a time.

Because that is not RAW. The rules as they are written do not cover a unit with different saves characteristics.

True. Consider what I propose an alternate way of implementing a House Rule then (House Rule = "don't take short cuts when its unclear or simply does not work the normal way, do things one at a time to avoid problems"). What principle are we following to choose one House Rule over another?

One is based on precedent.

When rolling To Wound against Toughness you use majority Toughness (except with Artillery that still has guns).

In the past GW ruled that when rolling To Wound against Leadership, you use majority Leadership.

GW has a history of ruling "use the majority" for units composed of differing values. Why not use the exact same method when rolling to wound against the save characteristic?

If you resolve the hits one at a tine that makes no difference because to wound rolls are made against UNITS not models. So resolving 1 at a time against the nearest model still makes no difference as we still use the armour save of the UNIT. So you can invent hit allocation and invent a roll to wound against a model based on its characteristics.

Or you can following the existing process for how to wound against mixed units (and in this case artillery). One process requires inventing 2 entirely new processes the other uses the existing processes and just allows Grav to modify that process in ways it directly tells us to.

 Happyjew wrote:
One is based on precedent.

When rolling To Wound against Toughness you use majority Toughness (except with Artillery that still has guns).

In the past GW ruled that when rolling To Wound against Leadership, you use majority Leadership.

GW has a history of ruling "use the majority" for units composed of differing values. Why not use the exact same method when rolling to wound against the save characteristic?

Is the Wound against majority leadership a current rule in effect somewhere, or are we talking past as in 4th edition?

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
One is based on precedent.

When rolling To Wound against Toughness you use majority Toughness (except with Artillery that still has guns).

In the past GW ruled that when rolling To Wound against Leadership, you use majority Leadership.

GW has a history of ruling "use the majority" for units composed of differing values. Why not use the exact same method when rolling to wound against the save characteristic?

Is the Wound against majority leadership a current rule in effect somewhere, or are we talking past as in 4th edition?

Sorry my bad the questions I was thinking of were regarding Instant Death (which GW ruled use Leadership). Not wounding.