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 would have thought you'd be rolling against the closest guy until he's dead then move on? One at a time however long that takes. That's closest to the rules in the lack of a specific example. I don't think I'd be happy with the invention of a 'majority save' rule on the basis that it's quite like another rule.

 screaminskull wrote:
I would have thought you'd be rolling against the closest guy until he's dead then move on? One at a time however long that takes. That's closest to the rules in the lack of a specific example. I don't think I'd be happy with the invention of a 'majority save' rule on the basis that it's quite like another rule.

You know that rolling 1 at a time makes no difference right? You roll to wound against units not models so even rolling 1 at a time means we still need to know the units save value. Also why are you rolling saves at the same step as rolling wounds? You need to do all rolls to wound first then go to the wound pool and apply LoS and saves as appropriate.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 screaminskull wrote:
I would have thought you'd be rolling against the closest guy until he's dead then move on? One at a time however long that takes. That's closest to the rules in the lack of a specific example. I don't think I'd be happy with the invention of a 'majority save' rule on the basis that it's quite like another rule.

You know that rolling 1 at a time makes no difference right? You roll to wound against units not models so even rolling 1 at a time means we still need to know the units save value. Also why are you rolling saves at the same step as rolling wounds? You need to do all rolls to wound first then go to the wound pool and apply LoS and saves as appropriate.

Indeed I do. I was merely offering my opinion. And in light of the fact that the rulebook contains no informaton on mixed saves in a unit opinion is the best your goin to get.

 screaminskull wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 screaminskull wrote:
I would have thought you'd be rolling against the closest guy until he's dead then move on? One at a time however long that takes. That's closest to the rules in the lack of a specific example. I don't think I'd be happy with the invention of a 'majority save' rule on the basis that it's quite like another rule.

You know that rolling 1 at a time makes no difference right? You roll to wound against units not models so even rolling 1 at a time means we still need to know the units save value. Also why are you rolling saves at the same step as rolling wounds? You need to do all rolls to wound first then go to the wound pool and apply LoS and saves as appropriate.

Indeed I do. I was merely offering my opinion. And in light of the fact that the rulebook contains no informaton on mixed saves in a unit opinion is the best your goin to get.

So we have 2 choices follow an existing process (the exact process the grav rule replaces) and break no rules, or invent an entirely new process and break several rules along the way. Most people go with the former.

So what's the confusion if it's as easy as that?

There wasn't any confusion. The OP explained the problem and people agreed to a solution, also agreeing that there is no RAW solution. Then the OP said thanks and moved on.

The confusion started after that.

In all honesty, how many times has this problem turned up? Is this not one of those situations when it´s just better to start roll every dice one at a time?

No, it really isnt better. Because it means you are wounding vs a UNIT based on a single model.

Again, fundamental disconnect. You roll to-wound against the UNIT. Not a specific model. This is absolutely clear and undeniable.

We have ONE metod for calculating the to-wound roll needed for a unit, and that is based on Majority Toughness

As we cannot explicitly use this method, general accepted practice is to break / make up as few rules as possible. Therefore replacing "Toughness" with "Save" throughout the rule satisfies this practice.

As does replacing "UNIT" with "MODEL"

 screaminskull wrote:
As does replacing "UNIT" with "MODEL"

Not really as you still have the issue of resolving saves and removing casualties which happen after ALL to wound rolls so in effect you are counting the nearest model as the save for the entire unit or you are inventing an entirely new process and breaking lots of rules.

 screaminskull wrote:
As does replacing "UNIT" with "MODEL"

Except that what nos is doing is bringing specific example in a codex to align with the BRB. Where you are attempting to change the BRB to align with a specific example in a codex. Now when in conflict the codex wins out, except this isn't a conflict. So it breaks less rules to align the codex to the BRB.

Aye ok. I'm convinced. We'll try majority save next time. It comes up a fair bit in our games as there are various artificer armoured characters in command squads etc.

I don't see how following the guidelines for majority T is a good solution - it is a house rule at best.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't see how following the guidelines for majority T is a good solution - it is a house rule at best.

Aye it is - but so is any other solution. We've been playing roll to wound against the closest model first, fully resolving that - including fnp and look out sir - and moving on. Works fine and doesn't take that long whatever some folks think. I was against the majority toughness thing but I'm going to give it a try.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't see how following the guidelines for majority T is a good solution - it is a house rule at best.

Do you have a better solution? There is no RaW solution, so you're stuck with a Houserule or agreeing RaI. The majority toughness rule is not only by far the most likely RaI but also a house rule that breaks by far the least rules. What is your better solution?

I say the best armor save e.g., 2+ vs 3+). As per using using the highest toughness as it's the best too.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I say the best armor save e.g., 2+ vs 3+). As per using using the highest toughness as it's the best too.

So you solve the problem of having to make up a house rule by making a further house rule?

Which model was closest? 2+ or 3+? I personally would of have him roll the amount of hits equal to the amount of wounds for the closest character and have those hits wound on that models save. If the model take. Any wounds afterwards but is still alive, the attacker would lower the amount of to hit rolls, until model 1 Is dead. Once model one fails and is dead, model 2 and his armor save are then used until all successful hit rolls have been rolled to wound.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Which model was closest? 2+ or 3+? I personally would of have him roll the amount of hits equal to the amount of wounds for the closest character and have those hits wound on that models save. If the model take. Any wounds afterwards but is still alive, the attacker would lower the amount of to hit rolls, until model 1 Is dead. Once model one fails and is dead, model 2 and his armor save are then used until all successful hit rolls have been rolled to wound.

So not only are you inventing a roll to wound against a model, but are also breaking the rules for when rolls to wound are made, inventing a hit allocation method, breaking the rules for wound allocation, saves and casualty removal. I mean how/when do you even resolve LoS as that is triggered by wound allocation which is something your process bypasses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I say the best armor save e.g., 2+ vs 3+). As per using using the highest toughness as it's the best too.

Did you just say that doing this was a houserule at best and claimed it was a bad idea?

I think we've been playing it like armour penetration rolls against a squadron.