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.

Hey Dakka,

I'll get right to it:

1) Can grav weaponry wound models with no armor save?
eg) Chaos spawn, Harlequins, Eldar Psykers

2) How would rolling to wound a unit with mixed armor saves work?
eg) Phoenix Lord (armor save = 2+) with Harlequins (armor save = - )

3) In the case of Q#2, does closest model or majority even matter?

1. Models with no armour are wounded on a 6+.

2. RAW does not cover it. There are two schools of thought. One says to resolve each hit one at a time, rolling to wound against the closest model. The other school, is you treat it like rolling against Toughness or Leadership, majority, in case of a tie, you use higher number (so a 4+ and a 5+ are wounded on 5+).

Figured the subject of #2 would be divided.

Thanks for clearing up #1 Happyjew.

HIWP, roll against the majority save, wotherwise it takes too long.

I use the precedent of mixed toughness units to work out mixed armour.
It seems the logical way to resolve the situation.

 Happyjew wrote:
2. RAW does not cover it. There are two schools of thought. One says to resolve each hit one at a time, rolling to wound against the closest model. The other school, is you treat it like rolling against Toughness or Leadership, majority, in case of a tie, you use higher number (so a 4+ and a 5+ are wounded on 5+).

I've heard a 3rd, less popular theory on how to handle this. You would roll against the closest model in the target unit's armor save to generate wounds, then put them in the wound pool as normal. The basis for this is that the rule is suposed to replace to normal roll to wound and is resolved against the armor save of "the target", and in this logic "the target" is represented by the closest model like it is for checking range. Not HIWPI nor do I think its supported by RAW just thought I'd share what I've heard others do.

Not at all supported by RAW, as the target is explicitly the unit, not an individual model.

Does the wounding of the target with Grav-Guns not happen at the Wounding step of the shooting phase, so Strength V Toughness - and therefore use the mixed toughness rule (even if the origin of the roll is from the Save characteristic, the roll itself is within said step of the phase)
Only the next step (allocating wounds) starts mentioning "closest model".

 marv335 wrote:
I use the precedent of mixed toughness units to work out mixed armour.
It seems the logical way to resolve the situation.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Does the wounding of the target with Grav-Guns not happen at the Wounding step of the shooting phase, so Strength V Toughness - and therefore use the mixed toughness rule (even if the origin of the roll is from the Save characteristic, the roll itself is within said step of the phase)
Only the next step (allocating wounds) starts mentioning "closest model".

 marv335 wrote:
I use the precedent of mixed toughness units to work out mixed armour.
It seems the logical way to resolve the situation.

this is why opinion is divided.

there is nothing the in the RAW to tell you what to do in this situation.

as the weapon's roll to wound is = to the models saving throw, one camp says to resolve each individually based on the model that you are currently at in the chain, since you take wounds from the nearest model to the shooting unit, resolving each hit in a mixed save unit can change the impact the rolls make to the unit itself, prompting single hit resolution.

(I personally think this is the correct way to play it)

the other camp, wants to utilise the majority saving throw, which also has credence in that when we regularly do a to wound roll and we have a mixed toughness unit we use the majority toughness.

I think this is wrong on the basis that to do so you are not using the grav gun's effect as intended since it requires the wound roll being the saving throw of the model.

for example; a space marine in artificer armour (2+) is tanking shots, he is with a command squad (3+), obviously the majority save is a 3+, which would grant the commander a better survival rate vs grav guns that he would normally be entitled to, going from 5/6 shots wounding to 2/3 wounding.

I understand both sides, but surely that is the same "problem" as a unit of T3 models joined by a single T6 character?

When you fire at that unit with Boltguns (say 10 marines at RF), is that not 20 3+ rolls? The phase 4 (i think) of the shooting phase plays by majority.
Only when you reach wound allocation from the pool does the "closest model" part come in play.

I'm interested in this as the perfect example is Sister Repentia: 9 Models with no save (6+ on Grav) with a power armoured sergeant.

that's the point, the grav gun actually specifies that its on a model by model basis, it calls out the models armour save in the entry.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
that's the point, the grav gun actually specifies that its on a model by model basis, it calls out the models armour save in the entry.

Ah i see, the Grav Rule overriding BrB basically?

And then, how do you LoS on a wound allocated to my example's sergeant? Because LoS is after Rolling to wound. do you roll to wound after LoS is perfomed? (how do you work it basically)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll repost the example with specifications in case:

3 repentia are closest, then the sergeant, then the other 6 repentia. You hit with 10 Grav shots. (No armour on repentia, 3+ power armour for sergeant)

 nutty_nutter wrote:
that's the point, the grav gun actually specifies that its on a model by model basis, it calls out the models armour save in the entry.

No, it specifies that you wound vs the models armour save. It stilld oes not alter that the rules are you roll to wound against the unit

There is no overrule of the BRB here, and therefore there is little support for creating 2 new rules (that you roll to wound against an individual model, AND that you determine which mdoel you are rolling to wound against using the wound allocation rules) , never midn the fact it means that you have now created a situation wher eyou cannot resolve Grav weapons mixed with non-grav weapons (see: any grav bike unit joined by an IC)

The more elegant, requires *less* making up of rules (just the one, and that at least has support from other unusual weapons thtat wound vs tougness) which is that you roll to wound against majority save. This handily also allows mixed untis to function.

I'm not saying your method is wrong, just it seems a less supportable choice, given it requires making up more rules, causes mixed units to fail to function at all well, and ignores other similar weaponry

 nutty_nutter wrote:


this is why opinion is divided.

there is nothing the in the RAW to tell you what to do in this situation.

as the weapon's roll to wound is = to the models saving throw, one camp says to resolve each individually based on the model that you are currently at in the chain, since you take wounds from the nearest model to the shooting unit, resolving each hit in a mixed save unit can change the impact the rolls make to the unit itself, prompting single hit resolution.

(I personally think this is the correct way to play it)

the other camp, wants to utilise the majority saving throw, which also has credence in that when we regularly do a to wound roll and we have a mixed toughness unit we use the majority toughness.

I think this is wrong on the basis that to do so you are not using the grav gun's effect as intended since it requires the wound roll being the saving throw of the model.

for example; a space marine in artificer armour (2+) is tanking shots, he is with a command squad (3+), obviously the majority save is a 3+, which would grant the commander a better survival rate vs grav guns that he would normally be entitled to, going from 5/6 shots wounding to 2/3 wounding.

I think most people would agree that the grav gun rule is pretty badly worded from the things people try to pull with it.

- Ignores cover and saves on vehicles

- Doesn't wound a majority toughness

- Deals 3 damage to a vehicle with 2 6s.


That's what I've seen and someone has tried to use all 3 on me.

sonicaucie wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:


this is why opinion is divided.

there is nothing the in the RAW to tell you what to do in this situation.

as the weapon's roll to wound is = to the models saving throw, one camp says to resolve each individually based on the model that you are currently at in the chain, since you take wounds from the nearest model to the shooting unit, resolving each hit in a mixed save unit can change the impact the rolls make to the unit itself, prompting single hit resolution.

(I personally think this is the correct way to play it)

the other camp, wants to utilise the majority saving throw, which also has credence in that when we regularly do a to wound roll and we have a mixed toughness unit we use the majority toughness.

I think this is wrong on the basis that to do so you are not using the grav gun's effect as intended since it requires the wound roll being the saving throw of the model.

for example; a space marine in artificer armour (2+) is tanking shots, he is with a command squad (3+), obviously the majority save is a 3+, which would grant the commander a better survival rate vs grav guns that he would normally be entitled to, going from 5/6 shots wounding to 2/3 wounding.

I think most people would agree that the grav gun rule is pretty badly worded from the things people try to pull with it.

- Ignores cover and saves on vehicles

- Doesn't wound a majority toughness

- Deals 3 damage to a vehicle with 2 6s.


That's what I've seen and someone has tried to use all 3 on me.

Although as Nutty pointed out and the purpose of this thread:

- Doesn't wound a majority toughness

Is still debatable... I think the rules for 4.Roll to Wound apply, but it is more of an assumption than RaW

I personally believe that to diverge from a precedent or standard ruleset, there must be an explicit exception made.

The grav gun rule doesn't state anything on the subject, so my natural instinct would be to bring it back as close to the normal wounding mechanics as possibe. Otherwise we're choosing arbitrarily.

sonicaucie wrote:
- Deals 3 damage to a vehicle with 2 6s.

Of all the grey areas in the Graviton rule, this is the most black and white.
There's no other reasonable way to interpret it.

sonicaucie wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:


this is why opinion is divided.

there is nothing the in the RAW to tell you what to do in this situation.

as the weapon's roll to wound is = to the models saving throw, one camp says to resolve each individually based on the model that you are currently at in the chain, since you take wounds from the nearest model to the shooting unit, resolving each hit in a mixed save unit can change the impact the rolls make to the unit itself, prompting single hit resolution.

(I personally think this is the correct way to play it)

the other camp, wants to utilise the majority saving throw, which also has credence in that when we regularly do a to wound roll and we have a mixed toughness unit we use the majority toughness.

I think this is wrong on the basis that to do so you are not using the grav gun's effect as intended since it requires the wound roll being the saving throw of the model.

for example; a space marine in artificer armour (2+) is tanking shots, he is with a command squad (3+), obviously the majority save is a 3+, which would grant the commander a better survival rate vs grav guns that he would normally be entitled to, going from 5/6 shots wounding to 2/3 wounding.

I think most people would agree that the grav gun rule is pretty badly worded from the things people try to pull with it.

- Ignores cover and saves on vehicles

- Doesn't wound a majority toughness

- Deals 3 damage to a vehicle with 2 6s.


That's what I've seen and someone has tried to use all 3 on me.

yea...only all three of your examples are actually how they function at present.

rigeld2 wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
- Deals 3 damage to a vehicle with 2 6s.

Of all the grey areas in the Graviton rule, this is the most black and white.
There's no other reasonable way to interpret it.

Wouldn't this FAQ fix it?

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

back on topic however, I can see the point your making with the mixed units and even gravturians have a secondary weapon they can fire.

neither of the given examples really sit well within the confines of either the wound allocation or the grav weapons rules. until such a time I would suggest talking it over with your opponents before the game so your both on the same page.

sonicaucie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
- Deals 3 damage to a vehicle with 2 6s.

Of all the grey areas in the Graviton rule, this is the most black and white.
There's no other reasonable way to interpret it.

Wouldn't this FAQ fix it?

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

Nope. Because the you're failing to understand why you lose 3 HP.
1st 6 - Graviton causes a HP and an Immobilize. The FAQ doesn't penalize you another HP.
2nd 6 - Graviton causes a HP and an Immobilize. Since you're already Immobilized, you instead take another HP. That's 3 HP and an Immobilize. The FAQ never enters the fact.

sonicaucie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
- Deals 3 damage to a vehicle with 2 6s.

Of all the grey areas in the Graviton rule, this is the most black and white.
There's no other reasonable way to interpret it.

Wouldn't this FAQ fix it?

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

nope, since grav weapons specify that if you are imobalized you loose an aditional hull point in addition to the one you would normally loose. one 6 = imobalised and one hull point, second 6 2 points since your already imobalised. you have your specified 'other effect'

Nutty, acording to your interpretation, how do you roll for the example?:

 BlackTalos wrote:

3 repentia are closest, then the sergeant, then the other 6 repentia. You hit with 10 Grav shots. (No armour on repentia, 3+ power armour for sergeant)

Assuming you roll about 4 6s on your to Wound rolls.

it would depend on the order those 6's arise.

in a normal situation of dealing with toughness values and strength values we know where we stand so you can happily roll away and then start taking models away based on casualties.

we aren't dealing with S or T values, just SV values, the grav weapon doesn't even have a S value, it has a rule that tells you what you need to wound.

as such if I have 10 hits, in the example given I roll 3 dice, for each 6 rolled remove a sister (or take cover saves and remove casualties) then continue until the 3 are dead.

once you hit the sergeant, roll any look out sirs that you wish to make (since you now do those before the rolls to wound take place as per the BRB FAQ) any failed are then rolled vs the sergeant one at a time until there are either non left or she died. then roll the rest and resolve any wounds caused.

I realise that this method is out of sequence, but it does satisfy the grav weapons criteria of rolling vs the targets sv value, and since you only have permission to speed roll when all things are equal and there are no rules allowing things in this example to be equal you resolve each shot sequentially.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
it would depend on the order those 6's arise.

in a normal situation of dealing with toughness values and strength values we know where we stand so you can happily roll away and then start taking models away based on casualties.

we aren't dealing with S or T values, just SV values, the grav weapon doesn't even have a S value, it has a rule that tells you what you need to wound.

as such if I have 10 hits, in the example given I roll 3 dice, for each 6 rolled remove a sister (or take cover saves and remove casualties) then continue until the 3 are dead.

This is not the correct way to do it. Why would you do it this way?

once you hit the sergeant, roll any look out sirs that you wish to make (since you now do those before the rolls to wound take place as per the BRB FAQ) any failed are then rolled vs the sergeant one at a time until there are either non left or she died. then roll the rest and resolve any wounds caused.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is incorrect.

You do Look Out Sir after a wound is allocated to a model, not before To Wound rolls take place...

I realise that this method is out of sequence, but it does satisfy the grav weapons criteria of rolling vs the targets sv value, and since you only have permission to speed roll when all things are equal and there are no rules allowing things in this example to be equal you resolve each shot sequentially.

This means making up rules with no existing precedent.

Nutty - your TARGET is the unit. You wound against the units save. You have one mechanism which tells you how to determine this for toughness, why do you not use it, in favour of making up a whole set more rules?

Occams suggests your method is not the most likely answer

 DeathReaper wrote:
The underlined is incorrect.

You do Look Out Sir after a wound is allocated to a model, not before To Wound rolls take place....

He clearly stated:

I realise that this method is out of sequence, but it does satisfy the grav weapons criteria of rolling vs the targets sv value

However, aside from the change of sequence, which indeed you do not have permission to do (LoS roll are always after you've rolled to wound), you are also breaking the shooting sequence.

This is the rule clearly broken in your workings:
p14: Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused. Keep the dice(...) with different Strengths, AP values or Special Rules (...) separated into groups
Emphasis mine.

How would you determine how many of those inflicted Wounds (for which you need to choose: 6+ or 3+) are on the sergeant or on the Repentia? They are not allocated and Models not yet removed. If we were the take "closest model" in to account, it will always be the 6+ of the Repentia as each shot of a Grav-gun would generate a wound against that model. Nothing is removed until ALL weapons have been fired and the Wound pool is created.

Both LoS and removing models cannot be done until after the wound pool from your shooting unit is filled (against the target), and all of your Grav shots have to be accounted for.

 DJGietzen wrote:
I've heard a 3rd, less popular theory on how to handle this. You would roll against the closest model in the target unit's armor save to generate wounds, then put them in the wound pool as normal. The basis for this is that the rule is suposed to replace to normal roll to wound and is resolved against the armor save of "the target", and in this logic "the target" is represented by the closest model like it is for checking range. Not HIWPI nor do I think its supported by RAW just thought I'd share what I've heard others do.

That is the only way to "satisfy the grav weapons criteria of rolling vs the targets sv value" while also not breaking the Wound Pool rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The underlined is incorrect.

You do Look Out Sir after a wound is allocated to a model, not before To Wound rolls take place....

He clearly stated:

I realise that this method is out of sequence, but it does satisfy the grav weapons criteria of rolling vs the targets sv value

I know what he stated, it still is not correct...

This is the rule clearly broken in your workings:
p14: Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused. Keep the dice(...) with different Strengths, AP values or Special Rules (...) separated into groups
Emphasis mine.

Rolling to wound VS armor save is not a special rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The underlined is incorrect.

You do Look Out Sir after a wound is allocated to a model, not before To Wound rolls take place....

He clearly stated:

I realise that this method is out of sequence, but it does satisfy the grav weapons criteria of rolling vs the targets sv value

I know what he stated, it still is not correct...

As i have said indeed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

This is the rule clearly broken in your workings:
p14: Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused. Keep the dice(...) with different Strengths, AP values or Special Rules (...) separated into groups
Emphasis mine.

Rolling to wound VS armor save is not a special rule.

Well, you roll VS armour save because of a special rule. I doubt that rolling V armour saves is the general used system... In any case, the Wound pool has to be done (and filled) before any LoS or removing models happen.
We do agree on our position, i was just giving clear arguments in our favour and showing how the alternative position breaks too many rules to be considered a valid interpretation =)

 BlackTalos wrote:
Well, you roll VS armour save because of a special rule.

No you don't roll VS armour save because of a special rule...

What special rule makes you roll against their armor save instead of toughness, I cant find it on pages 32- 43...