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.

It came up in a Tournament game. a unit of centurions shooting at a unit composed of two SM characters, One with power armour the other with Artificer armour.
I co-to. I help making rules decisions.

The way i ruled it on the day was:
Using the multi Toughness units as a guide.
Use the Higher save to make the wound rolls, In this case the 3+.
Generate your wound pool.
Assign wounds to closest model.
Continue as normal.

Justification.
Because the Multi toughness rules say the highest value, to which 3+ is higher then 2+.
And in case of a tie the higher toughness would favour the defender.

Later checked the GW faq, Nothing. both rulebook and SM.

Would anyone have ruled it diferently?
Im pretty happy with this way of resolving the situation if it comes up again but i dont see it as being to common.

I have thought about this too, and that's pretty much the exact some conclusion i came up with. Treat it like multiple Ts in a unit (favoring the better for the shootee in the event of a tie).

The only other thing I could think of for that scenario would be the slow and painful process of rolling the wounds 1 at a time, going off of which character is closer until he dies then switching to the other.

In terms of timeliness though I'd say what you ruled was the right choice.

Wait... Would 2+ armour not be a higher value than 3+ armour? I mean, numerically, sure 3 is higher than 2, but the reason for using the higher value on toughness is because the higher numeric value is the better value. The inverse is true with armour saves. So if you're using the multi toughness rules as a basis for your ruling, should you not be more inclined to use the better value?

To support this, consider the following: When a cover save is improved or worsened, It is given + and - modifiers. A "+1 cover save" modifier turns a 6+ into a 5+, even though that's mathematically a -1 cover save. By this logic, 5 is higher than 6.

Every other instance of a 'tie' in similar cases is always resolved in the manner most favorable to the defensive player. Ergo, 3+ to wound rather than a 2+.

The rationale is that with equal toughness, the more durable one is the one you use. In regards to Grav weapons, a 3+ is more durable than a 2+.

I understand that point, the ruling generally goes to the defender's favour. But the logic in the OP was to "Use the Higher save to make the wound rolls" as exemplified in the rules for multiple toughness. But by those rules, it seems to me that the better armour save would be used. Since the entire purpose of the grav gun is to turn the defender's strength into a weakness, this also fits with the design of the weapon.

Bojazz wrote:
I understand that point, the ruling generally goes to the defender's favour. But the logic in the OP was to "Use the Higher save to make the wound rolls" as stated in the rules for multiple toughness. But by those rules, it seems to me that the better armour save would be used. Since the entire purpose of the grav gun is to turn the defender's strength into a weakness, this also fits with the design of the weapon.

We are already making up a rule, why be so literal about it.

Because it fits with the design of the weapon, and follows the rule that we're basing this made up rule off of.

Bojazz wrote:
I understand that point, the ruling generally goes to the defender's favour. But the logic in the OP was to "Use the Higher save to make the wound rolls" as stated in the rules for multiple toughness. But by those rules, it seems to me that the better armour save would be used. Since the entire purpose of the grav gun is to turn the defender's strength into a weakness, this also fits with the design of the weapon.

Logically grav guns should wound based on the mass of the target, which could be determined by and average between S, and T, then given bonuses depending on the armor, because that is how gravity works. Can you honestly tell me that a huge Nob is as massive as an Eldar Dire avenger? Or that a model in terminator armor should be just as easy to wound as the artificer armor? No, but that's not how the rules work, and like others have said ties are ruled in favor of the defender.

More strictly using the rules for Multiple Toughness Values as precedent would actually require using the highest of any two or more tied Armour Save values.

So the essence of the debate is.

Everyone seems to agree on using the Multi toughness values as a precedent, The dispute is in which armour save qualifies as "The highest".

From what i can see its essentially up for personal interpretation.
I think i will continue to rule the way i did, Just wanted some solidification of the ruling on the day.

MWilson109 wrote:
So the essence of the debate is.

Everyone seems to agree on using the Multi toughness values as a precedent, The dispute is in which armour save qualifies as "The highest".

From what i can see its essentially up for personal interpretation.
I think i will continue to rule the way i did, Just wanted some solidification of the ruling on the day.

Its consistent with the way the rest of the rules work. Toughness, Leadership. The defender is given the advantage.

MWilson109 wrote:
So the essence of the debate is.

Everyone seems to agree on using the Multi toughness values as a precedent, The dispute is in which armour save qualifies as "The highest".

From what i can see its essentially up for personal interpretation.
I think i will continue to rule the way i did, Just wanted some solidification of the ruling on the day.

It is up to personal interpretation, but let me ask this. Which is higher, 3 or 4?

It's interesting to note that multiple Toughness does not say to use the better toughness, but to use the higher. Since (in my above example), 4 is higher than 3, then you would roll to wound against the 4. Whether it is Toughness, Leadership, or armour save.

MWilson109 wrote:
Would anyone have ruled it diferently?

Instead of using the 3+ I would have used the 2+ save. The reasoning here is that 2+ (a 5/6 chance of success) is higher then 3+ (a 4/6 chance) in the same way a toughness 5 (5/6 chance) is higher then toughness 4 (4/6 chance) and not using the better or higher save would go against the spirit of the gravitation rule, which I believe is to punish the target for having a better save.

Also, choosing things that result in the increased likely-hood that models will die helps speed up games that can, to be honest, get bogged down.

 DJGietzen wrote:

MWilson109 wrote:
Would anyone have ruled it diferently?

Instead of using the 3+ I would have used the 2+ save. The reasoning here is that 2+ (a 5/6 chance of success) is higher then 3+ (a 4/6 chance) in the same way a toughness 5 (5/6 chance) is higher then toughness 4 (4/6 chance) and not using the better or higher save would go against the spirit of the gravitation rule, which I believe is to punish the target for having a better save.

Also, choosing things that result in the increased likely-hood that models will die helps speed up games that can, to be honest, get bogged down.

Where are the toughness fractions coming from? A standard S 4 gun against a toughness 4 model has a 3/6 chance of wounding and against toughness 5 has a 2/6 chance of wounding. My math is 2/6 is lower than 3/6 and in the situation of a toughness 4 and 5 we use the 5.

And as i typed this i saw that it seems you arbitrarily gave the chance of success of the armors to the toughness'. Why assign them this way and not reversed?

Edit: Also what increases the likely-hood of models dying? Taking ones with out saves, or low toughness. There are a lot of things that would stream line the game if that was the intent.

The fractions come from characteristic tests, the single closest analog we have to an armor save when dealing with toughness.

But in your example, of a S4 weapon wounding a T4 or T5 model, if the model is T4 that's a 3/6 chance the weapon will have success but also 3/6 chance the toughness will have success. A T5 model has a 4/6 chance of success because the weapon only has a 2/6 chance. Remember, we are comparing the effectiveness of the toughness to determine which is 'better' or higher and not the effectiveness of the weapon. In this case 4/6 > 3/6 so 5>4.

It increases the likely-hood of models dying because you will likely generate more wounds if you need a 2+ to wound instead of a 3+ to wound. The more wounds in the wound pool the more likely one or more of those wounds will be unsaved. Especially if the weapon causing those wounds is AP2.

The idea we're trying to portray is that grav guns work in an opposite manner to regular weapons. For an example, If you had a weapon that wounded more reliably as the toughness of it's target increased, then the rule stating to use the highest toughness for tied majority would actually be in the attacker's favor rather than the defender's for this particular circumstance. Using this concept, I feel it is more appropriate to have the defenders use the better armour save rather than the poorer in this particular circumstance.

But it doesn't matter... Either way if there is only 2 you take the higher... Not the better... So it's the 3. Or wait, lets take the better for the defender, wait that's 3... The only way anyone could see it another way is if they believe you take the better for the attacker, which rarely happens, or they claim a 2 is"higher"than 3. Better, yes. Higher, no.

All coming up 3s to me. If there are equal models of each save in the unit of course.

If you have a 5+ cover and you have a modifier that says you get +1 to your cover save, then you get a 4+ cover save. So the game tells us that for saves, 5+1=4. Which means 4 is higher than 5. So if you were to take the higher value, you would take the 4.

Actually, that plus one for cover refers to the result you roll. You are still looking for fives, but that four you rolled gets plus one, so counts as five.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Actually, that plus one for cover refers to the result you roll. You are still looking for fives, but that four you rolled gets plus one, so counts as five.

Not according to the actual rules of course.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The fractions come from characteristic tests, the single closest analog we have to an armor save when dealing with toughness.

But in your example, of a S4 weapon wounding a T4 or T5 model, if the model is T4 that's a 3/6 chance the weapon will have success but also 3/6 chance the toughness will have success. A T5 model has a 4/6 chance of success because the weapon only has a 2/6 chance. Remember, we are comparing the effectiveness of the toughness to determine which is 'better' or higher and not the effectiveness of the weapon. In this case 4/6 > 3/6 so 5>4.

It increases the likely-hood of models dying because you will likely generate more wounds if you need a 2+ to wound instead of a 3+ to wound. The more wounds in the wound pool the more likely one or more of those wounds will be unsaved. Especially if the weapon causing those wounds is AP2.

So how about S8 vs T5 and T6? Wounds either on 2+ and both pass 5/6 times, and your way of calculating which is "better" (which has no baring on the rules) doesn't work with T5+. It's pretty simple what T is better because better is higher, but you can't look at toughness and wounds without looking at the effectiveness of the weapon. In armor saves the best save is the lowest save, and when looking at armor saves and wounds again you have to look at the effectiveness of the weapon.

And I understand how it increases the models dying, but I was asking "so what?" If the whole point of some rules where to make models die more easily then the whole majority toughness tie would go to the lower number not the higher.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Actually, that plus one for cover refers to the result you roll. You are still looking for fives, but that four you rolled gets plus one, so counts as five.

For some things, yes. For others, no. Things like going to ground state that the +1 modifier is to your cover saving throw. Things like Eldar Holo Fields state that you get +1 to your cover save.

How long can it possibly take to roll them one at a time?

 screaminskull wrote:
How long can it possibly take to roll them one at a time?

Its not about being too long, its about there being no rules support for resolving grav as such. Using "majority save" at least is using the preexisting rule for dealing with rolling to wound.

Multiple saves says you roll one at a time, I would think this would take from that rather than multiple toughness, and correct me if I'm wrong, my rule book is in my truck, but isn't it MAJORITY toughness that you roll to wound against in the case of multiple toughness, rounding up if the number of models with varying toughness values are equal. Example: 3 T4 models, and 3 T5 models, you would roll against the majority toughness of T5.


I would imagine in this case, that where theirs more 3+ save models that you would roll against the majority armor value.

 screaminskull wrote:
How long can it possibly take to roll them one at a time?

Well quite a while with units pumping out up to 30 Grav shots a turn. However rolling one at a time still does not solve the problem as you still need the units save as to wound rolls are made against units not models. So you still need to know the save value of the unit to roll that first dice.

For what its worth people can house rule how they like. The most consistently agreed is use majority. The most consistent with the rules to use in case of a tie is use the best value for the defender. People with Grav weapons will want to use the best save or even the highest save, but thge most consistent use of the rules is the benefit in a tie goes to the defender. But if you want to houserule it to get your extra benefit for grav weapons and your opponent agrees then play it that way.

Why not go with the armor save of the models closest to the attacking unit. Makes sense to me. So if youve got dudes with the 3+ armor saves closer to the centurions but theirs a captain with a 2+ farther back in the group it would make sense to me that you would be wounding on 3's till you got to the 2+ save guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus grav is AP2 why would rolling saves matter against 3+ and 2+ armor save guys?

die toten hosen wrote:
Why not go with the armor save of the models closest to the attacking unit. Makes sense to me. So if youve got dudes with the 3+ armor saves closer to the centurions but theirs a captain with a 2+ farther back in the group it would make sense to me that you would be wounding on 3's till you got to the 2+ save guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus grav is AP2 why would rolling saves matter against 3+ and 2+ armor save guys?

Tthe issue is not 3+ saves and a 2+ save it is an equal number of 3+ saves and 2+ saves and rolling them one at a time for the closest has been said but it takes longer. Also we are not wondering about rolling saves but rolling for wounds against 3+ and 2+ saves.