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.

My opponent has a IC in terminator armor joined to a unit of Power Armor marines and standing in front to soak wounds/give them a better save.

I fire a grav weapon at the squad with the terminator being the closest to the squad doing the shooting. What do I wound on? 2+ (closest model) or 3+ (majority)?

I haven't seen this question come up before, my vote is the 3+ for majority.

As far as I know the rules are unclear on that.

I believe that you use the 'Majority Armour Save' to determine the amount of wounds.
My opinion comes from a couple of rules:
1. Some weapons wound against Leadership instead of Toughness (Necron Abyssal Staff and Dark Eldar Orbs of Despair).
2. For working out if Instant Death applies, you use the Leadership.
3. So for that scenario that means you replace the Toughness with the Leadership.
That means we replace the word 'Toughness' from the ID-rule with 'Leadership'.
To me it's logical that we can extend this and replace the word 'Toughness from the 'Majority Toughness' rule with Armour Save.

So this is how I will play it:
5 Tactical Marines with a Terminator-IC: Wound on 3+, Terminator takes saves on.. nevermind, it's AP2

Kangodo wrote:
Terminator takes saves on.. nevermind, it's AP2

...5+


But agreed, majority toughness.

I don't see how we could possibly resolve this without using the majority save.

All shooting from a unit happens simultaneously. We have no permission allowing us to resolve the grav weapon shots one at a time. Also, in every other case where a weapon hits/wounds based on some stat they specify to use the majority of that stat or the highest if there is no majority. So without clear guidance on which way to handle HIWPI would be to use the majority save.

Fragile wrote:
But agreed, majority toughness.

Minor thing, grav weapons use Saves not toughness.

clively wrote:
I don't see how we could possibly resolve this without using the majority save.

All shooting from a unit happens simultaneously. We have no permission allowing us to resolve the grav weapon shots one at a time. Also, in every other case where a weapon hits/wounds based on some stat they specify to use the majority of that stat or the highest if there is no majority. So without clear guidance on which way to handle HIWPI would be to use the majority save.

Fragile wrote:
But agreed, majority toughness.

Minor thing, grav weapons use Saves not toughness.

Sorry, I was referencing the rule. You use the majority save just like you use the majority toughness.

Since there are no rules for majority saves, the default should be roll for each mixed save individually.

This way every model in the target gets a To Wound roll that is accurate based on that models save and is wholly within the rules.

Any other means is a potential rules break.

It would come to majority of the unit in all regards to be it toughness, leadership, or in this case armor value when directing towards wounding. The IC terminator on the other hand would be then reduced to a 5+ invul.

40k-noob wrote:
Since there are no rules for majority saves, the default should be roll for each mixed save individually.

This way every model in the target gets a To Wound roll that is accurate based on that models save and is wholly within the rules.

Any other means is a potential rules break.

Since there are no rules for majority Leadership, the default should be roll for each mixed Leadership individually.
This way every model in the target gets a To Wound roll that is accurate based on that models Leadership and is wholly within the rules.

Did you really argue that with regard the the Abyssal Staff? (hint - I know you didn't)
Your suggestion breaks the rules as you have to allocate wounds, not allocate rolls to wound.

40k-noob wrote:
Since there are no rules for majority saves, the default should be roll for each mixed save individually.

This way every model in the target gets a To Wound roll that is accurate based on that models save and is wholly within the rules.

Any other means is a potential rules break.

This isn't a blast weapon, so are you sugesting we divide the hits rolls up between models to their maximum wounds, then roll for each of these sub-wound pools?

There is nothing I can find in the rules that this remotely fits into. Rolling against the majority save is currently the best way to stay within the rules for 6e.

40k-noob wrote:
Since there are no rules for majority saves, the default should be roll for each mixed save individually.

This way every model in the target gets a To Wound roll that is accurate based on that models save and is wholly within the rules.

Any other means is a potential rules break.

You have no permission to allocate to-wound against models, only units. So you are breaking the rules ina fundamental way

the closest situation is to use majority armour save, as that is the same ruling as majority leadership

 Nilok wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Since there are no rules for majority saves, the default should be roll for each mixed save individually.

This way every model in the target gets a To Wound roll that is accurate based on that models save and is wholly within the rules.

Any other means is a potential rules break.

This isn't a blast weapon, so are you suggesting we divide the hits rolls up between models to their maximum wounds, then roll for each of these sub-wound pools?

There is nothing I can find in the rules that this remotely fits into. Rolling against the majority save is currently the best way to stay within the rules for 6e.

No, I am not suggesting that. I am saying treat it like Mixed Saves when rolling to saves, roll to wound each model one at a time, starting with the closest until it dies then move on to the next closest model.

so it would go like this roll first "hit" To Wound on the Termi, if you Wound him, then Termi then takes an Invul save, if it lives, roll the next "hit" and if it dies then roll remaining "hits" based on the rest of the units 3+ save.

I think that the best way to resolve this until an FAQ appears is to use the majority save value as the save value for the whole unit for rolling to wound.

40k-noob wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Since there are no rules for majority saves, the default should be roll for each mixed save individually.

This way every model in the target gets a To Wound roll that is accurate based on that models save and is wholly within the rules.

Any other means is a potential rules break.

This isn't a blast weapon, so are you suggesting we divide the hits rolls up between models to their maximum wounds, then roll for each of these sub-wound pools?

There is nothing I can find in the rules that this remotely fits into. Rolling against the majority save is currently the best way to stay within the rules for 6e.

No, I am not suggesting that. I am saying treat it like Mixed Saves when rolling to saves, roll to wound each model one at a time, starting with the closest until it dies then move on to the next closest model.

so it would go like this roll first "hit" To Wound on the Termi, if you Wound him, then Termi then takes an Invul save, if it lives, roll the next "hit" and if it dies then roll remaining "hits" based on the rest of the units 3+ save.

You don't do that with mixed saves, so that would be against the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Since there are no rules for majority saves, the default should be roll for each mixed save individually.

This way every model in the target gets a To Wound roll that is accurate based on that models save and is wholly within the rules.

Any other means is a potential rules break.

This isn't a blast weapon, so are you suggesting we divide the hits rolls up between models to their maximum wounds, then roll for each of these sub-wound pools?

There is nothing I can find in the rules that this remotely fits into. Rolling against the majority save is currently the best way to stay within the rules for 6e.

No, I am not suggesting that. I am saying treat it like Mixed Saves when rolling to saves, roll to wound each model one at a time, starting with the closest until it dies then move on to the next closest model.

so it would go like this roll first "hit" To Wound on the Termi, if you Wound him, then Termi then takes an Invul save, if it lives, roll the next "hit" and if it dies then roll remaining "hits" based on the rest of the units 3+ save.

You don't do that with mixed saves, so that would be against the rules.

I believe page 15 starting with "Mixed Saves" describes just that, but with saving thros instead of To Wound rolls.

40k-noob wrote:
I believe page 15 starting with "Mixed Saves" describes just that, but with saving thros instead of To Wound rolls.

No, it doesn't.

You're advocating rolling to wound and then rolling a save for each individual model. The Mixed Save rules force you to roll to wound as a pool (against majority toughness) and then allocate wounds that get saved.
See the difference?

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
I believe page 15 starting with "Mixed Saves" describes just that, but with saving thros instead of To Wound rolls.

No, it doesn't.

You're advocating rolling to wound and then rolling a save for each individual model. The Mixed Save rules force you to roll to wound as a pool (against majority toughness) and then allocate wounds that get saved.
See the difference?

I am advocating treating each model seprately

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
I believe page 15 starting with "Mixed Saves" describes just that, but with saving thros instead of To Wound rolls.

No, it doesn't.

You're advocating rolling to wound and then rolling a save for each individual model. The Mixed Save rules force you to roll to wound as a pool (against majority toughness) and then allocate wounds that get saved.
See the difference?

I am advocating treating each model seprately

Including the to-wound roll. Which the rules never support.

rigeld2 wrote:
Including the to-wound roll. Which the rules never support.

The only similar to 40k-noob's suggestion would be the "firing at vehicle squadrons" rules (Page 77 BRB), so I wouldn't say "never". I would not, however, want to apply those rules to wounds caused by Grav weapons or in any way imply a precedent. Majority Save a'la Majority Toughness seems the most sensible and simplest option.

Also: (Tangentally) When weapons have used Leadership instead of Toughness to wound (such as a Callidus' Neural Scrambler), consensus tended towards "Majority" there too I think?

 Quanar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Including the to-wound roll. Which the rules never support.

The only similar to 40k-noob's suggestion would be the "firing at vehicle squadrons" rules (Page 77 BRB), so I wouldn't say "never". I would not, however, want to apply those rules to wounds caused by Grav weapons or in any way imply a precedent. Majority Save a'la Majority Toughness seems the most sensible and simplest option.

Also: (Tangentally) When weapons have used Leadership instead of Toughness to wound (such as a Callidus' Neural Scrambler), consensus tended towards "Majority" there too I think?

The FAQ says to replace all instances of "Toughness" in the rules for shooting with "Leadership"

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
I believe page 15 starting with "Mixed Saves" describes just that, but with saving thros instead of To Wound rolls.

No, it doesn't.

You're advocating rolling to wound and then rolling a save for each individual model. The Mixed Save rules force you to roll to wound as a pool (against majority toughness) and then allocate wounds that get saved.
See the difference?

I am advocating treating each model separately

Including the to-wound roll. Which the rules never support.

They do, but just out of sequence.

Everything I suggest is legal, just out of sequence in the order of steps.

And changing the sequence is somehow not breaking the rules?

rigeld2 wrote:
And changing the sequence is somehow not breaking the rules?

Not any less then deciding that the best solution is to make up a new rule. Thanks to GW leaving out an important bit we are forced to do something that goes against RAW.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And changing the sequence is somehow not breaking the rules?

Not any less then deciding that the best solution is to make up a new rule. Thanks to GW leaving out an important bit we are forced to do something that goes against RAW.

And doing something that is the most similar to the existing rules would make sense.

Majority Leadership has been FAQd before; this new method by 40k has never been considered previously.

Where did they FAQ the Majority Leadership?

Neural Shredder

Kangodo wrote:
Where did they FAQ the Majority Leadership?

Neural Shredder, Abyssal Staff at least... I think there's one more out there (DE iirc)

Both the neural shredder and the Abyssal staff were FAQ'd to ask about Instant Death NOT to wound.

Neither of those FAQ's have any application here.