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.

Except items such as the abyssal staff and the Callidus Assassin weapon (name excapes me) make no mention on how it functions against targets with mixed leadership and you're left to guess how to do the To-Wound rolls. The only item that does is the new Adpeta Sororitas Neural whips.
"Neural Shock: Against nonvehicle units with a Leadership of 8 or less... ...If there are different Leadership values in the target unit, use the majority value."

Well I suppose we better post the rules being used here to clarify things a little further.

For the graviton guns the rules state:

The roll needed To Wound when firing a gravweapon is always equal to the amour save of the target, to a minimum of 6+. For example, when resolving a hit against a Space Marine in power armour you would need a 3+ To Wound. When resolving a hit against a vehicle, roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling for armour penetration as normal. On a 1-5 nothing happens, but on a 6, the target suffers an immobilised result and loses a single Hull Point. Gra-weapons have no effect on buildings.

For the multiple toughness rules:

Quite rarely, a unit will contain models that have different Toughness characteristics. When this occurs, roll To Wound using the Toughness value of the majority of the engaged foe. If two or more Toughness values are tied for majority, use the highest of those tied values

As you'll notice in both sections the term To Wound (including capitals) is used in each case, essentially noting that this is a game mechanic. So in essence they do intend for us to use the To Wound game mechanics for the grav-weapons. Thus meaning we do follow everything as best as we can involving that game mechanic. In other words its not something we are supposed to make a special case for to separate it out. I'm sure I don't need to point out that there are things that can wound models in the game without actually using the To Wound mechanic.

tallguynsc wrote:
Except items such as the abyssal staff and the Callidus Assassin weapon (name excapes me) make no mention on how it functions against targets with mixed leadership and you're left to guess how to do the To-Wound rolls. The only item that does is the new Adpeta Sororitas Neural whips.
"Neural Shock: Against nonvehicle units with a Leadership of 8 or less... ...If there are different Leadership values in the target unit, use the majority value."

Perhaps you'd like to reference the Necron FAQ? They've answered it specifically.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
@rigeld... you're going to honestly tell me that you think a 6+ is a "higher" save than a 2+? Outside 40k, sure. In system, come on! You're better than that, and you're seriously damaging your credibility if you want to stand on that. I'd get the benefit the target argument just from a gamesmanship PoV, but not a reasonable RAW.

Rigeld is 100% correct in this. Absolutely, 100% defined in the rules that the "higher" save is the 6+. Certainty.

No, just no. In the example of Toughness, which higher is better, the higher is taken. We are no longer talking about toughness, but Armour. On page 2, we are told that armour (as a characteristic is better). It is no more reasonable to head to fantasy wish land and say that if we are looking at majority toughness and somehow porting it over to armour as a characteristic that we should follow the pattern set forward and the explanation of the wording on page 2 of the exception that armour is than is to follow the higher of the two.

How does toughness get better? By getting higher. In looking at majority toughness we take the better (higher score)... making the leap to applying this logic to gravguns (which has already left the realm of RAW, but I agree is reasonable)... follow the PATTERN not the wording for toughness

How the armour get better? By going lower. Follow the PATTERN set forward in majority toughness when trying to follow its logic when applied to a characteristic that we are told on page two works in the opposite way.

No, follow the wording. The wording stating "HIGHER"

You have no RAW argument here, you have stated as such.

 Lobukia wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
@rigeld... you're going to honestly tell me that you think a 6+ is a "higher" save than a 2+? Outside 40k, sure. In system, come on! You're better than that, and you're seriously damaging your credibility if you want to stand on that. I'd get the benefit the target argument just from a gamesmanship PoV, but not a reasonable RAW.

Rigeld is 100% correct in this. Absolutely, 100% defined in the rules that the "higher" save is the 6+. Certainty.

No, just no. In the example of Toughness, which higher is better, the higher is taken. We are no longer talking about toughness, but Armour. On page 2, we are told that armour (as a characteristic is better). It is no more reasonable to head to fantasy wish land and say that if we are looking at majority toughness and somehow porting it over to armour as a characteristic that we should follow the pattern set forward and the explanation of the wording on page 2 of the exception that armour is than is to follow the higher of the two.

If you are going to use the multiple toughness rule and then apply it to armour then you need to accept the wording that comes with it. To change the wording is to tweak the rule in some way to gain an advantage. You can't say that its best to use that method but then try to change it because you actually don't like what it says.

How does toughness get better? By getting higher. In looking at majority toughness we take the better (higher score)... making the leap to applying this logic to gravguns (which has already left the realm of RAW, but I agree is reasonable)... follow the PATTERN not the wording for toughness

How the armour get better? By going lower. Follow the PATTERN set forward in majority toughness when trying to follow its logic when applied to a characteristic that we are told on page two works in the opposite way.

And what is the pattern? The pattern being followed is that the unit being shot at gets the benefit. So it works out the same way anyway, because the 6+ armour save is the better save in this instance for the unit being shot at in the same way that a higher toughness is better for the unit being shot at. However, the wording should still be followed none the less and the higher, not better, armour save should be used.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Because its only least effective against gravity guns, its the most effect against everything else. Armor values, like statistics, already have a sense of best and worst. Changing that around to fit the situation hampers the intent of rules like gravitation.

Effectiveness has to change depending on the situation. A hammer vs a crowbar - the hammer is most effective at putting nails in a wall, but least effective at prying open doors.
Edit: and the Intent I see is based on the majority toughness rule.

I 100% agree that effectiveness is based on the situation, but 'best' is not. If I just asked you, witch is better a 2+ armor save or a 6+ you would say 2+ If the purpose of the tie breaker is to use the best stat than why you are picking it should not factor in.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, follow the wording. The wording stating "HIGHER"

You have no RAW argument here, you have stated as such.

True, but neither does anyone else. We're grabbing a rule and then without any permission making associations to other rules... And I feel in a very meta friendly but SM hostile way, with no basis.

Honestly I don't care on the conclusion (I will bet it never comes up in a game for me... how often will a tie ever happen?), it's the pretense of logic with no foundation that bothers me.

What about the idea that the model always uses its best save? Does this interact with all of this somewhere?

There's no RAW answer. Nothing directly addresses the issue. You can only port over RAI using other examples.

It needs an FAQ, It needs 3 FAQs actually.

Can vehicles benefit from Cover Saves and Invulnerable Saves when damaged by a weapon with the Graviton rule as if they were a penetrating or glancing hit? Yes

Do vehicles that have already suffered an Immobilised result lose two Hull Points when damaged by a weapon with the Graviton rule as per the Immobilised result on the Vehicle Damage Chart? Yes

When shooting at a mixed armour unit with weapons with the Graviton rule, do you roll to wound against the majority armour save of that unit? And if so, in the case when there are equal numbers of models with differing armour saves do you roll to wound against the value of the best or worst (2+ being the best descending to 6+ being the worst) armour save? Yes and Yes

Everyone knows these resolutions make the most sense regardless of lackadaisical rules wording.

I have to agree with Rigeld on this one.

Following Multiple toughness, then you take the majority armour save.

But on a 2 man unit, take the NUMERICALLY highest armour save.

I love Grav Cents and use it like this.

 Lobukia wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, follow the wording. The wording stating "HIGHER"

You have no RAW argument here, you have stated as such.

True, but neither does anyone else. We're grabbing a rule and then without any permission making associations to other rules... And I feel in a very meta friendly but SM hostile way, with no basis.

Honestly I don't care on the conclusion (I will bet it never comes up in a game for me... how often will a tie ever happen?), it's the pretense of logic with no foundation that bothers me.

No foundation?
So you're just going to ignore the fact that, for example, Abyssal Staffs were FAQed exactly as I'm proposing grav guns should work?
Your statement was that, RAW, a 2+ save is higher than a 6+ save. That's absolutely false.
Yes, it's better. That's not what the rule actually calls for however.

 Lobukia wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, follow the wording. The wording stating "HIGHER"

You have no RAW argument here, you have stated as such.

True, but neither does anyone else. We're grabbing a rule and then without any permission making associations to other rules... And I feel in a very meta friendly but SM hostile way, with no basis.

Honestly I don't care on the conclusion (I will bet it never comes up in a game for me... how often will a tie ever happen?), it's the pretense of logic with no foundation that bothers me.

Te pretense, eh? Apart from majority toughness being how wounds against Ld has been ruled previously. Using majority Save here is an entirley logical extension.

It also gives exactly the same benefit to the unit being shot at - that they get the benefit of being harder to wound, same as majority T and majority Ld. As you say - look at the PATTERN.

You break the pattern, with neither written cause nor any suggestion of intent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, follow the wording. The wording stating "HIGHER"

You have no RAW argument here, you have stated as such.

To be honest Nos, you have no RAW arguement to use the majority armour toughness rules when rolling to wound against something that does not reference toughness.

Patterns, logic or not, is not applicable in a permissive rule set......

Overall I am just pointing out issues with your arguement, this is a pretty pointless arguement for RAW until there is a FAQ.

Well, we have precedent on how to resolve to-wound against things other than T, so to say there is "no" RAW is not entirely true - the point being, if you follow the precedent, you dont have any reason here to suddenly change it, such that the person being shot at suddenly doesnt get the benefit in case of a tie, whereas in any other comparable situation they would

The solution proposed here is not directly RAW, but precedental RAW. It equates majority LD, T, I, Armour saves etc and treats them all in exactly the same way, with exactly the same result in case of a tie - that the shot at unit gains the benefit, not the shooting unit (or CC unit, etc)

Imperator_Class wrote:I have to agree with Rigeld on this one.

Following Multiple toughness, then you take the majority armour save.

But on a 2 man unit, take the NUMERICALLY highest armour save.

I love Grav Cents and use it like this.

You are breaking so many rules here, it's not even funny. I'd love to use Grav Weapons like this too- it would make them the ultimate weapon on the battlefield! Unfortunitly, loving a weapon doesn't mean you get to make up rules that makes it more effective/better.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, we have precedent on how to resolve to-wound against things other than T, so to say there is "no" RAW is not entirely true - the point being, if you follow the precedent, you dont have any reason here to suddenly change it, such that the person being shot at suddenly doesnt get the benefit in case of a tie, whereas in any other comparable situation they would

The solution proposed here is not directly RAW, but precedental RAW. It equates majority LD, T, I, Armour saves etc and treats them all in exactly the same way, with exactly the same result in case of a tie - that the shot at unit gains the benefit, not the shooting unit (or CC unit, etc)

That's the rub- giving the advantage to the unit being shot at makes certain units invulnerable to Grav Weapons like the aforementioned Etheral/Riptide. It also ignores the rules of shooting/wounding the closest model.

There is no easy answer here, and like I said, I bet GW never FAQ's this as it's such a rare occurrence that they figure "Why bother? Let the players decide". Lot's of people have some good ideas here in how to resolve the issue. In the end, it'll be up to the players to decide. Understanding how shooting/wounding rules work will give you a key to understanding how to resolve the issue.

On a side note, this has got to be one of the most poorly thought out weapons GW has ever introduced into 40K. Do vehicles get a cover save, do they take extra HP's for extra shots, how do you resolve multiple armor save units... terrible, terrible implementation.

rigeld2 wrote:

tallguynsc wrote:
Except items such as the abyssal staff and the Callidus Assassin weapon (name excapes me) make no mention on how it functions against targets with mixed leadership and you're left to guess how to do the To-Wound rolls. The only item that does is the new Adpeta Sororitas Neural whips.
"Neural Shock: Against nonvehicle units with a Leadership of 8 or less... ...If there are different Leadership values in the target unit, use the majority value."

Perhaps you'd like to reference the Necron FAQ? They've answered it specifically.

The only thing in the Necron FAQ in regards to the abyssal staff is:
"Q.When using an abyssal staff, do you use the target's Toughness or Leadership for the purposes of working out if Instant Death applies? (p84)
A. You use the target's Leadership."

There is no mention on how it works with mixed leadership units (unlike the neural whips), so you're left to guess how to determine the to-wound roll.
Is it against the sergeants leadership (which other leadership tests are done by), majority leadership (like toughness), or a model-to-model basis?

 Tamwulf wrote:
That's the rub- giving the advantage to the unit being shot at makes certain units invulnerable to Grav Weapons like the aforementioned Etheral/Riptide. It also ignores the rules of shooting/wounding the closest model.

How is that any different than shooting at a Psyker with Iron Arm attached to a model with any other weapon. My T9 Swarmlord will give the exact same benefit to his Tyrant Guard in that situation since they are T6 with any S7 or lower weapon. You still wound the Riptide and Ethereal on 6's.

Fragile wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
That's the rub- giving the advantage to the unit being shot at makes certain units invulnerable to Grav Weapons like the aforementioned Etheral/Riptide. It also ignores the rules of shooting/wounding the closest model.

How is that any different than shooting at a Psyker with Iron Arm attached to a model with any other weapon. My T9 Swarmlord will give the exact same benefit to his Tyrant Guard in that situation since they are T6 with any S7 or lower weapon. You still wound the Riptide and Ethereal on 6's.

The point missed is that grav-amps also allow re-rolls to wound. So you also get two chances to get those 6s in the circumstance those shots are being fired by Centurians.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
That's the rub- giving the advantage to the unit being shot at makes certain units invulnerable to Grav Weapons like the aforementioned Etheral/Riptide. It also ignores the rules of shooting/wounding the closest model.

How is that any different than shooting at a Psyker with Iron Arm attached to a model with any other weapon. My T9 Swarmlord will give the exact same benefit to his Tyrant Guard in that situation since they are T6 with any S7 or lower weapon. You still wound the Riptide and Ethereal on 6's.

The point missed is that grav-amps also allow re-rolls to wound. So you also get two chances to get those 6s in the circumstance those shots are being fired by Centurians.

No, the point is that he is complaining about having to use the Ethereal's save instead of the Riptides save to wound that unit. Making it so that he has to roll 6's instead of 2's. That is no different than current rules with a high Toughness model attached to a low Toughness model.

The Grav Amp is irrelevant to the argument.

Fragile wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
That's the rub- giving the advantage to the unit being shot at makes certain units invulnerable to Grav Weapons like the aforementioned Etheral/Riptide. It also ignores the rules of shooting/wounding the closest model.

How is that any different than shooting at a Psyker with Iron Arm attached to a model with any other weapon. My T9 Swarmlord will give the exact same benefit to his Tyrant Guard in that situation since they are T6 with any S7 or lower weapon. You still wound the Riptide and Ethereal on 6's.

The point missed is that grav-amps also allow re-rolls to wound. So you also get two chances to get those 6s in the circumstance those shots are being fired by Centurians.

No, the point is that he is complaining about having to use the Ethereal's save instead of the Riptides save to wound that unit. Making it so that he has to roll 6's instead of 2's. That is no different than current rules with a high Toughness model attached to a low Toughness model.

Oh I know that this was your argument and I agree with it. I wasn't challenging you at all in any way. I was adding in the fact that grav-amps are overlooked as well in this instance. They can't really complain that they wound on 6s when they get re-rolls on top of it to do it.

The Grav Amp is irrelevant to the argument.

I was just adding in the fact that those posters are complaining its so unfair that they wound on 6s with that particular unit but ignore the fact that they benefit from re-rolls from that particular unit.

Please forgive me if you thought I was challenging what you said in any way. I wasn't and I fully agree with what you said. I was just trying to add in another point on top.

tallguynsc wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

tallguynsc wrote:
Except items such as the abyssal staff and the Callidus Assassin weapon (name excapes me) make no mention on how it functions against targets with mixed leadership and you're left to guess how to do the To-Wound rolls. The only item that does is the new Adpeta Sororitas Neural whips.
"Neural Shock: Against nonvehicle units with a Leadership of 8 or less... ...If there are different Leadership values in the target unit, use the majority value."

Perhaps you'd like to reference the Necron FAQ? They've answered it specifically.

The only thing in the Necron FAQ in regards to the abyssal staff is:
"Q.When using an abyssal staff, do you use the target's Toughness or Leadership for the purposes of working out if Instant Death applies? (p84)
A. You use the target's Leadership."

There is no mention on how it works with mixed leadership units (unlike the neural whips), so you're left to guess how to determine the to-wound roll.
Is it against the sergeants leadership (which other leadership tests are done by), majority leadership (like toughness), or a model-to-model basis?

The bold is incorrect - this isn't a leadership test.
It cannot be model-to-model - there are no rules anywhere spelling out such a thing.
The only option left is to replace Toughness with Leadership.

My apologies for mis-remembering the FAQ. I swear I read that somewhere though (to replace all instances of "Toughness" with "Leadership").

tallguynsc wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

tallguynsc wrote:
Except items such as the abyssal staff and the Callidus Assassin weapon (name excapes me) make no mention on how it functions against targets with mixed leadership and you're left to guess how to do the To-Wound rolls. The only item that does is the new Adpeta Sororitas Neural whips.
"Neural Shock: Against nonvehicle units with a Leadership of 8 or less... ...If there are different Leadership values in the target unit, use the majority value."

Perhaps you'd like to reference the Necron FAQ? They've answered it specifically.

The only thing in the Necron FAQ in regards to the abyssal staff is:
"Q.When using an abyssal staff, do you use the target's Toughness or Leadership for the purposes of working out if Instant Death applies? (p84)
A. You use the target's Leadership."

There is no mention on how it works with mixed leadership units (unlike the neural whips), so you're left to guess how to determine the to-wound roll.
Is it against the sergeants leadership (which other leadership tests are done by), majority leadership (like toughness), or a model-to-model basis?

This isnt a leadership *test*, therefore it cannot be against the characters leadership. It cannot be model by model, as you roll to wound against units, not models.

Our only guidance is to use majority toughness, and usefully it gives the same result each time - the unit being shot benefits when there is a tie in all cases.

rigeld2 wrote:


I swear I read that somewhere though (to replace all instances of "Toughness" with "Leadership").

Which, just like the grav-gun, doesn't help when you come across units with a mixed armor save (or leadership when using the abyssal staff/other weapon that wounds based on leadership). I expect a rule for the grav-weapons to be just like Neural Whips received in the new Sisters codex (majority rules).

Until the FAQ comes, I think my gaming group is going to treat it just like Toughness (majority rules, based on wounds). Any ties we will use the worse armor save, as you use the better toughness in normal circumstances.

tallguynsc wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:


I swear I read that somewhere though (to replace all instances of "Toughness" with "Leadership").

Which, just like the grav-gun, doesn't help when you come across units with a mixed armor save (or leadership when using the abyssal staff/other weapon that wounds based on leadership).

... It absolutely does. Replace all instances of Toughness with Leadership in the To-Wound rules. No issues.

Until the FAQ comes, I think my gaming group is going to treat it just like Toughness (majority rules, based on wounds). Any ties we will use the worse armor save, as you use the better toughness in normal circumstances.

Based on wounds? So a 3W T4 model and a 1W T5 model in a unit would be T4? That's not actually a rule if that's what you mean.

rigeld2 wrote:

Based on wounds? So a 3W T4 model and a 1W T5 model in a unit would be T4?

is majority toughness not based on wounds anymore? Perhaps that's 3rd edition creeping back (or another edition), it's hard to remember. Don't have a book on hand, unfortunately.

tallguynsc wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Based on wounds? So a 3W T4 model and a 1W T5 model in a unit would be T4?

is majority toughness not based on wounds anymore? Perhaps that's 3rd edition creeping back (or another edition), it's hard to remember. Don't have a book on hand, unfortunately.

Nope. Wasn't in 5th either. I wasn't around for 4th or much of 3rd (what I was around for I played hormagaunt swarm so never cared about varying toughness).

I had a thought regarding this...

What if after you roll your To Hit's you were to do the To Wound rolls one at a time, allocating closest-to-closest and rolling To Wound as appropriate to that models armor? Kind of how Fast Rolling discusses Look Out Sir!

For example: My Centurion devs. get 10 hits on a unit of Grey Hunters with a TDA Wolf Guard. Going closest-to-closest, there are three power armored Grey Hunter models, then the TDA Wolf Guard, then seven more power armored Grey Hunters. Roll To Wound the three power armored Grey Hunters (3+) until they've been removed and then start rolling To Wound against the TDA Wolf Guard (2+) until he's been removed, followed by rolling the remaining To Wound rolls on the rest of the Grey Hunters (3+).

This is how I plan on doing it until an FAQ addresses the issue. This way each model is being wounded appropriate to how the grav-weaponry wounds.

... and ignoring every other rule in the process. Have fun with that - I wouldn't agree to it.

Oni - been suggested before, and dismissed, as you are making up wounding by-model, when it is explicitly by-unit. You are making up entirely new rules, rather than adapting an existing process a miniscule amount, and a consistent way as well.