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 am wondering what the ruling is when a grav gun shoots at a squad with a character up front with a differing save than the rest of the squad. For instance a 2+ save Overlord being the closet model in a squad of warriors.

Now my question is do we use the multiple toughness example or do we roll to wound one at a time until the saves are the same?

Majority save is how we play it in my group.

Just like toughness.

My interpretation is that you would still use majority toughness to determine who you roll to wound against.

So with a Necron Overlord being in front of a unit of Necron Warriors you would have majority toughness 4. Then you look at their save (4+ in this case) and then use that for rolling to wound against the unit.

Then allocate those wounds per the shooting rules as normal.

Where it could get interesting is in a unit of Black Templar Crusader units. You always have majority toughness 4 in that unit but could have an equal split of 4+ and 3+ saves. In that case, I think it would be fair to continue with the "roll against majority" theme of the shooting rules and go with majority armor save, choosing the better of the two should that also be equal.

 Marius Xerxes wrote:
My interpretation is that you would still use majority toughness to determine who you roll to wound against.

So with a Necron Overlord being in front of a unit of Necron Warriors you would have majority toughness 4. Then you look at their save (4+ in this case) and then use that for rolling to wound against the unit.

Then allocate those wounds per the shooting rules as normal.

This would get really complicated if you had multiple models with the same toughness, but different saves. I think majority saves works better.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Marius Xerxes wrote:
My interpretation is that you would still use majority toughness to determine who you roll to wound against.

So with a Necron Overlord being in front of a unit of Necron Warriors you would have majority toughness 4. Then you look at their save (4+ in this case) and then use that for rolling to wound against the unit.

Then allocate those wounds per the shooting rules as normal.

This would get really complicated if you had multiple models with the same toughness, but different saves. I think majority saves works better.

Already edited my post to reflect that. I just see no reson to add rules where there is no issue. In the Necron example, you can follow all rules without any issue. However, with what you mentioned along with my example, there is a time to take it further with sensible house ruling.

EDIT to add:

There is nothing in the grav guns rules that exempts you from rolling to wound against majority toughness. All the grav weaponry does is change how you determine what you need to wound. I.e you don't use the standard Str v toughness chart. You use the grav weapon rules.

 Marius Xerxes wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Marius Xerxes wrote:
My interpretation is that you would still use majority toughness to determine who you roll to wound against.

So with a Necron Overlord being in front of a unit of Necron Warriors you would have majority toughness 4. Then you look at their save (4+ in this case) and then use that for rolling to wound against the unit.

Then allocate those wounds per the shooting rules as normal.

This would get really complicated if you had multiple models with the same toughness, but different saves. I think majority saves works better.

Already edited my post to reflect that. I just see no reson to add rules where there is no issue. In the Necron example, you can follow all rules without any issue. However, with what you mentioned along with my example, there is a time to take it further with sensible house ruling.

I see your point, but there is a flaw in your reasoning.

Then you look at their save (4+ in this case) and then use that for rolling to wound against the unit

You are also adding a rule. There is nothing in the book that allows you to do this.

Another interesting question: Using either method, if it comes to majority saves and there is a tie, do you use the better save, or the worse save? I would personally say the worse save, because when there is a tie for majority toughness, the advantage goes to the player receiving the shooting.

Well I'm not adding a rule. Grav guns say to use the save of the model to determine what you need to wound.

So by using majority toughness, you see it's the necron warriors. Then per grav gun rules, you see what their save is and use that to roll to wound.

I've actually satisfied all relevant rules with that particular example.

And in a mixed unit I would use the worse save since they get the toughness benefit under normal shooting rules. I typed that out wrong previously.

That's actually a pretty fair and sensible ruling Marius, it does seem to work with the rules nicely and will work for most instances in my meta and I doubt anyone will have an issue with that thank you for a rather detailed explanation.

Away from books at the moment, but for (tied) mixed toughness, does it say to use the better value or the higher value? I know it used to say higher value, meaning, if you replace Toughness with Save, then you would have higher Save (so between 5+ and 6+, 6+).

 Happyjew wrote:
Away from books at the moment, but for (tied) mixed toughness, does it say to use the better value or the higher value? I know it used to say higher value, meaning, if you replace Toughness with Save, then you would have higher Save (so between 5+ and 6+, 6+).

Says to use the higher value when referring to toughness.

Our group uses majority save as well, with ties going to the higher value (which with saves is the better value for the defender). Though this did lead to some hilarity back in 6th when I joined my Farseer (with no armor save) to a Riptide, so the oncoming unit of grav guns only wounded on sixes. It was entertaining. Alas, I can't do that in 7th ed anymore (stupid changes to IC's and Allies Matrix)

Ok. CURVE BALL TIME!

My reasoning infers that as you normally roll majority toughness to wound, simarly you would roll majority saves as per the gravitron.

BUT, I cannot justify this logic to D weapon wound allocation in CC. Say that an IC with a 4++ was in a squad without invulnerable saves, and a 6 was rolled. It is not viable to negate the characters invuln based on a "majority save", this you must roll separately when rolling to wound. If this is the case here, one could argue the same for the grav rules.

Can anyone see the contradiction? Ugh.

D-weapons do not roll to wound at all, they follow a completely different chart... so you cannot use similar logic between the two.

Also, the character having an invul save doesn't matter during the rolls on the attack tables. You would roll all the hits. Seperate them into 3 piles (those that ignore all saves and deal d6+6 wounds, those that can be saved and inflict d3 wounds, and those that do no damage and are thus discarded). Then you allocate those piles one at a time just as you would with wounds, the player who made the shot determining which pile is use first. At no point would common T enter into it, as you are rolling against a fixed chart regardless of what saves or T the target unit has.

Slightly missing the point.

The roll to hit does not infer wound allocation, you roll again for that. Toughness enters this at no point I am aware, as it also does not with grav rules. I am stating that you must roll wounds individually as it is not feasable to roll on the table and then allocate any 6's to the character with the invulnerable save. As I see RAI, you must declare which character you are rolling to wound before rolling on the table. This is logic that can apply to grav wound rules, but so can majority toughness rule in regards to the saves. It's quite a paradox

calcifer wrote:
Slightly missing the point.

The roll to hit does not infer wound allocation, you roll again for that. Toughness enters this at no point I am aware, as it also does not with grav rules. I am stating that you must roll wounds individually as it is not feasable to roll on the table and then allocate any 6's to the character with the invulnerable save. As I see RAI, you must declare which character you are rolling to wound before rolling on the table. This is logic that can apply to grav wound rules, but so can majority toughness rule in regards to the saves. It's quite a paradox

Except adding Destroyer Attacks to the wound pool can easily work just like wounds from guns with rending and the like... the 6's to wound get rending, and then you can say as you start allocation the player will say "you have to take the ap2 wound first, then you can take the regular wounds" or vice versa. Why wouldn't Destroyer hits work the same way? Especially since the only time you allocate hits before doing any further rolls is with vehicle squadrons... which is a far cry from justification to apply similar logic to plain old infantry.

And then you focus fire on?

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
And then you focus fire on?

umm... Nothing, because Focus Fire doesn't exist anymore.

No I understand that, but I am referring to CC.

Hypothetical situation.

8 models are in base to base with an imperial knight, one of which has an invuln. Imperial knight lands 3 hits.

If Imperial knight rolls on chart then allocates wounds, any six he rolls he could just declare that it's on the invuln model. Keep in mind that there is no closest model.

If he declares the target before he rolls, it keeps it statistical and does not abuse the new rules. That's how I see it.

This could be applied to the grav ruling as they are both entities that differentiate from the regular wound allocation. Either way there is nothing in RAW to indicate that it is a "majority save" etiquette over something reminiscent of this D weapon debacle.

IF a destroyer weapon must declare who it's intending to wound before rolling, do the grav weapons too? There is no RAW as far as I know that cover it. It's a bit sloppy on their part, I don't think there is any conclusiveness to it, but it does raise a point of contention.

EDIT: Found rule in the BRB that states the player controlling the models gets to decide who dies if there are more base to base than hits. So you may allocate wounds in the order you want, but they allocate who cops it in the order they want. Answered my own query! However an FAQ on this grav topic would be welcomed!

Replace majority toughness with majority save, in case of a tie you take the higher result, .e.g the "worse" armour save - which follows the logic of rolling to wound tied-toughness units you are forced to take the higher toughness, reducing your chance to wound, so taking the numerically higher (e.g. 4+ over 3+) save would do the same here.