I have been having a debate with another poster over the Look Out Sir and Focus Fire rules. This other poster claims that when you Focus Fire on a unit, specifically a Rune Priest biker in a unit of White Scar bikers, that the Rune Priest would then not get to use Look Out Sir. His reasoning is that Focus Fire states that wounds can only be allocated to models at stated cover save or worse. My argument is that yes, the wounds are allocated against the model with a worse cover save, but then has a chance to reallocate those wounds that were placed on him using Look Out Sir. Also, I feel that a precedent has been set by page 5 of the GKFAQ concerning the VIndicare where the FAQ specifically denies LOS. In conclusion I feel that unless it is explicitly stated otherwise, you get LOS. Yalls thoughts.
I think you're right. I think if focus fire was to disallow LOS then it would state such.
Here's a question, I don't have my rule book with me, when does LOS take place? I thought it was after any saving throws have been made?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok, I have the rule in front of me. It says "When a wound (or unsaved wound) is allocated to one of your characters..."
So, you focus fire on the priest, he suffers a wound and fails his armour save, that's an unsaved wound - then roll for LOS. This way you are not benefiting from the white scars superior cover save, but you are allowing look out sir (of which there is no reason for not allowing it!) so in this instance it's a middle ground, a best of both worlds.
Khaine's Wrath wrote: Here's a question, I don't have my rule book with me, when does LOS take place? I thought it was after any saving throws have been made?
It's been FAQ'd to be before saves, otherwise a terminator character takes 2+ saves and then LOS! to a Scout.
As to the OP's question, you have FF saying you can't allocate to the others and LOS! saying you can without saying which takes precidence.
Even without involving FF, can you Look Out Sir! to models out of Line Of Sight? Same reasoning.
The RAW may be "no". How I play it (and how I believe it to be intended) is "yes".
Khaine's Wrath wrote: Here's a question, I don't have my rule book with me, when does LOS take place? I thought it was after any saving throws have been made?
It's been FAQ'd to be before saves, otherwise a terminator character takes 2+ saves and then LOS! to a Scout.
As to the OP's question, you have FF saying you can't allocate to the others and LOS! saying you can without saying which takes precidence.
Even without involving FF, can you Look Out Sir! to models out of Line Of Sight? Same reasoning.
The RAW may be "no". How I play it (and how I believe it to be intended) is "yes".
Whole lots of incorrect information here.
1. Quanar, your terminator/scout example is wrong. Even before the errata, you would have had to use mixed saves.
2. Mywick, it's not a model from the same unit within 6", it's closest model within the unit.
3. If you choose to Focus Fire, wounds cannot be allocated to a model with a better cover save. LOS is wound allocation and as such you would still need to follow all rules for wound allocation, unless specified otherwise (such as line of sight).
But the wound has already been allocated? LOS! Just allows you to reallocate it to a different model! No restriction on the save required to be the same or worse in any instance.
Which part of the faq changed the 6 inches part. I dont see it.
Kinda confusing since the 6 inches thing remains unchanged in the first sentence of the column and still contains the 6 inches restriction even if you change the second sentence in the second bullet point. So how i see it theres stll a 6 inches restriction since the first sentence in the column says that you have to be within 6 and remains unchanged after faq.
Happyjew wrote: Whole lots of incorrect information here.
1. Quanar, your terminator/scout example is wrong. Even before the errata, you would have had to use mixed saves.
2. Mywick, it's not a model from the same unit within 6", it's closest model within the unit.
3. If you choose to Focus Fire, wounds cannot be allocated to a model with a better cover save. LOS is wound allocation and as such you would still need to follow all rules for wound allocation, unless specified otherwise (such as line of sight).
LOS is not wound allocation. The order of operations is a wound is allocated to a specific model(s), THEN LOS allows you to "resolve" that wound against another model in the unit. So no you do not follow the rules for allocation on LOS because it is not an allocation of wounds, as it has already been allocated.
Happyjew wrote: Whole lots of incorrect information here.
1. Quanar, your terminator/scout example is wrong. Even before the errata, you would have had to use mixed saves.
2. Mywick, it's not a model from the same unit within 6", it's closest model within the unit.
3. If you choose to Focus Fire, wounds cannot be allocated to a model with a better cover save. LOS is wound allocation and as such you would still need to follow all rules for wound allocation, unless specified otherwise (such as line of sight).
LOS is not wound allocation. The order of operations is a wound is allocated to a specific model(s), THEN LOS allows you to "resolve" that wound against another model in the unit. So no you do not follow the rules for allocation on LOS because it is not an allocation of wounds, as it has already been allocated.
Incorrect.
The LOS rules themselves refer to it as reallocation.
Happyjew wrote: Whole lots of incorrect information here.
1. Quanar, your terminator/scout example is wrong. Even before the errata, you would have had to use mixed saves.
2. Mywick, it's not a model from the same unit within 6", it's closest model within the unit.
3. If you choose to Focus Fire, wounds cannot be allocated to a model with a better cover save. LOS is wound allocation and as such you would still need to follow all rules for wound allocation, unless specified otherwise (such as line of sight).
LOS is not wound allocation. The order of operations is a wound is allocated to a specific model(s), THEN LOS allows you to "resolve" that wound against another model in the unit. So no you do not follow the rules for allocation on LOS because it is not an allocation of wounds, as it has already been allocated.
Incorrect.
The LOS rules themselves refer to it as reallocation.
Order of operations still place LOS after wounds are allocated to a model. So you can then reallocate them. Nothing in the rules state that you cannot. Since we are using a permissive rule-set and it is not stated you cannot--as in the Vindicare FAQ--then you are permitted to.
Happyjew wrote: Whole lots of incorrect information here.
1. Quanar, your terminator/scout example is wrong. Even before the errata, you would have had to use mixed saves.
2. Mywick, it's not a model from the same unit within 6", it's closest model within the unit.
3. If you choose to Focus Fire, wounds cannot be allocated to a model with a better cover save. LOS is wound allocation and as such you would still need to follow all rules for wound allocation, unless specified otherwise (such as line of sight).
LOS is not wound allocation. The order of operations is a wound is allocated to a specific model(s), THEN LOS allows you to "resolve" that wound against another model in the unit. So no you do not follow the rules for allocation on LOS because it is not an allocation of wounds, as it has already been allocated.
Incorrect.
The LOS rules themselves refer to it as reallocation.
Order of operations still place LOS after wounds are allocated to a model. So you can then reallocate them. Nothing in the rules state that you cannot. Since we are using a permissive rule-set and it is not stated you cannot--as in the Vindicare FAQ--then you are permitted to.
The FAQ changes that order of operation. And permission is denied in the focus fire rules.
As it is, the poll would have been better if it listed the three possibilities. I think LOS can reallocate the hit, but only to models with the same cover save. Which is the option left out of the simple yes/no poll question.
Khaine's Wrath wrote: But the wound has already been allocated? LOS! Just allows you to reallocate it to a different model! No restriction on the save required to be the same or worse in any instance.
Reallocation is still a allocation, if you LOS and then have the wound allocated to a model with a better cover save you are breaking the RAW rules of focus fire. You are not breaking any rules not allowing LOS as LOS has exceptions to normal allocation called out, i.e out of line of sigh, out of range etc, cover save is not mentioned there.
RAW look out sir during the example you posted is iilegal, most people dont play it that way.
Happyjew wrote: Whole lots of incorrect information here.
1. Quanar, your terminator/scout example is wrong. Even before the errata, you would have had to use mixed saves.
2. Mywick, it's not a model from the same unit within 6", it's closest model within the unit.
3. If you choose to Focus Fire, wounds cannot be allocated to a model with a better cover save. LOS is wound allocation and as such you would still need to follow all rules for wound allocation, unless specified otherwise (such as line of sight).
LOS is not wound allocation. The order of operations is a wound is allocated to a specific model(s), THEN LOS allows you to "resolve" that wound against another model in the unit. So no you do not follow the rules for allocation on LOS because it is not an allocation of wounds, as it has already been allocated.
Incorrect.
The LOS rules themselves refer to it as reallocation.
Order of operations still place LOS after wounds are allocated to a model. So you can then reallocate them. Nothing in the rules state that you cannot. Since we are using a permissive rule-set and it is not stated you cannot--as in the Vindicare FAQ--then you are permitted to.
The FAQ changes that order of operation. And permission is denied in the focus fire rules.
As it is, the poll would have been better if it listed the three possibilities. I think LOS can reallocate the hit, but only to models with the same cover save. Which is the option left out of the simple yes/no poll question.
Tell me where this is in the FAQ. I have the FAQ open in front of me and Focus Fire is never even mentioned. You are blatantly making things up and permission is not denied in the focus fire rules. Look Out Sir is never mentioned in the Focus Fire entry. Do not make things up to benefit your argument--it only kills its integrity.
Happyjew wrote: Whole lots of incorrect information here.
1. Quanar, your terminator/scout example is wrong. Even before the errata, you would have had to use mixed saves.
2. Mywick, it's not a model from the same unit within 6", it's closest model within the unit.
3. If you choose to Focus Fire, wounds cannot be allocated to a model with a better cover save. LOS is wound allocation and as such you would still need to follow all rules for wound allocation, unless specified otherwise (such as line of sight).
LOS is not wound allocation. The order of operations is a wound is allocated to a specific model(s), THEN LOS allows you to "resolve" that wound against another model in the unit. So no you do not follow the rules for allocation on LOS because it is not an allocation of wounds, as it has already been allocated.
Incorrect.
The LOS rules themselves refer to it as reallocation.
Order of operations still place LOS after wounds are allocated to a model. So you can then reallocate them. Nothing in the rules state that you cannot. Since we are using a permissive rule-set and it is not stated you cannot--as in the Vindicare FAQ--then you are permitted to.
The FAQ changes that order of operation. And permission is denied in the focus fire rules.
As it is, the poll would have been better if it listed the three possibilities. I think LOS can reallocate the hit, but only to models with the same cover save. Which is the option left out of the simple yes/no poll question.
Tell me where this is in the FAQ. I have the FAQ open in front of me and Focus Fire is never even mentioned. You are blatantly making things up and permission is not denied in the focus fire rules. Look Out Sir is never mentioned in the Focus Fire entry. Do not make things up to benefit your argument--it only kills its integrity.
Reeeaaaallly?
Try the first page of the FAQ, right after it says "Pg 16, Shooting Phase, Look out Sir!.... Its the second bullet point..... But of course you have it in front of you and its never mentioned.....
And to your second point. Permission is denied, as you may not allocate wounds to any model with a better coversave than that which you focus fired...
I agree, but FF will deny allocation of that wound to any model with a better cover save:
p18: "Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse than the value stated." This statement stays true during that entire shooting phase. For all shots of the unit that chose FF.
LoS grants permission to do it, after that, because it says it can even be a model out of LOS (which would pretty much always have a better cover save than the person standing out in the open).
Spellbound wrote: LoS grants permission to do it, after that, because it says it can even be a model out of LOS (which would pretty much always have a better cover save than the person standing out in the open).
Not true. The person out of LoS has a cover save based on what they're hiding behind. If the visible models are in area terrain and the invisible one is behind a hedge, for example, the saves would be the same.
Similar to one that is obscured by a Ruin and one that has LoS blocked by a Ruin - same save.
Happyjew wrote: Whole lots of incorrect information here.
1. Quanar, your terminator/scout example is wrong. Even before the errata, you would have had to use mixed saves.
2. Mywick, it's not a model from the same unit within 6", it's closest model within the unit.
3. If you choose to Focus Fire, wounds cannot be allocated to a model with a better cover save. LOS is wound allocation and as such you would still need to follow all rules for wound allocation, unless specified otherwise (such as line of sight).
LOS is not wound allocation. The order of operations is a wound is allocated to a specific model(s), THEN LOS allows you to "resolve" that wound against another model in the unit. So no you do not follow the rules for allocation on LOS because it is not an allocation of wounds, as it has already been allocated.
Incorrect.
The LOS rules themselves refer to it as reallocation.
Order of operations still place LOS after wounds are allocated to a model. So you can then reallocate them. Nothing in the rules state that you cannot. Since we are using a permissive rule-set and it is not stated you cannot--as in the Vindicare FAQ--then you are permitted to.
The FAQ changes that order of operation. And permission is denied in the focus fire rules.
As it is, the poll would have been better if it listed the three possibilities. I think LOS can reallocate the hit, but only to models with the same cover save. Which is the option left out of the simple yes/no poll question.
Tell me where this is in the FAQ. I have the FAQ open in front of me and Focus Fire is never even mentioned. You are blatantly making things up and permission is not denied in the focus fire rules. Look Out Sir is never mentioned in the Focus Fire entry. Do not make things up to benefit your argument--it only kills its integrity.
Reeeaaaallly?
Try the first page of the FAQ, right after it says "Pg 16, Shooting Phase, Look out Sir!.... Its the second bullet point..... But of course you have it in front of you and its never mentioned.....
And to your second point. Permission is denied, as you may not allocate wounds to any model with a better coversave than that which you focus fired...
Looks like your zero for two.....
I said "Focus Fire" never appears and the part you are referencing says "resolve" the wound not allocate it as it has already been allocated. I am not wrong and you are not careful with your reading. Try taking time and thought before you respond instead of just spouting off and being rude. Calm down and actually bring something to the argument that supports your point, not just supposition.
The discussion was that wounds used to be able to be reallocated after a failed save. That was the way the original LOS! rule was worded.
The FAQ changed that order by removing the "unsaved wounds" part.
That's what the discussion about the changed order of operation was about. If you are talking about something else, then that explains why you were having problems. People were talking about one thing, and you were talking about something else.
And yes, FF denies permission to resolve wound to any model with a better cover save. The rules for focus fire state you are to ignore any model with a better cover save.
I do think you could LOS! to any model that does have the same cover save or worse as that would not break any of the focus fire restrictions.
Steel-W0LF wrote: The discussion was that wounds used to be able to be reallocated after a failed save. That was the way the original LOS! rule was worded.
The FAQ changed that order by removing the "unsaved wounds" part.
That's what the discussion about the changed order of operation was about. If you are talking about something else, then that explains why you were having problems. People were talking about one thing, and you were talking about something else.
And yes, FF denies permission to resolve wound to any model with a better cover save. The rules for focus fire state you are to ignore any model with a better cover save.
I do think you could LOS! to any model that does have the same cover save or worse as that would not break any of the focus fire restrictions.
It does not deny permission to resolve, it denies permission to allocate. LOS happens after wounds are allocated before saves are made; this is the order of operations I was talking about. Nothing in FF in the rule book or FAQ explicitly denies LOS, as the Vindicare entry does. Also, you cannot target or allocate wounds to models out of range or line of sight, but LOS can still have wounds resolved onto models that are.
LOS! uses both resolve and reallocate within it's own definition and in most places in the rule book refers to it as reallocation, making them the same thing. Also the GK assassin FAQ doesn't deny LOS, nor is it an addition rule, it states that he is still allowed to allocate the wound after his opponent makes and passes a Look out sir roll. That FAQ doesn't even make sense if Look out sir isn't wound allocation. The only part that is actually being FAQ'd is that when you would normally allocate to the closest model to the character the Vindacare's deadshot is kicking in again and letting him allocate to any model of his choice.
Look out sir also explicitly gives you permission to allocate out of range and line of sight (well it has it own range) but does not give blanket permission to ignore all allocation restrictions.
And how does work for Focus fire? I focus fire on the character out in the open while the rest of his unit is behind the defense line and the go to ground getting a 2+ cover save and tank all the wounds for him? what sense does that make they are jumping out to save him why do they get a cover save if I'm focus firing out in the open? Perhaps they can look out sir but would have to give up their cover save? except there isn't a mechanic for that...
Focus fire prevents either player from allocating wounds to a cover save better than stated. When you go to look out sir and all the models in range have a better cover save this creates a conflict. Trying to say it's not allocation it's reallocation seems a bit strange to me but the GKFAQ that you brought up says otherwise.
I'll give you another question to chew on if I have multiple characters in a unit and one is in a challenge can I have the characters outside the challenge look out sir to the character in the challenge? (the challenge mechanic specific denies the other direction) The only thing preventing you from doing so is the allocation restriction, but hey it's reallocation right so why would this be any different?
Steel-W0LF wrote: The discussion was that wounds used to be able to be reallocated after a failed save. That was the way the original LOS! rule was worded.
The FAQ changed that order by removing the "unsaved wounds" part.
That's what the discussion about the changed order of operation was about. If you are talking about something else, then that explains why you were having problems. People were talking about one thing, and you were talking about something else.
And yes, FF denies permission to resolve wound to any model with a better cover save. The rules for focus fire state you are to ignore any model with a better cover save.
I do think you could LOS! to any model that does have the same cover save or worse as that would not break any of the focus fire restrictions.
It does not deny permission to resolve, it denies permission to allocate. LOS happens after wounds are allocated before saves are made; this is the order of operations I was talking about. Nothing in FF in the rule book or FAQ explicitly denies LOS, as the Vindicare entry does. Also, you cannot target or allocate wounds to models out of range or line of sight, but LOS can still have wounds resolved onto models that are.
Here's another relevant line: (I'll bold the key parts)
"This is a good way of causing casualties, but means you have no chance at all of killing the models with better cover than those you have focused on. Wounds caused by Focus Fire must still follow the normal allocation order. You ignore the models whose cover saves are better than what you've focused on."
Sure doesn't sound like you can allocate to models with better cover to me..........
Steel-W0LF wrote: The discussion was that wounds used to be able to be reallocated after a failed save. That was the way the original LOS! rule was worded.
The FAQ changed that order by removing the "unsaved wounds" part.
That's what the discussion about the changed order of operation was about. If you are talking about something else, then that explains why you were having problems. People were talking about one thing, and you were talking about something else.
And yes, FF denies permission to resolve wound to any model with a better cover save. The rules for focus fire state you are to ignore any model with a better cover save.
I do think you could LOS! to any model that does have the same cover save or worse as that would not break any of the focus fire restrictions.
It does not deny permission to resolve, it denies permission to allocate. LOS happens after wounds are allocated before saves are made; this is the order of operations I was talking about. Nothing in FF in the rule book or FAQ explicitly denies LOS, as the Vindicare entry does. Also, you cannot target or allocate wounds to models out of range or line of sight, but LOS can still have wounds resolved onto models that are.
Here's another relevant line: (I'll bold the key parts)
"This is a good way of causing casualties, but means you have no chance at all of killing the models with better cover than those you have focused on. Wounds caused by Focus Fire must still follow the normal allocation order. You ignore the models whose cover saves are better than what you've focused on."
Sure doesn't sound like you can allocate to models with better cover to me..........
You also have no chance of killing models out of range or line of sight, but LOS! allows the player being shot at to resolve wounds against models that are. The "you" is the firing player. Also, I am completely with Kisada II on not allowing the higher cover save on the model the wound is being resolved against as this mechanic represents said model diving into the line of fire; which is why models out of range or line of sight can have wounds resolved against them. I also agree that this mechanic is not in place. In a friendly I would not expect the higher cover save, just likei allow my opponents to take cover saves from my grav on vehicles.
Ok, so I ask some folks about this in my area and it looks like the verb-age on the cover saves themselves makes them somewhat optional (the exact phrase is entitled to a cover save) . So as long as the model gives up that cover save then I would be fine with it and would change my vote to no.
Kisada II wrote: Ok, so I ask some folks about this in my area and it looks like the verb-age on the cover saves themselves makes them somewhat optional (the exact phrase is entitled to a cover save) . So as long as the model gives up that cover save then I would be fine with it and would change my vote to no.
1 state you are focus firing 5+ (would ignore the white scars for wound allocation)
2 roll to hit
3 roll to wound
4 defending player states he is LOS'ing the allocated wounds.
5 roll LOS's and allocate to nearest model not using their 4+ cover save.
6 wolf priest rolls saves againgst failed LOS's and wounds not able to be allocated due to focus fire.
This is how i see it working. You can LOS all wounds allocated to the priest that do not have to be made on the 4+ jink (i.e., not ap3/2/1, or a model that has an invun).
To add: If a shot is AP3 or better, the white scar HAS to use his 4+ jink and therefore cannot receive a LOS allocated wound. This is because in the BRB it states you must use your best save available.
1 state you are focus firing 5+ (would ignore the white scars for wound allocation)
2 roll to hit
3 roll to wound
4 defending player states he is LOS'ing the allocated wounds.
5 roll LOS's and allocate to nearest model not using their 4+ cover save.
6 wolf priest rolls saves againgst failed LOS's and wounds not able to be allocated due to focus fire.
This is how i see it working. You can LOS all wounds allocated to the priest that do not have to be made on the 4+ jink (i.e., not ap3/2/1, or a model that has an invun).
This has been my argument from the beginning--the order of operations allows LOS--but in a friendly I'd definitely consider not allowing the higher cover save on the LOSd wound: possibly roll off to decide.
I think it may be worth noting that the rules conflict with each other. Focus fire says you can't, LOS says you can. General vs Specific? I'd argue that LOS is a far more specific rule than focus fire.
Thaylen, I disagree that there is a conflict. This 'conflict' would be along the same vain as 'Charging from an assault vehicle when you come in from reserves' and I would apply the same answer to that. The action being attempted falls under two different rules, each with their own permission and restrictions, and unless you meet all the restrictions then the action is illegal. For it to be a direct conflict the Look Out Sir! wording would have to contain something along the lines of 'a player can re-allocate the hit to any model, ignoring other restrictions' or 'a player can re-allocate the Hit to any model, regardless of cover save.' In those cases we would state permission exists to ignore the restriction, as the permission is more specific, but without those words both are applicable.
Wounds are allocated then transferred to LOS. So focus fire saying you can't allocate wounds doesn't matter. They are being allocated, and transferred.
And yes if transferred to a model in cover they get their cover save still.
No rules being broken, no gray fuzzy areas. Just follow the steps. You focus fire so he has to allocate wounds as per focus fire. If a model gets LOS that comes AFTER wound allocation.
He makes his LOS roll for each wound allocated to him. If he makes his LOS roll the the wound is transferred to the nearest friendly model in the unit.
Who then makes the save against the attack. It's not re-allocate. It's transfer.
Actually wagguy, they are then re-allocated to the next model. Hence the reason no further attempts can be made to re-allocated whether you pass or fail.
Wagguy80 wrote: Wounds are allocated then transferred to LOS. So focus fire saying you can't allocate wounds doesn't matter. They are being allocated, and transferred.
And yes if transferred to a model in cover they get their cover save still.
No rules being broken, no gray fuzzy areas. Just follow the steps. You focus fire so he has to allocate wounds as per focus fire. If a model gets LOS that comes AFTER wound allocation.
He makes his LOS roll for each wound allocated to him. If he makes his LOS roll the the wound is transferred to the nearest friendly model in the unit.
Who then makes the save against the attack. It's not re-allocate. It's transfer.
Then you are breaking the Focus Fire rules that tell you you have no chance of killing models with a better cover save, and the line that says models with a better save have to be ignored.
Wagguy80 wrote: Wounds are allocated then transferred to LOS. So focus fire saying you can't allocate wounds doesn't matter. They are being allocated, and transferred.
And yes if transferred to a model in cover they get their cover save still.
No rules being broken, no gray fuzzy areas. Just follow the steps. You focus fire so he has to allocate wounds as per focus fire. If a model gets LOS that comes AFTER wound allocation.
He makes his LOS roll for each wound allocated to him. If he makes his LOS roll the the wound is transferred to the nearest friendly model in the unit.
Who then makes the save against the attack. It's not re-allocate. It's transfer.
Then you are breaking the Focus Fire rules that tell you you have no chance of killing models with a better cover save, and the line that says models with a better save have to be ignored.
LOS! already does that by letting you resolve wounds against models that are out of the shooting players LoS or range--this is a poor argument when there is a precedent to the contrary.
Psienesis wrote: LOS! lets you do that because LOS! represents the cinematic event of the lowly grunt jumping in front of the commander to catch a bullet for him.
In other words, the model the LOS! Wound is allocating to has elected to place itself within range and line of sight of the attacker.
Not really much of a precedent there.
The precedent is that wounds that models that would not otherwise be able to have wounds resolved against them can due to LOS! Do you understand what a "precedent" is?
Except it is not a precedent. If LOS! said nothing about line of sight, and a faq was released that said "Can models that are out of sight from the firing unit, have wounds allocated to them via look out sir? Yes." Then it would be a precedent. Your claim that los is ignored for wound allocation for LOS is a precedent allowing it to override ff, is similar to me trying to fire two weapons with infantry, using monstrous creatures as a precedent.
Happyjew wrote: Except it is not a precedent. If LOS! said nothing about line of sight, and a faq was released that said "Can models that are out of sight from the firing unit, have wounds allocated to them via look out sir? Yes." Then it would be a precedent. Your claim that los is ignored for wound allocation for LOS is a precedent allowing it to override ff, is similar to me trying to fire two weapons with infantry, using monstrous creatures as a precedent.
Don't be glib, and your example of the monstrous creature as a precedent is in no way similar--its just you trying to be an ass. Yes, precedent speaks to a ruling, but you should understand the connotation and the denotation of the word still functions here: a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or anaologous cases. The precedent is that LOS allows wounds to be resolved against models that the shooting player could not wound otherwise eg. models out of LoS, range or with a higher cover saves when Focus Firing. It is a precedent.
Psienesis wrote: LOS! lets you do that because LOS! represents the cinematic event of the lowly grunt jumping in front of the commander to catch a bullet for him.
In other words, the model the LOS! Wound is allocating to has elected to place itself within range and line of sight of the attacker.
Not really much of a precedent there.
The precedent is that wounds that models that would not otherwise be able to have wounds resolved against them can due to LOS! Do you understand what a "precedent" is?
LoS! does say it can ignore those wound allocation restrictions.... so you can.
Does LoS! say you can ignore all other wound allocation rules that they did not list?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the Poll is verry poorly worded.
1) Does FF deny all LoS!? NO
20 Does FF have no effect on LoS!? No
3) Does FF prevent LoS! from allocating to models with better cover? Yes
Units A and B position themselves so that Unit B is partially obscuring Target C from Unit A's view in such a way that only the Character in Target C would not receive a cover save from Unit B obscuring line of sight. Unit A focus fires 6+ at Target C.
If look Out, Sir! is not allowed for the models with better cover, Then it theoretically becomes possible to "snipe" any character from any unit not already in cover by using focus fire to limit how many models he can Look Out, Sir! to simply by positioning my own squads. This does not seem correct to me.
A Neat house rule could be to allow the character to LOS, but anyone he reallocates a wound to must use the character's cover save instead of their own. They ARE diving out of their spot to save the character, after all.
Units A and B position themselves so that Unit B is partially obscuring Target C from Unit A's view in such a way that only the Character in Target C would not receive a cover save from Unit B obscuring line of sight. Unit A focus fires 6+ at Target C.
If look Out, Sir! is not allowed for the models with better cover, Then it theoretically becomes possible to "snipe" any character from any unit not already in cover by using focus fire to limit how many models he can Look Out, Sir! to simply by positioning my own squads. This does not seem correct to me.
A Neat house rule could be to allow the character to LOS, but anyone he reallocates a wound to must use the character's cover save instead of their own. They ARE diving out of their spot to save the character, after all.
Dont put your IC's out on the edge of units where they can be focus fired then.
Denying the opponent the oppotunity to fucus fire because you moved your character in an unwise manner is not a good solution.
That was only the example for simplicity's sake. The elaboration below stated it could be used to "limit how many models he can Look Out, Sir! to". It would be fairly easy to position your blocking squad so that only the character and a few other models are not obscured.
Bojazz wrote: That was only the example for simplicity's sake. The elaboration below stated it could be used to "limit how many models he can Look Out, Sir! to". It would be fairly easy to position your blocking squad so that only the character and a few other models are not obscured.
And its been that way for a decade at least.
It used to be called Rhino Sniping.
You would have rhino's on ither side of a guy with a lascannon, and position the rhinos so the guy could only see down a narrow corridor at the model he wanted to kill. This tactic has been around forever.
While its still possible to pull off, LoS! makes it much harder.
I was under the impression Look Out, Sir! was implemented to prevent such things as rhino sniping. Also, if Focus fire does indeed limit which models can have wounds re-allocated to them, then Look Out, Sir! does not make it harder at all.
Anything out of line of sight is at least 25% obscured by the Rhinos and is given a 5+ cover save, and then cannot have wounds allocated to them due to focus fire being 6+. LOS! does not make it harder at all, it is the exact same. Hence my impression that it was implemented to combat things like this in the first place.
Rhino Sniping is dead for a reason. LoS! is not one of them.
If you want to field a bunch of models that can be blown up on a whim, and give away first blood just to be able to take out a specific model with a shot, go ahead.
But the main way of Sniping a character with FF is like stated above. Screening the unit with terrain or another unit so a cover save is conferred then focus firing. LoS! most definitely (helps) prevent this as long as the player was not a dummy with his commander sticking off on the edge of a unit.
If the IC was not on the edge of the unit, there will be at least several models that will have the same cover save, and could be LoS!'d too.
Good to see the "No" votes winning. LOS is a more specific situation. Follow what it says over what focus fire says. Also, do you really think GW made focus fire so you could get rid of the only good defense characters have against the wonky wound allocation system? Obviously, at least a quarter of people do. Sigh....
I wish GW wrote better rules or, barring that, updated their FAQ's more often. I'm glad I don't play competitively.
Wonky wound allocation? so you dont expect the nearest models to a firing unit to be killed first?. If you think its wonky try working on your model placement and movement.
Look out sir says you can LOS to models out of range and line of sight, it says nothing about cover saves, there is no conflict between not being able to allocate wounds to a model with a better cover save so you are not breaking the look out sir rule, if you say you can re allocate wounds to a model with a better cover save you are breaking focus fire rule (you have no chance of killing a model with a better cover save).
MarkyMark wrote: Wonky wound allocation? so you dont expect the nearest models to a firing unit to be killed first?. If you think its wonky try working on your model placement and movement.
Look out sir says you can LOS to models out of range and line of sight, it says nothing about cover saves, there is no conflict between not being able to allocate wounds to a model with a better cover save so you are not breaking the look out sir rule, if you say you can re allocate wounds to a model with a better cover save you are breaking focus fire rule (you have no chance of killing a model with a better cover save).
Just like you have no chance of killing a model out of LoS or range. Your argument does not hold up.
MarkyMark wrote: Out of range or line of sight is clearly covered by look out sir rules, would you like me to quote them?.
Don't be an ass. I am well aware of the wording on the rule. If you cannot discuss this without being patronizing or rude then do not. Your argument that you have no chance of killing a model with a better cover save falls along the same lines as you cannot kill a model out of LoS or range UNLESS LOS! resolves those wounds against those models. You understood what I meant; do not try and be subversive.
Without those restrictions being lifted then no there would be a discussion about it being being able to kill out of range and line of sight. IT clearly says you can look out sir to models out of range and line of sight so this has no bearer on this discussion.
MarkyMark wrote: Without those restrictions being lifted then no there would be a discussion about it being being able to kill out of range and line of sight. IT clearly says you can look out sir to models out of range and line of sight so this has no bearer on this discussion.
I just cannot understand how it is you don't see that it does.
It's certainly evidence of intent, but I don't think it overrides the specific restriction in focus fire that wounds can't be allocated to a model with a worse cover save than that stated. I think this is one of these issues where you'll just have to agree with your opponent how it's to be played.
Focus Fire determines who the wounds are allocated to. After the wounds have been allocated, following the Focus Fire restrictions, LOS! happens as it is laid out in the BRB. Focus Fire has no effect on the resolution of wounds beyond the initial allocation.
POKEYtheBIG wrote: Focus Fire determines who the wounds are allocated to. After the wounds have been allocated, following the Focus Fire restrictions, LOS! happens as it is laid out in the BRB. Focus Fire has no effect on the resolution of wounds beyond the initial allocation.
And you have nothing that backs that up in the rules. You have the ability to ignore range and line of sight because it tells you to, but nothing that tells you to ignore any other restrictions like "ignore any models with a better cover save". If you are not told to ignore the restriction, you cant.
POKEYtheBIG wrote: Focus Fire determines who the wounds are allocated to. After the wounds have been allocated, following the Focus Fire restrictions, LOS! happens as it is laid out in the BRB. Focus Fire has no effect on the resolution of wounds beyond the initial allocation.
And you have nothing that backs that up in the rules. You have the ability to ignore range and line of sight because it tells you to, but nothing that tells you to ignore any other restrictions like "ignore any models with a better cover save". If you are not told to ignore the restriction, you cant.
Based on your logic I would still get LOS! as there is nothing in the Focus Fire rule that says I cannot. The FF rule only speaks to what models can be allocated wounds. You allocate all those wounds on the model with the lower cover save--done. Then, that model begins to roll LOS! All FF does is force moreLOS! on said model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't think that people understand LOS! takes place after wound allocation.
POKEYtheBIG wrote: Focus Fire determines who the wounds are allocated to. After the wounds have been allocated, following the Focus Fire restrictions, LOS! happens as it is laid out in the BRB. Focus Fire has no effect on the resolution of wounds beyond the initial allocation.
And you have nothing that backs that up in the rules. You have the ability to ignore range and line of sight because it tells you to, but nothing that tells you to ignore any other restrictions like "ignore any models with a better cover save". If you are not told to ignore the restriction, you cant.
Based on your logic I would still get LOS! as there is nothing in the Focus Fire rule that says I cannot. The FF rule only speaks to what models can be allocated wounds. You allocate all those wounds on the model with the lower cover save--done. Then, that model begins to roll LOS! All FF does is force moreLOS! on said model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't think that people understand LOS! takes place after wound allocation.
Then you are not "ignoring models with a better cover save".
You can still LoS! FF wounds, but they have to fit the focus fire restrictions, which you are never given permission to ignore.
POKEYtheBIG wrote: Focus Fire determines who the wounds are allocated to. After the wounds have been allocated, following the Focus Fire restrictions, LOS! happens as it is laid out in the BRB. Focus Fire has no effect on the resolution of wounds beyond the initial allocation.
And you have nothing that backs that up in the rules. You have the ability to ignore range and line of sight because it tells you to, but nothing that tells you to ignore any other restrictions like "ignore any models with a better cover save". If you are not told to ignore the restriction, you cant.
Based on your logic I would still get LOS! as there is nothing in the Focus Fire rule that says I cannot. The FF rule only speaks to what models can be allocated wounds. You allocate all those wounds on the model with the lower cover save--done. Then, that model begins to roll LOS! All FF does is force moreLOS! on said model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't think that people understand LOS! takes place after wound allocation.
Then you are not "ignoring models with a better cover save".
You can still LoS! FF wounds, but they have to fit the focus fire restrictions, which you are never given permission to ignore.
The other models are ignored for the original allocation. Nothing in the FF rule states that it extends after the initial allocation or into LOS!
Actually the rules for ff say (paraphrasing here) "if you declare focus fire, your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to our worse than what you declared." The only time your opponent allocates wounds was when they utilised los (and close combat but that is not applicable).
nosferatu1001 wrote: You no longer allocate the wound, the allocation is set for you,
When you could pick any model within 6" this would have applied, now you have no choice in the matter
While I agree that the player is no longer choosing which model with LoS!, I dont see that it changes much. FF still tells you to ignore certain models for its allocation.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You no longer allocate the wound, the allocation is set for you,
When you could pick any model within 6" this would have applied, now you have no choice in the matter
While I agree that the player is no longer choosing which model with LoS!, I dont see that it changes much. FF still tells you to ignore certain models for its allocation.
Personally I'd prefer to play it that the LOS!'ing minion has the same cover save as the character being targetted (in all cases, not just for LOS!). That seems like the fairest option to me, and one I'd want to use as a house rule. Everything below this line is just strict RAW crap that won't change anyone's mind as in the grand tradition of the internet once you've said something once you have to defend your point rabidly, because admission of being wrong is weakness and weakness is death. Or something.
However, the Look Out Sir! box itself states "This represents the character ducking back further into the unit, holding a comrade in the line of fire, or being pushed aside by a selfless ally." so it's feasible that the character itself moves which, RAW, means the minion could have their cover save. Perhaps they're leaning from behind their LOS blocking cover and pulling the character out of the way with their 6" long arms.
Focus fire restricts allocation of new wounds, however as nosferatu1001 pointed out there isn't actually an allocation by any standard allocation rules. The LOS! rules simply state (with FAQ modification) "On a roll of 4+, the Look Out, Sir attempt is successful. Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character, and resolve the Wound against that model instead. This can even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the Shooting attack."
The rule is very specific on which model to choose and resolve the wound against (you can't really get much more specific than that), so the FF rules about allocation must be ignored, as are all other allocation rules like LOS and range - after all, the wound has already been allocated to the character following those rules. After that particular rule it mentions that "once the Wound has been transferred (or not), no further attempts to reallocate it can be made.", presumably so units with multiple characters can't play Look Out Sir! tennis. It doesn't at any point say you're allocating the wound to the model that it ends up getting resolved against.
All well and good except you missed out the last sentence of look out sir rule in the rule book.
Only one look out sir attempt can be made per wound allocated - once the wound has been transferred (or not), no further attempts to reallocate it can be made.
So it is clear a allocation. If you argue that it is not a allocation or reallocation then you can acutally start LOS each wound more then once as you are basically ignoring this sentence.
If you go by strict RAW then focus fire actually does nothing unless you attempt a Look Out Sir roll.
Focus Fire (pg 18) limits what models to which the shooting player's opponent has permission to allocate wounds.
Allocate Wounds (pg 15) clearly tells the shooting player, not his opponent, to allocate the wounds.
Look Out Sir (pg 16) is the only time the shooting player's opponent gets to allocate wounds and only then would Focus Fire do anything going by RAW.
Conclusion? Don't go by RAW on this. Look at the context of whats happening in the fluff. The character being shot at is either ducking farther into cover, grabbing a guy in cover and putting him in the path of the shot, or a guy in cover is leaping out of the cover to push the character out of the way. Seems to me its perfectly fine to let the wound be reallocated onto a model with a better cover save.
Rain wrote: Either I missed the last sentence or you missed the last paragraph of my post.
Your last paragraph is wrong though - the fact that no further attempts at reallocation can be made means LOS! is a reallocation, meaning it's an allocation. That or you can LOS! infinitely.
The point I was making is, if the focus fire rules restrict the owning players ability to choose where to allocate , then LOS does not interact with FF at all, as the owning player does not choose where the wound is allocated. They used to, pre FAQ , but they don't do so any longer
Rain wrote: Either I missed the last sentence or you missed the last paragraph of my post.
Your last paragraph is wrong though - the fact that no further attempts at reallocation can be made means LOS! is a reallocation, meaning it's an allocation. That or you can LOS! infinitely.
I was just pointing out that as written you don't allocate the wound, you resolve it. The book mentions transferring and reallocation after the fact but only actually uses the words allocate or allocated when talking about the original character; likewise, it's in the same paragraph as a section dealing with multiple characters in a single unit. Technically they could be referring to an entirely different mechanism that reallocates a wound being blocked by LOS! - obviously they're not, but it's just another example of the rules being contradictory and generally a bit wonky (especially with what DJGietzen has pointed out).
That's kind of getting away from the point of the question, though. My personal feeling, inferred from the LOS and range ignoring rules attached to LOS!, along with the specific-nearest-model rule, is that by RAI, LOS! completely disregards anything to do with FF. Personally I'd want to play it with a house rule that the model performing the LOS! action uses the character's cover save instead of his own (which to me makes sense, especially if it's out of line of sight), but that's entirely separate and isn't covered at all.
So instead of bouncing back and forth getting everyone's post counts up without anyone really agreeing on anything or changing their mind and just making this thread needlessly long - there's my personal opinion, I'm off to the pub.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The point I was making is, if the focus fire rules restrict the owning players ability to choose where to allocate , then LOS does not interact with FF at all, as the owning player does not choose where the wound is allocated. They used to, pre FAQ , but they don't do so any longer
Exactly this.
FF will not interact with Look Out Sir at all as the wound is reallocated to a specific model and not one of the players choosing.
Ergo you can use Look Out Sir even when the opponent uses Focus Fire.
No, which model they can reallocate the wound to is no longer a choice but the shooting's player's opponent is still reallocating the wound by making a look out sir roll.
Happyjew wrote: Actually the rules for ff say (paraphrasing here) "if you declare focus fire, your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to our worse than what you declared." The only time your opponent allocates wounds was when they utilised los (and close combat but that is not applicable).
This is not quite true. In the LoS rules themselves, they call the LoS a re-allocation of the wound. However, if you have been FF'd then you cannot allocate the wounds to models with a cover save better than x. I hope we're not going to argue that a re-allocation is not a allocation. I'm not denying that you CAN LoS during a FF, I'm just saying it can pass but then cannot be allocated away from the original model.
Relevant rules:
pp16 LoS rules: If the unit only consists of characters, a look Out, Sir attempt can still be rnade, with one character within 6" taking the place of the erstwhile victim if the roll is passed. Only one Look Our, Sir attempt can be made per wound allocated - once the wound has been transferred (or not), no further attempts to reallocate it can be made.
pp18 FF rules: Your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse (i.e a higher value) than the value stated.
I think it's silly, but according to RAW in the OP's case the rune priest would be able to be sniped out of the white scars biker unit.
Also, this poll is horribly worded. FF doesn't deny the ability to use LoS, but it can reduce the effectiveness of it (almost down to not effective)
Happyjew wrote: Actually the rules for ff say (paraphrasing here) "if you declare focus fire, your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to our worse than what you declared." The only time your opponent allocates wounds was when they utilised los (and close combat but that is not applicable).
This is not quite true. In the LoS rules themselves, they call the LoS a re-allocation of the wound. However, if you have been FF'd then you cannot allocate the wounds to models with a cover save better than x. I hope we're not going to argue that a re-allocation is not a allocation. I'm not denying that you CAN LoS during a FF, I'm just saying it can pass but then cannot be allocated away from the original model.
Relevant rules:
pp16 LoS rules:
If the unit only consists of characters, a look Out, Sir attempt can still be rnade, with one character within 6" taking the place of the erstwhile victim if the roll is passed. Only one Look Our, Sir attempt can be made per wound allocated - once the wound has been transferred (or not), no further attempts to reallocate it can be made.
pp18 FF rules:
Your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse (i.e a higher value) than the value stated.
I think it's silly, but according to RAW in the OP's case the rune priest would be able to be sniped out of the white scars biker unit.
Also, this poll is horribly worded. FF doesn't deny the ability to use LoS, but it can reduce the effectiveness of it (almost down to not effective)
Agree. Almost down to ineffective if you place your IC in a poor position within the unit.
Happyjew wrote: Actually the rules for ff say (paraphrasing here) "if you declare focus fire, your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to our worse than what you declared." The only time your opponent allocates wounds was when they utilised los (and close combat but that is not applicable).
This is not quite true. In the LoS rules themselves, they call the LoS a re-allocation of the wound. However, if you have been FF'd then you cannot allocate the wounds to models with a cover save better than x.
You've missed the point. Normally the player doing the shooting allocates the wounds, not the player getting shot at. FF only prevents the player getting shot at from allocating wounds to certain models. Normally FF does nothing because it prevents the player getting shot at from doing something its already not doing. The only time the player getting shot at is allowed to allocate any of the wounds is when they make a LOS role.
I think this is a case of a FAQ changing the rules instead of clarifying them, because as written in the book, LOS! involves a player choice, which to me would be subject to the restrictions on wound allocation imposed by FF. However, the FAQ removes that choice and tells you which model to resolve the wound against. So I'm inclined to agree that LOS! takes priority in this scenario. The way I interpret the order of operations, wounds are allocated from the wound pool following FF restriction until a wound is allocated to a character, at which point a LOS! may be taken, which bears its own wound allocation rule.
Happyjew wrote: Actually the rules for ff say (paraphrasing here) "if you declare focus fire, your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to our worse than what you declared." The only time your opponent allocates wounds was when they utilised los (and close combat but that is not applicable).
This is not quite true. In the LoS rules themselves, they call the LoS a re-allocation of the wound. However, if you have been FF'd then you cannot allocate the wounds to models with a cover save better than x.
You've missed the point. Normally the player doing the shooting allocates the wounds, not the player getting shot at. FF only prevents the player getting shot at from allocating wounds to certain models. Normally FF does nothing because it prevents the player getting shot at from doing something its already not doing. The only time the player getting shot at is allowed to allocate any of the wounds is when they make a LOS role.
The shooting player doesn't get to allocate wounds. Wounds are automatically resolved against the closest enemy. FF prevents wounds from being allocated to models with saves better than X, so it just changes what the 'closest model' is for wound allocation. The only time players get to intervene with how wounds are resolved are for there are mixed wounds, and that still would follow the rules for allocation.
rtunian wrote: I think this is a case of a FAQ changing the rules instead of clarifying them, because as written in the book, LOS! involves a player choice, which to me would be subject to the restrictions on wound allocation imposed by FF. However, the FAQ removes that choice and tells you which model to resolve the wound against. So I'm inclined to agree that LOS! takes priority in this scenario. The way I interpret the order of operations, wounds are allocated from the wound pool following FF restriction until a wound is allocated to a character, at which point a LOS! may be taken, which bears its own wound allocation rule.
The change, while distributed in an FAQ document, was part of an errata. Errata are supposed to changes to the rules. It did not however, change who is allocating (or to be more persice, reallocating) the wounds as a result of a successful role.
Happyjew wrote: Actually the rules for ff say (paraphrasing here) "if you declare focus fire, your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to our worse than what you declared." The only time your opponent allocates wounds was when they utilised los (and close combat but that is not applicable).
This is not quite true. In the LoS rules themselves, they call the LoS a re-allocation of the wound. However, if you have been FF'd then you cannot allocate the wounds to models with a cover save better than x.
You've missed the point. Normally the player doing the shooting allocates the wounds, not the player getting shot at. FF only prevents the player getting shot at from allocating wounds to certain models. Normally FF does nothing because it prevents the player getting shot at from doing something its already not doing. The only time the player getting shot at is allowed to allocate any of the wounds is when they make a LOS role.
The shooting player doesn't get to allocate wounds. Wounds are automatically resolved against the closest enemy. FF prevents wounds from being allocated to models with saves better than X, so it just changes what the 'closest model' is for wound allocation. The only time players get to intervene with how wounds are resolved are for there are mixed wounds, and that still would follow the rules for allocation.
No, the shooting player is instructed on page 15 of the BRB to allocate the wounds to the enemy model closest to the firing unit. FF, if you go by RAW, does not matter here because FF only prevents the shooting player's opponent from allocating wounds to certain models. Its does not, by RAW, change how the shooting player allocates any wounds at all.
Its very clear that the RAW does not match the RAI because GW has no doubt failed to proof read the damn book again. You cannot go by RAW any time FF is involved.
rtunian wrote: I think this is a case of a FAQ changing the rules instead of clarifying them, because as written in the book, LOS! involves a player choice, which to me would be subject to the restrictions on wound allocation imposed by FF. However, the FAQ removes that choice and tells you which model to resolve the wound against. So I'm inclined to agree that LOS! takes priority in this scenario. The way I interpret the order of operations, wounds are allocated from the wound pool following FF restriction until a wound is allocated to a character, at which point a LOS! may be taken, which bears its own wound allocation rule.
The change, while distributed in an FAQ document, was part of an errata. Errata are supposed to changes to the rules. It did not however, change who is allocating (or to be more persice, reallocating) the wounds as a result of a successful role.
Happyjew wrote: Actually the rules for ff say (paraphrasing here) "if you declare focus fire, your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to our worse than what you declared." The only time your opponent allocates wounds was when they utilised los (and close combat but that is not applicable).
This is not quite true. In the LoS rules themselves, they call the LoS a re-allocation of the wound. However, if you have been FF'd then you cannot allocate the wounds to models with a cover save better than x.
You've missed the point. Normally the player doing the shooting allocates the wounds, not the player getting shot at. FF only prevents the player getting shot at from allocating wounds to certain models. Normally FF does nothing because it prevents the player getting shot at from doing something its already not doing. The only time the player getting shot at is allowed to allocate any of the wounds is when they make a LOS role.
The shooting player doesn't get to allocate wounds. Wounds are automatically resolved against the closest enemy. FF prevents wounds from being allocated to models with saves better than X, so it just changes what the 'closest model' is for wound allocation. The only time players get to intervene with how wounds are resolved are for there are mixed wounds, and that still would follow the rules for allocation.
No, the shooting player is instructed on page 15 of the BRB to allocate the wounds to the enemy model closest to the firing unit. FF, if you go by RAW, does not matter here because FF only prevents the shooting player's opponent from allocating wounds to certain models. Its does not, by RAW, change how the shooting player allocates any wounds at all.
Its very clear that the RAW does not match the RAI because GW has no doubt failed to proof read the damn book again. You cannot go by RAW any time FF is involved.
I keep reading page 15 and I see nothing saying the shooting player is allocating wounds. The game system tells us to keep a tally of the number of wounds in the wound pool, then allocate them to the nearest model. It never says the shooting player allocates wounds. The only choice the shooting player has past rolling to hit and wound is under mixed wounds, where the shooter gets to decide which order the wounds will be resolved. It doesn't matter however, as wounds cannot be allocated to models that have been FF'd out, and that includes the re-allocation of wounds from LoS.
rtunian wrote: I think this is a case of a FAQ changing the rules instead of clarifying them, because as written in the book, LOS! involves a player choice, which to me would be subject to the restrictions on wound allocation imposed by FF. However, the FAQ removes that choice and tells you which model to resolve the wound against. So I'm inclined to agree that LOS! takes priority in this scenario. The way I interpret the order of operations, wounds are allocated from the wound pool following FF restriction until a wound is allocated to a character, at which point a LOS! may be taken, which bears its own wound allocation rule.
The change, while distributed in an FAQ document, was part of an errata. Errata are supposed to changes to the rules. It did not however, change who is allocating (or to be more persice, reallocating) the wounds as a result of a successful role.
Happyjew wrote: Actually the rules for ff say (paraphrasing here) "if you declare focus fire, your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to our worse than what you declared." The only time your opponent allocates wounds was when they utilised los (and close combat but that is not applicable).
This is not quite true. In the LoS rules themselves, they call the LoS a re-allocation of the wound. However, if you have been FF'd then you cannot allocate the wounds to models with a cover save better than x.
You've missed the point. Normally the player doing the shooting allocates the wounds, not the player getting shot at. FF only prevents the player getting shot at from allocating wounds to certain models. Normally FF does nothing because it prevents the player getting shot at from doing something its already not doing. The only time the player getting shot at is allowed to allocate any of the wounds is when they make a LOS role.
The shooting player doesn't get to allocate wounds. Wounds are automatically resolved against the closest enemy. FF prevents wounds from being allocated to models with saves better than X, so it just changes what the 'closest model' is for wound allocation. The only time players get to intervene with how wounds are resolved are for there are mixed wounds, and that still would follow the rules for allocation.
No, the shooting player is instructed on page 15 of the BRB to allocate the wounds to the enemy model closest to the firing unit. FF, if you go by RAW, does not matter here because FF only prevents the shooting player's opponent from allocating wounds to certain models. Its does not, by RAW, change how the shooting player allocates any wounds at all.
Its very clear that the RAW does not match the RAI because GW has no doubt failed to proof read the damn book again. You cannot go by RAW any time FF is involved.
I keep reading page 15 and I see nothing saying the shooting player is allocating wounds. The game system tells us to keep a tally of the number of wounds in the wound pool, then allocate them to the nearest model. It never says the shooting player allocates wounds. The only choice the shooting player has past rolling to hit and wound is under mixed wounds, where the shooter gets to decide which order the wounds will be resolved. It doesn't matter however, as wounds cannot be allocated to models that have been FF'd out, and that includes the re-allocation of wounds from LoS.
To determine how many casualties are caused you will need to allocate the Wounds...
As the book has been speaking to the shooting player up to this point there is no reason not to believe the 'you' they are referring to is the shooting player. One thing is clear, a player is allocating wounds.
Next, allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.
The player allocating wounds is allocating them to 'enemy' models in the target unit. Only the shooting player's opponent could own the target unit. If the models in the target unit are enemy models then the player allocating the wounds must be the shooting player.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: No FF prohibits the owning player from reallocating. Good job the erratad los rules mean it is the rule making the decision, not the owning player
The owning player is still choosing to try and reallocate the wound, they just don't have a choice of where they are reallocating it.
Again, the rule prohibits the owning player from allocating the wound. The player never allocates the wound, Los does. Previously you would have a point, as after evoking the rules t eh player might have a choice, however not any longer
DJGietzen wrote: Taking away the choice of WHERE to reallocate the wound does not change WHO is reallocating the wound.
The rule is not a "who".
Previously the player reallocated the wound. Now, they do not. FF therefore does not apply
Why is the player not reallocating the wound any more? All the errata did was change where the wound can be allocated but the mechanism, and the permission for a player to make use of that mechanism remained the same.
Why does having a choice matter though? If you order a sandwich from the deli for lunch every day and the deli provides you with a choice of sandwich then one day suddenly they only offer a single sandwich but you order it anyway you are still ordering the sandwich.
I thought you had to roll to see if your model first was able to look out sir! and then you roll that model's save. The basic idea is that the model is literally jumping out in front of the shot that would have otherwise hit the character. The model is allowed to take its armor/invuln save.
I think RAI, it does not mean that the model's cover save carries over because it's no longer in cover; it just jumped up in front of the character to protect him! Even if RAW, it may not seem clear this way, RAI would clearly point to the model being able to take the cover save of the model it is protecting only.
But to answer the poll question, Why would it not be able to? You are focusing your fire on the character. That means that a lot of shots are going into that one guy. The Look out sir! models have to be within 6in to be able to do so, and they have to pass the look out sir! roll. Consider for a moment precision shots. They work in the exact same way. You can still take Look out sir rolls for it, even though the shot was so good, you nailed the character for sure.
AnonAmbientLight wrote: I thought you had to roll to see if your model first was able to look out sir! and then you roll that model's save. The basic idea is that the model is literally jumping out in front of the shot that would have otherwise hit the character. The model is allowed to take its armor/invuln save.
I think RAI, it does not mean that the model's cover save carries over because it's no longer in cover; it just jumped up in front of the character to protect him! Even if RAW, it may not seem clear this way, RAI would clearly point to the model being able to take the cover save of the model it is protecting only.
This is the way I've done it in friendly games as it makes sense... But GW cant write rules that make sense.
AnonAmbientLight wrote: I thought you had to roll to see if your model first was able to look out sir! and then you roll that model's save. The basic idea is that the model is literally jumping out in front of the shot that would have otherwise hit the character. The model is allowed to take its armor/invuln save.
I think RAI, it does not mean that the model's cover save carries over because it's no longer in cover; it just jumped up in front of the character to protect him! Even if RAW, it may not seem clear this way, RAI would clearly point to the model being able to take the cover save of the model it is protecting only.
This is the way I've done it in friendly games as it makes sense... But GW cant write rules that make sense.
Yea i know. My issue is not that they have trouble with rules as it seems fairly easy to even bungle your own wording. But they take their sweet ass time updating and fixing FAQ. That grinds my gears.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It says when the player allocates. The point I have made is that the player does NOT allocate it. The rule now allocates it.
FF cares about the former.
And the point I'm trying to make is although they player does not get a choice as to where the wound is allocated, the player is still the one allocating the wound when they make a successful look out sir role.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It says when the player allocates. The point I have made is that the player does NOT allocate it. The rule now allocates it.
FF cares about the former.
And the point I'm trying to make is although they player does not get a choice as to where the wound is allocated, the player is still the one allocating the wound when they make a successful look out sir role.
No he is not, you make a Look Out Sir roll, then the rule re-allocates the wound if the roll was successful.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It says when the player allocates. The point I have made is that the player does NOT allocate it. The rule now allocates it.
FF cares about the former.
And the point I'm trying to make is although they player does not get a choice as to where the wound is allocated, the player is still the one allocating the wound when they make a successful look out sir role.
No he is not, you make a Look Out Sir roll, then the rule re-allocates the wound if the roll was successful.
And you are still told to ignore certain models entirely, as you can NEVER have a chance of killing them.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It says when the player allocates. The point I have made is that the player does NOT allocate it. The rule now allocates it.
FF cares about the former.
And the point I'm trying to make is although they player does not get a choice as to where the wound is allocated, the player is still the one allocating the wound when they make a successful look out sir role.
No, the player does not allocate the wound. The LOS rule absolutely, categorically and without room for interpretation on this, is the "thing" allocating the rule. The player does not
steel - irrelevant , as that only comes into play when the player allocates. FF is not in force when you make LOS as the rule allocates, not the player
