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.

So I played some games last night and I came across something curious.

With multi-save model units (units that are getting to take different saving throws against shooting) you allocate wounds to a model BEFORE it takes its saving throw. If you have a character in the unit that gets a wound allocated to it in this manner it is at this point that you'd roll for 'Look Out Sir' and pass the wound onto another model if successful (i.e. before the saving throw is made).

Now, here is the oddity. There seems to be no restriction on which models you can allocate that wound to in the unit, as long as they are within 6" of the character. Furthermore, the LOS rules state that you're even able to pass this wound along to models in the unit that would otherwise be out of line of sight and range of the firing unit, which clearly demonstrates that even restrictions against what models could normally be hit by the shooting are removed when it comes to LOS re-allocation.

So the strange situation we ran into was that my opponent used 'focus fire' to hit only models sitting out in the open in my unit, with one of those models being a Nob with eavy armor. He was hitting me with AP4 Psycannon shots which were going to punch right through the Nob's armor, so I went ahead and started rolling for LOS. However, I realized that with each successful LOS roll I was then able to allocate that wound to regular Orks in the mob that were within 6" but sheltering behind a barricade giving them a 4+ saving throw!

Therefore, even though he had used 'focus fire' I was able to funnel wounds onto models that were in cover so that I could actually get a saving throw...which certainly seems odd from a fluff perspective since you would imagine the pleeb would be jumping out in front of the Nob to save him, not sitting safely behind a barricade.


So can anyone find a flaw in my logic, or is this just another way that Look Out Sir is completely ridiculous?

Yup completely ridiculous. I know I will be house ruling it so that the LOS model will have the same cover status as the character being hit, since he is "temporally taking his place"

While it is not stated I think the intention of the rule is the chosen victim effectively replaces the one using the LOS. As in he jumped in front of him or more likely in the ork case shamlessly used as a human (ork) shield. The new model would therefore benefit from what ever cover the original target benefited from and not what the new victim enjoyed.

Consider the cover class of a model out of sight. It can not be targeted and shot at at all. So would the model be immune?

I believe the Look Out, Sir! game mechanic / rule was correctly observed.

But what I'd like to hear was that it was Dok's GKs that you were pulling this on!

You're assuming that LO,S!'s wound allocation takes predence over Focus Fire's.

In your example, you are not allowed to allocate wounds caused by the focussed fire to models with a cover save.

However, LO,S! states that you can allocate the wound to a model within 6".

To me, FF is the more specific rule here (my thoughts being that LO,S! would allow you to allocate to a model within 6", with FF further disallowing the allocation to any model with a cover save), but that's really up for debate.

I'd say that it's another attack of vague writing, but then again, it's 03:17am, and I may very well have missed something myself.

With focus fire the person doing the shooting calls out a save. So if he says "Guys in the open", then i would say you could have a guy jump in front but they would have to take the save that the person shooting called out.

As a gentleman I would have removed the models without taking a cover save. Strictly from the imagery of look out sir.

The other raw interpretation besides the OP's could be since it was focus fire that the LOS could not be used because you are not allowed to take casualties out of a better save.

We came across he exact same situation; with the same two conclusions. The one Yakface used, and the one Avatar used. It isn't clear which of those special rules is the 'advanced' of the two.

By RAW we couldn't find an answer.

Our solution was to allow him to LOS to any model, but that model could only use a save as good as allowed by the focus fire rule.

The Lookout Sir rule should have an errata stating it can be used whenever "a character fails his save" or "a character's wounds would be reduced by 1" or something, to prevent this error.

In no way can a character behind a rock jump in front of a sarge in the open whilst remaining behind the rock the whole time.

Don't you take your armor save first, and then the LOS? The book says "Any wounds (or unsaved wounds)." So you take your Space Marine Captain in terminator armor's 4+ ward against a lascannon and "Oh well. Bob! Come stand in front of me!"

That of course is a comical way of putting it. More like: Seeing his captain would not be able to get out of the way of the lascannon beam, nor even catch it on a less vital part of the body, Bob sacrificed himself. Insert TF2 Gib picture here. Except no hats.




Edit: On second thought, considering the spirit of the game, "unsaved wound" likely means a wound that has not had a save taken against it yet. And in this case, answering the original question, I'd say yes, the model taking the wound gets any save applicable. If you don't want your opponent to get saves, focus fire on the guys not in cover. What's to say a friend can't pull his sergeant down behind a rock into cover with the rest of the squad? It's the shooter's responsibility to choose to focus fire if he doesn't want any LOS cover saves to be had.

Unsaved wound is defined as wound that has been failed to save or can not be saved. You only ever allocate unsaved wounds if you have a unit with all the same saves, in which case you roll saves first, then allocate.

I disagree with Avatar 720 on the rules though. Look out, Sir! is not a re-allocation, it simply lets you resolve a wound against another model. It even tells you that a model out of sight or out of range can do this.

However, under "Determining Cover Saves" it says:

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body [...] is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save."
As you never allocate the wound to the model using Look Out, Sir!, you would still use any cover save the character has. The would is still allocated to him, just resolved against someone else.

So, surprisingly, RAW seems to follow the spirit of the rule.

eje005 and Jidmah are correct. The term 'unsaved wound' indicates a wound that has failed a save. Paragraph 2 on page 15 clearly states you take all saves first then allocate wounds i.e. 'unsaved wounds'.

These wounds are further defined in paragraph 3 on the same page. Therefor if your character (sgt etc.) is closest to the firing unit and must have a wound allocated to him then you can elect to try a 'Lookout Sir' to save him and allocate the 'unsaved wound' to a model within 6". This model would then be removed as a casualty. This process of allocating 'unsaved wounds' changes when you have models with different saves. However 'Lookout Sir' works as I have described it above, you cannot get any additional advantages by allocating a wound to a model in better cover.

In summary an allocated wound has already failed it saving throw. A Sgt or above can dodge the wound after failing his save by passing a look out sir roll and re-allocating to a model within 6" if this model is better cover makes no difference it is removed as a casualty.This works the same in close combat.

Scabfang wrote:eje005 and Jidmah are correct. The term 'unsaved wound' indicates a wound that has failed a save. Paragraph 2 on page 15 clearly states you take all saves first then allocate wounds i.e. 'unsaved wounds'.

These wounds are further defined in paragraph 3 on the same page. Therefor if your character (sgt etc.) is closest to the firing unit and must have a wound allocated to him then you can elect to try a 'Lookout Sir' to save him and allocate the 'unsaved wound' to a model within 6". This model would then be removed as a casualty. This process of allocating 'unsaved wounds' changes when you have models with different saves. However 'Lookout Sir' works as I have described it above, you cannot get any additional advantages by allocating a wound to a model in better cover.

In summary an allocated wound has already failed it saving throw. A Sgt or above can dodge the wound after failing his save by passing a look out sir roll and re-allocating to a model within 6" if this model is better cover makes no difference it is removed as a casualty.This works the same in close combat.

Sorry, but that's wrong. Have a look at the rules I quoted, they don't match with your summary.
1) Look Out, Sir! does not allocate wounds
2) In mixed save scenarios you actually allocate Wounds(capital W, defined term for a Wound that has not yet been attempted to save). In that case you can use armor and invulnerable saves of the model trying to save the character.
3) Saving throws are figured out from the model the wound is allocated to, not the model attempting to save it.

Just to be a dissenting voice on the imagery side of things, what if the munchkin gets hit due to dragging his superior into cover. Then there would be a cover save

Where does it say that LO,S! doesn't allocate?

Surely if a wound is allocated to a Character and then resolved against a different model in the unit, then it has been reallocated?

What about the final paragraph of LO,S!, where it says "once the wound has been transferred (or not) no further attempts to reallocate it can be made."?

It says "no further attempts to reallocate", not "no attempts to reallocate", heavily implying that it is indeed a reallocation.

Scabfang wrote:eje005 and Jidmah are correct. The term 'unsaved wound' indicates a wound that has failed a save. Paragraph 2 on page 15 clearly states you take all saves first then allocate wounds i.e. 'unsaved wounds'.

These wounds are further defined in paragraph 3 on the same page. Therefor if your character (sgt etc.) is closest to the firing unit and must have a wound allocated to him then you can elect to try a 'Lookout Sir' to save him and allocate the 'unsaved wound' to a model within 6". This model would then be removed as a casualty. This process of allocating 'unsaved wounds' changes when you have models with different saves. However 'Lookout Sir' works as I have described it above, you cannot get any additional advantages by allocating a wound to a model in better cover.

In summary an allocated wound has already failed it saving throw. A Sgt or above can dodge the wound after failing his save by passing a look out sir roll and re-allocating to a model within 6" if this model is better cover makes no difference it is removed as a casualty.This works the same in close combat.

Yup. I think yakface has miss-interpreted the rule.

No. LoS is only used when you allocate a wound. If all the models in the unit have the same save, then you can roll saves first then allocate. If they have different saves, you have to allocate first before saving, which means LoS has to be used before the saves are rolled.

Right. You roll a save, and since he's a charector you get to "look out sir" roll, and if successful you remove another model instead. That other model doesn't get a save.

No, wrong.

If your closest model is a power-armored Librarian (3+ armor) in a unit of assault terminators, a TH/SS terminator would be able to use Look out Sir! on 2+ and then use either his 2+ save or his 3++ save to catch the bullet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:Where does it say that LO,S! doesn't allocate?

Surely if a wound is allocated to a Character and then resolved against a different model in the unit, then it has been reallocated?

What about the final paragraph of LO,S!, where it says "once the wound has been transferred (or not) no further attempts to reallocate it can be made."?

It says "no further attempts to reallocate", not "no attempts to reallocate", heavily implying that it is indeed a reallocation.

True, but if an allocation would happen, then you would re-check for cover saves(as per the rule I quoted), and thus potentially allow a cover save to the LOS!-ing model.

Thanks for the replies everyone!

A few things to note:

1) With a mixed save unit (a unit which contains models that have access to any different types of save values, be those armor, cover or invulnerable saves) you allocate the wounds to the models FIRST and only then take the armor save. So with these types of units you take the Look Out Sir test before making any save, if successful, pass the wound to the new target and THEN take the save...this is actually quite clear if you read the Look Out Sir rule closely: The rule is observed when the original model is allocated a wound, which can be before or after the model takes it save (depending on whether it is a mixed save unit or not).


2) The fluff argument of: 'it makes no sense for the guy sitting behind cover to jump out and take the bullet'. While it is certainly true that it makes no sense, let's take the focus fire rule out of the equation here and just say it is normal shooting against a mixed save unit and again, the character is standing out in the open about to take an AP2 shot to the face. Look Out Sir clearly allows him to pass that wound onto a model that is behind cover and that model clearly gets to take his cover save against said wound. So as ridiculous as it may seem, there is clearly precedent in the rules to allow a model in cover to somehow take the wound from a character in the open...the only real question is which rule, Look Out Sir or Focus Fire rule takes precedence over the other.


3) And this is the real heart of the argument...is the restriction against pulling models from outside of the declared cover save range of 'Focus Fire' more specific than the permission to pull any model within 6" for 'Look Out Sir'?

Typically when you have two rules that seemingly contradict, and one grants permission to do something and the other restricts choices, the one that restricts naturally takes precedence between the two (as the fact that its a restriction tends to make it more specific). But then of course you get into the whole concept that 'focus fire' could be seen as more of a general wound allocation rule (as any firing unit can implement it) while the 'Look Out Sir' rule is more specific because it is a character specific rule. At the end of the day this is something that should be FAQ'd by GW because it is a genuine grey area.

For my money, I keep coming back to these two points as to why I think Look Out Sir takes precedence over focus fire in this case:

A) Look Out Sir allows you to reallocate the wounds onto models that are out of range and line of sight. These models are obviously normally restricted from having wounds allocated to them, so it clearly shows that Look Out Sir (at least in some ways) ignores the normal restrictions about which models in the unit can or cannot be allocated wounds. Of course, the counter-argument to that would be that those two instances (allocating to models that are out of range and line of sight) are the only two exceptions listed for Look Out Sir and therefore other restrictions (like those found in the 'focus fire' rules) would still apply.

B) If focus fire takes precedence over Look Out Sir, then you can have situations where players can basically turn off the Look Out Sir rule altogether. Basically lets say a character is part of a unit and he just happens to be the only model standing outside of cover. Enemy units can now utilize 'focus fire' specifically to deny the character a chance to use Look Out Sir if you say that the character is not allowed to reallocate the wound onto models that are outside of the specified 'focus fire' cover range. As much as I despise the Look Out Sir rule in general, I do think the purpose of it is to allow characters to be able to pass wounds onto other models in their unit that are within 6", period. I do not think focus fire is supposed to be some strange loophole around this.

I think that Focus Fire very well is supposed to be a sort-of loophole for LO,S!, or at least allowed to do so for a reason. LO,S! deals with Unit A firing at Unit B, and members of Unit B shielding their superiors against the generalised fire.

If Unit A instead focuses their fire on a character, the chance that he is going to be successfully hit and wounded suits the fact that it's not one unit firing at another unit anymore, it's one unit firing at part of the other unit, with the intention of making damn sure that certain parts of it die.

Even if you have got soldiers pulling their commanders out of the way, it only really works when they're under general fire, otherwise you're just going to have a steady stream of fire following the commander wherever he goes instead of moving on to another target.

If anything, it teaches people to be a little less reckless with their models, and suits the overall theme of making model placement a lot more important that 6th edition seems to be brought in.

I would want to say that you could only put the wounds on a model within the focus fire restriction, but imagine that the HQ in this example is the only guy not in cover, this means look out sir doesn't work.

So it would seem you are allowed to place the wounds via look out sir outside of the focus fire area.

After reading and further research in the rules, yes it is a little grey, however I would not allow a LO, S attempt on my own army in models that are outside of the focus fire zone. I honestly feel like in any case, the reallocated wound should not receive a cover save unless the character would have received a cover save, had he not used LO, S. I realize this is not accounted for in the rules, and any time there are some models not in cover, this situation will arise. I suppose this is up to the discretion of each player as to how to interpret this rule. Just a cheesy way to save a Sargeant, I guess.

Then if you LOS onto a model out of LoS; does he automatically get a cover save? What is the cover save for "can't see target"?

Out of sight only matters for allocating wounds out of the wound pool. You gain cover as soon as 25% of your model is hidden from any shooting model's view. This includes being 100% hidden.

Jidmah wrote:Out of sight only matters for allocating wounds out of the wound pool. You gain cover as soon as 25% of your model is hidden from any shooting model's view. This includes being 100% hidden.

This is only partially true. You get cover save when wound is allocated and model that is 100% hidden can never have a wound allocated on it.
"If,when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body (as defined on page 8) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save." 6e, page 18

Look out Sir rule doesn't let you re-allocate wounds. It only lets you resolve the wound against other model.
"You must pick a model from the same unit within 6" and resolvethe Wound against them instead.This can even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the Shooting attack." 6e, page 16

So when you use LOS to transfer wound from character in open to model in cover, you will not get cover save as the wound has not been allocated to model in cover.

Luide wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Out of sight only matters for allocating wounds out of the wound pool. You gain cover as soon as 25% of your model is hidden from any shooting model's view. This includes being 100% hidden.

This is only partially true. You get cover save when wound is allocated and model that is 100% hidden can never have a wound allocated on it.
"If,when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body (as defined on page 8) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save." 6e, page 18

Look out Sir rule doesn't let you re-allocate wounds. It only lets you resolve the wound against other model.
"You must pick a model from the same unit within 6" and resolvethe Wound against them instead.This can even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the Shooting attack." 6e, page 16

So when you use LOS to transfer wound from character in open to model in cover, you will not get cover save as the wound has not been allocated to model in cover.

I assumed the same before. Check Avatar 720's response to my post. It shows that LOS! is allocation.

Yeah, there is no question that Look Out Sir is reallocating the wound. It is essentially just changing who the wound is being allocated to.


Again, the only, only concern here is whether or not the restriction on which models can have wounds allocated to them in the focus fire rule is more specific than the permission granted by Look Out Sir.

And I don't think any amount of argument is going to solve the issue...it is what it is and needs to be FAQ'd.


But my money is on Look Out Sir overriding focus fire for the reasons I already pointed out above.

Agreed, Yak.

This is the reason that I posted my response. The restriction is on a save type for focus fire. So for example my 4+ character is in the open with a few of his squad mates with others in cover. My opponent calls focus fire on the guys in the open and unleashes 3 Heavy Bolter's into them. My restriction is now guys without cover saves. This overrides the guys that are in cover. You do a Look out sir. The guys in cover can do this but with no cover save. They get no cover save because the restriction is the guys in the open.

Both rules work but people want to find loop holes in it so that it can be abused.

Focus fire restricts types of saves. Look out sir allows a wound to be passed. So if a Look out sir is passed it must be done so at the restricted save.

I do not see any other way to do this.

Now lets look at it from another way. Your IC is nasty and he is sitting in 5+ cover. Your opponent focus fires at your IC and I have the guys that are not in cover do the Look out Sir. Now those guys get a 5+ cover save because that is what was called out by Focus fire.

Both rules work in both examples.