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.

Can you Look Out Sir the wounds from a Focused Witchfire?

They aren’t ‘allocated’ per se, the effect is ‘resolved against the model'.

It lacks the wording that for instance, Precision Shots have (that you can LOS the wounds).

You can only LOS! allocated wounds.

Witchfires are shooting attacks. What allows a shooting to cause wounds without "allocating" them? If it's an allocated wound, what would bypass the ability to "Look out"?

I don't see any way to resolve a normal shooting attack that causes wounds against a model without "allocating" them other than potentially D weapons, although I think most play that you can Look out the D.

focussed witchfires hit the closest model, unless the successsed obtained when casting it are more than what is needed then the shooting player gets to allocate the hit.

There's no RAW that state you cannot allocate it with look out sir

and the only other example that covers allocating I can think of

A character that has a Precision Shot Wound allocated to it can still make a Look Out, Sir roll.

so you should be able to still look out sir the wound, or try to at least since it is not automatic.

Angelic wrote:
What allows a shooting to cause wounds without "allocating" them?

A rule that tells you to resolve it against a specific model.

 insaniak wrote:

Angelic wrote:
What allows a shooting to cause wounds without "allocating" them?

A rule that tells you to resolve it against a specific model.

I'm not sure what you mean. You resolve a shooting attack. Normal resolution of a shooting attack says to allocate wounds from the wound pool. So you allocate the wounds first to the Character, doesn't mean you can't LOS them because it's still an allocation. Focused Witchfire says nothing about bypassing the wound allocation rules beyond who to start with, if it does even that.

Angelic wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Angelic wrote:
What allows a shooting to cause wounds without "allocating" them?

A rule that tells you to resolve it against a specific model.

I'm not sure what you mean. You resolve a shooting attack. Normal resolution of a shooting attack says to allocate wounds from the wound pool. So you allocate the wounds first to the Character, doesn't mean you can't LOS them because it's still an allocation. Focused Witchfire says nothing about bypassing the wound allocation rules beyond who to start with, if it does even that.

Hemorrhage comes to mind. It does not cause a wound, just forces a Toughness test. Hence you cannot LOS it.

From 'Focussed Witchfire' in the Warhammer 40,000 7th edition rulebook:

They follow all the normal rules for witchfire, but you can choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect.

That's a bit more than saying you get to choose which model to allocate the wounds to.

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Focussed Witchfire' in the Warhammer 40,000 7th edition rulebook:

They follow all the normal rules for witchfire, but you can choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect.

That's a bit more than saying you get to choose which model to allocate the wounds to.

But nothing there prevents LOS.

The fact that the player chooses what model the power affects is not the same as the wound being allocated.

How are you using LOS on something that wasn't allocated?

 Ghaz wrote:
How are you using LOS on something that wasn't allocated?

Where do you see a wound being allocated in the Focused Witchfire rules?

That was the point. If a wound isn't allocated, then you can't use LOS, because LOS requires an allocated wound.

 insaniak wrote:
That was the point. If a wound isn't allocated, then you can't use LOS, because LOS requires an allocated wound.

But isn't it an assumption that a wound isn't allocated? Some Focused Witchfires are resolved like standard shooting attacks, like Executioner I believe. It merely does Strength 3 hits. So going of the normal shooting attack rules, wouldn't those wounds then be allocated from a wound pool created by the S 3 hits?

The other issue is, if the power itself doesn't put wounds into a wound pool, how do we resolve them at all against a unit? "Closest model" is part of the wound allocation rules. If the power bypasses wound allocation, who chooses which model in the event that the casting player doesn't roll enough successes?

It's quite ambiguous.

The main contention probably comes from the word 'suffers'.
Is 'suffering a wound' the same as 'having a wound allocated to it'.

Let's look at the rules for instant death, because they are relevant:

If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack with this special rule, it is reduced to 0 Wounds and is removed as a casualty.

'suffers an unsaved Wound' is clearly not the same as having a wound allocated to you. If it were the same, the Instant death special rule would reduce a models Wounds to 0 the moment the wound was allocated (and thus before any saving throws are made).
And using common sense, every wound that is not saved is unsaved. Therefore, every wound is and 'unsaved wound' before saving throws are taken.

Angelic wrote:
But isn't it an assumption that a wound isn't allocated?

No, because they don't use the word 'allocated'. The assumption would be that it is allocated without the use of the word 'allocated'.

 Ghaz wrote:

Angelic wrote:
But isn't it an assumption that a wound isn't allocated?

No, because they don't use the word 'allocated'. The assumption would be that it is allocated without the use of the word 'allocated'.

No, both are assumptions. The assumption that it is allocated is based on the fact that Witchfires, as shooting attacks, allocate wounds. The base rules of shooting attacks specify wound allocation. So we need a more advanced rule to bypass it. What rule in Focused Witchfire bypasses it? By not mentioning wound allocation at all, wouldn't the default of wound allocation apply unless the power itself bypassed it? Again, if the power bypasses it, how do we resolve the power at all without using the wound allocation rules if it's not the caster choosing the model?

No. It's not an assumption that something that makes no mention of it being an allocation is not an allocation. The wording I quoted above bypasses the normal rules for allocation.

Angelic wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Angelic wrote:
But isn't it an assumption that a wound isn't allocated?

No, because they don't use the word 'allocated'. The assumption would be that it is allocated without the use of the word 'allocated'.

No, both are assumptions. The assumption that it is allocated is based on the fact that Witchfires, as shooting attacks, allocate wounds. The base rules of shooting attacks specify wound allocation. So we need a more advanced rule to bypass it. What rule in Focused Witchfire bypasses it? By not mentioning wound allocation at all, wouldn't the default of wound allocation apply unless the power itself bypassed it? Again, if the power bypasses it, how do we resolve the power at all without using the wound allocation rules if it's not the caster choosing the model?

Don't ignore my post just because this proves you are wrong. You do not allocate wounds when rolling the 3D6.
Wether you roll to wound or not is an entirely different discussion which can be found here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/621079.page

And before you comment on that thread, READ IT. Because to many people have made arguments that have already been refuted or have made arguments that are not relevant.

DaPino wrote:

Angelic wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Angelic wrote:
But isn't it an assumption that a wound isn't allocated?

No, because they don't use the word 'allocated'. The assumption would be that it is allocated without the use of the word 'allocated'.

No, both are assumptions. The assumption that it is allocated is based on the fact that Witchfires, as shooting attacks, allocate wounds. The base rules of shooting attacks specify wound allocation. So we need a more advanced rule to bypass it. What rule in Focused Witchfire bypasses it? By not mentioning wound allocation at all, wouldn't the default of wound allocation apply unless the power itself bypassed it? Again, if the power bypasses it, how do we resolve the power at all without using the wound allocation rules if it's not the caster choosing the model?

Don't ignore my post just because this proves you are wrong. You do not allocate wounds when rolling the 3D6.
Wether you roll to wound or not is an entirely different discussion which can be found here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/621079.page

And before you comment on that thread, READ IT. Because to many people have made arguments that have already been refuted or have made arguments that are not relevant.

I didn't ignore your post. No reason to be combative and assume I did. I just did not see the relevance. I'm not sure where "suffers" comes into the discussion. I've never talked about or even used "suffers" in my arguments.

 Ghaz wrote:
No. It's not an assumption that something that makes no mention of it being an allocation is not an allocation. The wording I quoted above bypasses the normal rules for allocation.

How can it override something by failing to mention it? Also, I don't believe it fails to mention it. F. Witchfire says it's a Witchfire. Witchfire says its a shooting attack. Shooting attacks allocate wounds unless specified otherwise in the rules for the attack. And if the attack doesn't allocate, which rules do we use for it?

With a focused witchfire you follow their rules and instead of allocating you "... choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect."

 Ghaz wrote:
instead of allocating you

That bit is an addition by you. Which section of the rules says that? Because if the section you actually quoted said that, you wouldn't need to append the above to the beginning. It would seem that choosing models in and of itself doesn't bypass LOS (Vindicare, Precision Shots). It would seem the attack itself would need to bypass the allocation rules.

choosing the specific model in the unit your resolve the effect against if you harness more WC than the power costs, if you don't you resolve it against the closest model in the unit.

look out sir requires the wound to be allocated.

although you are technically picking the model wounds will be generated and allocated to, as the resolution of the attack still requires you to follow the rules for a witchfire ie to hit, and generating a wound pool which is now allocated to the model"

there is a case to be made that you can look out sir the wounds, as once the attack is resolved against the chosen target, a wound pool is generated and allocated against the model as per shooting, and at this point the wording of the wound pool are allocated wounds.

No, it's not. Look up the definition for 'allocate':

verb: distribute according to a plan...

So if you're not distributing the wounds according to the rules you're not allocating them. You instead "... choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect." Tell us how you can do both rules at the same time? You can't. You either do one or the other.

Angelic wrote:

I didn't ignore your post. No reason to be combative and assume I did. I just did not see the relevance. I'm not sure where "suffers" comes into the discussion. I've never talked about or even used "suffers" in my arguments.

It is relevant because the power says that the target 'suffers wounds'. You do not allocate them to the model, the model suffers them. This is relevant because you need to have wounds allocated in order to attempt a 'Look out, Sir!' roll. And since you do not allocate wounds, you cannot LOS. Looking at the title of this thread, I think that's pretty relevant.
At no point during the execution of the psychic power do you allocate wounds so I do not see where you would be allowed to take a LOS.
I gave you reasons as to why no wound is allocated in my previous post.

Do I have to repeat myself again or was there at least one way of saying it that made you understand why the word 'suffers' in the entry of the power is relevant? You didn't use the word 'suffers' but the ruling on the power does.

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not. Look up the definition for 'allocate':

verb: distribute according to a plan...

So if you're not distributing the wounds according to the rules you're not allocating them. You instead "... choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect." Tell us how you can do both rules at the same time? You can't. You either do one or the other.

okay lets pick a focused witchfire power.

Crush
WC-1

Crush is a focussed witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 2D6. The target model suffers a hit with a Strength equal to the result (a result of an 11 or 12 wounds automatically or, in the case of a vehicle, causes an automatic penetrating hit) with an AP equal to the result of a separate D6 roll.

Let's say you roll 2 success to harness it, it does not get denied. You are targeting a unit containing 3 grav cents and tigurius. As per the rules for focussed witchfires.

attention to the number of Warp Charge points harnessed. If the total number of Warp Charge points harnessed exceeds the Warp Charge cost required to manifest the psychic power, the power is resolved against the model you chose.

you choose to resolve the power against tigurius.

Great, at this point nothing is 'allocated' and your opponent cannot do anything.

as a focussed witchfire Crush must:

powers. They follow all the normal rules for witchfire,

so looking at witchfires

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

ok so we can resolve it as a shooting attack.

1-nominate unit to shoot-done the model casting crush
2-nominate target-done gravcent+tig unit
3-select weapon-done 'crush' psychic power
---sub step of casting/denying/resolving power
4-roll to hit, required by shooting and witchfires- we roll to hit and hit so done
5-roll to wound, as per crush entry we generate wounds
6- allocate wounds

so yes even focussed witchfires cause allocated wounds from a wound pool because they resolve their entry as per a shooting attack as per witchfires.

so yes you can RAW look out sir wounds from focussed witchfires.


the wording of some focussed witchfire entries may generate wounds that are not allocated by a wound pool, much like D weapons who do not generate a wound pool but cause an effect to be suffered to the model- which in that case is usually wounds or being removed.

so in some cases yeah you cannot allocate wounds, what i stated above only works for wounds that are generated from a entry that has a given strength value, as the wounds are generated as per shooting rules so they are definately creating a wound pool that is allocated as per the rules for shooting, just they can only be allocated to the model the attack is resolved against prior to look out sir if you pass the focussed witchfire test with enough successes.

Crush is a totally different example because the model suffers a hit and not a wound.

DaPino wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not. Look up the definition for 'allocate':

verb: distribute according to a plan...

So if you're not distributing the wounds according to the rules you're not allocating them. You instead "... choose the specific model in the target unit that you want the power to affect." Tell us how you can do both rules at the same time? You can't. You either do one or the other.

okay lets pick a focused witchfire power.

Crush
WC-1

Crush is a focussed witchfire power with a range of 18". Roll 2D6. The target model suffers a hit with a Strength equal to the result (a result of an 11 or 12 wounds automatically or, in the case of a vehicle, causes an automatic penetrating hit) with an AP equal to the result of a separate D6 roll.

Let's say you roll 2 success to harness it, it does not get denied. You are targeting a unit containing 3 grav cents and tigurius. As per the rules for focussed witchfires.

attention to the number of Warp Charge points harnessed. If the total number of Warp Charge points harnessed exceeds the Warp Charge cost required to manifest the psychic power, the power is resolved against the model you chose.

you choose to resolve the power against tigurius.

Great, at this point nothing is 'allocated' and your opponent cannot do anything.

as a focussed witchfire Crush must:

powers. They follow all the normal rules for witchfire,

so looking at witchfires

Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.

ok so we can resolve it as a shooting attack.

1-nominate unit to shoot-done the model casting crush
2-nominate target-done gravcent+tig unit
3-select weapon-done 'crush' psychic power
---sub step of casting/denying/resolving power
4-roll to hit, required by shooting and witchfires- we roll to hit and hit so done
5-roll to wound, as per crush entry we generate wounds
6- allocate wounds

so yes even focussed witchfires cause allocated wounds from a wound pool because they resolve their entry as per a shooting attack as per witchfires.

so yes you can RAW look out sir wounds from focussed witchfires.

Crush is a totally different example because the model suffers a hit and not a wound.

I completely agree with you.

DaPino wrote:

Angelic wrote:

I didn't ignore your post. No reason to be combative and assume I did. I just did not see the relevance. I'm not sure where "suffers" comes into the discussion. I've never talked about or even used "suffers" in my arguments.

It is relevant because the power says that the target 'suffers wounds'. You do not allocate them to the model, the model suffers them. This is relevant because you need to have wounds allocated in order to attempt a 'Look out, Sir!' roll. And since you do not allocate wounds, you cannot LOS. Looking at the title of this thread, I think that's pretty relevant.
At no point during the execution of the psychic power do you allocate wounds so I do not see where you would be allowed to take a LOS.
I gave you reasons as to why no wound is allocated in my previous post.

Do I have to repeat myself again or was there at least one way of saying it that made you understand why the word 'suffers' in the entry of the power is relevant? You didn't use the word 'suffers' but the ruling on the power does.

Okay, so you agree then that the power must bypass it. Who then chooses which model "suffers" wounds in the event the caster doesn't exceed the WC cost?

Angelic wrote:
Okay, so you agree then that the power must bypass it. Who then chooses which model "suffers" wounds in the event the caster doesn't exceed the WC cost?

If the power is WC2 and you get 2 successes, you resolve the power against the closest model. This is clearly stated in the rules for focussed witchfire powers.
edit: Wounds are still not being allocated, they are being suffered.