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.

Its referred several times throughout. Regardless though, resolving a wound is still allocating a wound, taking a save, etc..

 Gloomfang wrote:
The issue is the "Must use the best save" rule. So by choosing to use LOS! you are making it so that the best cover save the model can use would be one that would allow the wound to be allocated under the rules for Focused Fire. So you could LoS! to a model that has a better cover save, they would just not be able to use that save.

I could live with this as a House Rule, but I do not think that is the RAW. If the wound is allocated to a model Out of Sight behind 4+ cover, they still have 4+ cover. Nothing about Focus Fire or Look Out, Sir! take that away, nor do they allow a model to use a 'worse' save. Page 19, MODELS WITH MORE THAN ONE COVER SAVE.

 BlueDagger wrote:
Looking at the relevant rules in the book I would have to go on the side that the wounds from LoS could indeed be put on a different cover value model because the FAQ wording states "resolve the wound" not "allocate the wound". You are prevented from allocating wounds to different save categories, but you are not prevented from resolving different save categories.

It's purely a wording issue, but it's also save to assume that GW wants it to work from their new "cinematic game" point of view.

If RAI only overruled RAW, this would be a much funnerer game, and I wouldn't waste so much time on the intranets asking questions.

I'm with the camp that LOS cannot go outside of the declared cover save, since Focus fire prevents allocation of wounds to any model that isn't in that "cover zone" as specified by the firing player. I don't think Look Out Sir could reach outside of the declared cover save value. If a model would be awarded a 5+ Cover and opponent declared 6+ or none, then I would say they would not be eligible for Look Out Sir.

 Ghenghis Jon wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
The issue is the "Must use the best save" rule. So by choosing to use LOS! you are making it so that the best cover save the model can use would be one that would allow the wound to be allocated under the rules for Focused Fire. So you could LoS! to a model that has a better cover save, they would just not be able to use that save.

I could live with this as a House Rule, but I do not think that is the RAW. If the wound is allocated to a model Out of Sight behind 4+ cover, they still have 4+ cover. Nothing about Focus Fire or Look Out, Sir! take that away, nor do they allow a model to use a 'worse' save. Page 19, MODELS WITH MORE THAN ONE COVER SAVE.

 BlueDagger wrote:
Looking at the relevant rules in the book I would have to go on the side that the wounds from LoS could indeed be put on a different cover value model because the FAQ wording states "resolve the wound" not "allocate the wound". You are prevented from allocating wounds to different save categories, but you are not prevented from resolving different save categories.

It's purely a wording issue, but it's also save to assume that GW wants it to work from their new "cinematic game" point of view.

If RAI only overruled RAW, this would be a much funnerer game, and I wouldn't waste so much time on the intranets asking questions.

Right below the Look Out, Sir description saying to "Resolve the Wound against them instead" in the next paragraph it says "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, either they were just clumsy with their word choices or I'd say that is a reallocation of a wound, not just resolving on a different model.


Just my 2 cents here. Edited once for adding more to post.

2nd Edit: I noticed others quoted the same part. Oh well.

Focus Fire only disallows Allocation, it does not Disallow reallocation.

Here is why disallowing reallocation is silly.

I have my squad shooting at your IC and his unit. I use two units to screen every enemy in the unit except for the IC. I focus fire and claim you can not LoS because the IC does not have a cover save and the rest of your unit does.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Focus Fire only disallows Allocation, it does not Disallow reallocation.

Here is why disallowing reallocation is silly.

I have my squad shooting at your IC and his unit. I use two units to screen every enemy in the unit except for the IC. I focus fire and claim you can not LoS because the IC does not have a cover save and the rest of your unit does.

Yes, it is silly, but being silly has never refuted any rule in this game.

it does say reallocation, and Focus Fire only disallows Allocation so you still can LoS! those wounds. That refutes the rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
it does say reallocation, and Focus Fire only disallows Allocation so you still can LoS! those wounds. That refutes the rule.

So reallocating does not mean to allocate again? How are they that different? Take for instance OUT OF SIGHT on Page 16 that says a wound cannot be allocated to a model that the firing unit cannot see. However, BLAST & LARGE BLAST on page 33 gives permission to wound models out of line of sight when using this SR. There is nothing in Look Out, Sir! that states the reallocation ignores the original Focus Fire allocation rules, or that allows wounds to be allocated differently, so it must follow the original precepts AND the new ones.

LOS! is where a subordinate jumps in front of a superior to save them, right?
So wouldn't it be easiest to save that the LOS!'ing model will resolve the wound using the same cover save as the character it is trying to save? They essentially change position so their cover before the Los! shouldn't be taken into account.
So as I see it you can still allocate wounds to models out of los or in cover but they'll only benefit from the character's cover save.
As you designate the lowest cover save with focus fire then the Los!'ing model will only benefit from that.

The question is which rule supersedes or breaks the other, Look Out, Sir! or Focus Fire, as both deal with restricting or changing wound allocation.

I would almost offer a dice off until clarified in a FAQ as they are both unique rules that contractict eachother. I would personally err on the side of Focus Fire limiting Look Out, Sir!, due to my reasons stated earlier, but still, to be fair to everyone, it is unclear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AL-PiXeL01 wrote:

LOS! is where a subordinate jumps in front of a superior to save them, right?
So wouldn't it be easiest to save that the LOS!'ing model will resolve the wound using the same cover save as the character it is trying to save? They essentially change position so their cover before the Los! shouldn't be taken into account.
So as I see it you can still allocate wounds to models out of los or in cover but they'll only benefit from the character's cover save.
As you designate the lowest cover save with focus fire then the Los!'ing model will only benefit from that.

I would consider that, using the nearest unit but disallowing cover, but then it seemingly breaks Focus Fire by allowing wounds to be allocated on a model that occupied a different cover value than allowed. But then again, Los seems to be designed to get around normal allocation restrictions. Granted with the new faq LoS has to be to the closest model from the character in question, but still.... contradictory.

 Ghenghis Jon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
it does say reallocation, and Focus Fire only disallows Allocation so you still can LoS! those wounds. That refutes the rule.

So reallocating does not mean to allocate again? How are they that different? Take for instance OUT OF SIGHT on Page 16 that says a wound cannot be allocated to a model that the firing unit cannot see. However, BLAST & LARGE BLAST on page 33 gives permission to wound models out of line of sight when using this SR. There is nothing in Look Out, Sir! that states the reallocation ignores the original Focus Fire allocation rules, or that allows wounds to be allocated differently, so it must follow the original precepts AND the new ones.

it does mean to allocate again, but allocation is a defined process in the BRB. Reallocation is a different specific process. FF only limits allocation, and not reallocation.

As been brought up in many different threads, Can't > May.

Focus Fire says you can't allocate, and LoS says you may allocate.

 DeathReaper wrote:
allocation is a defined process in the BRB. Reallocation is a different specific process. FF only limits allocation, and not reallocation.

I totally see what you are saying. I still don't think I am convinced. I'll have to think about it some more.

jbunny wrote:
As been brought up in many different threads, Can't > May.

Focus Fire says you can't allocate, and LoS says you may allocate.

with LoS! you are not allocating, you are reallocating.

Allocation is a defined process, this process is restricted by the rules for FF.

Reallocation is also a defined process in the LoS! rules.

P.S. Can't trumps can most of the time. Sometimes Can Trumps Can't (Like in the case of Vanguard vets or Ymargl Genestealers being able to assault the turn they arrive from reserve but those two are a case of Specific > General).

 DeathReaper wrote:

jbunny wrote:
As been brought up in many different threads, Can't > May.

Focus Fire says you can't allocate, and LoS says you may allocate.

with LoS! you are not allocating, you are reallocating.

If reallocating is not allocating, it would mean re-rolling is not rolling. For example, To Hit roll and To Hit re-roll would be different things and for twin-linked Tesla weapons, you'd only get 2 additional hits from the original To Hit rolls of 6, not To Hit re-rolls of 6.

So your position is not sustainable if you apply it consistently across board.

Luide wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

jbunny wrote:
As been brought up in many different threads, Can't > May.

Focus Fire says you can't allocate, and LoS says you may allocate.

with LoS! you are not allocating, you are reallocating.

If reallocating is not allocating, it would mean re-rolling is not rolling. For example, To Hit roll and To Hit re-roll would be different things and for twin-linked Tesla weapons, you'd only get 2 additional hits from the original To Hit rolls of 6, not To Hit re-rolls of 6.

So your position is not sustainable if you apply it consistently across board.

I agree. Claiming reallocating wounds is not the same as allocating wounds sounds like a farce to me, sighted above the difference between a roll and a re-roll. Someone could claim this exact argument and say they get a twin-linked re-roll at their full BS because "a re-roll to hit is not the same as a roll to hit, and thus snapfire does not apply."

Besides, to put it in a fluff standpoint: If an enemy is focus firing on a no cover save zone that contains only a sergeant, to reallocate to a unit in cover with Look Out, Sir! Should not be so easy as say the difficulty of moving through area terrain vs open ground. This is harder to justify with Obscured Line of Sight, but what can you do? My motto is "when in doubt, don't," or if one rule says you can and another you can't, well then I'd go with the can't as I don't want to be granting an advantage to a unit it doesn't deserve. It simply makes sense the sergeant would be out of luck if he's out in the open and the rest of the squad is behind cover that he can be picked out via focus fire.

Now, i can see the other end being seemingly heroic, but just not fitting in with how the rules work, IMO.

so to summarise

Can't> may, so you can't reallocate the wound to a unit in cover through look out sir if focus fire has been declared and the seargent is out in the open.

If there is a model out in the open with the seargent, but that model is not the closest one in the unit, but is the closest one in the open, is it allowable to LOS! with that model?

Luide wrote:
If reallocating is not allocating, it would mean re-rolling is not rolling. For example, To Hit roll and To Hit re-roll would be different things and for twin-linked Tesla weapons, you'd only get 2 additional hits from the original To Hit rolls of 6, not To Hit re-rolls of 6.

So your position is not sustainable if you apply it consistently across board.

That example is not at all like our situation.

Allocation is a defined rules process in the BRB

Reallocation is also a defined rules process in the BRB.

But LoS! Does not say to reallocate the wound, it says to resolve the wound against (The closest) model in the unit.

(The Closest because of the FaQ).

 DeathReaper wrote:


But LoS! Does not say to reallocate the wound, it says to resolve the wound against (The closest) model in the unit.

The Look Out Sir rule does state, pg. 16, that "once the Wound has been transferred (or not), no further attempt to reallocate it can be made." (emphasis added)

Clearly Look Out Sir is a reallocation.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But LoS! Does not say to reallocate the wound, it says to resolve the wound against (The closest) model in the unit.

Oh really. Then why did you post this in your previous post?

 DeathReaper wrote:
with LoS! you are not allocating, you are reallocating.

I've said it once, and I'm saying it again: Your arguments are inconsistent. You're in claiming that LoS! both is and is not reallocating in successive posts. There are only two options:
1) LoS! is reallocating. (This means it is subject to all restrictions for allocating wounds, except for those that are explicitly overridden by LoS! rules)
2) LoS! is not reallocating. (Note that if LoS! is not reallocating, anything that triggers on allocating can not be saved by LoS!. For example, Shield Breaker ammo.)
Which one is it?

Because it hints at it being reallocation.
pg.16"once the Wound has been transferred (or not), no further attempt to reallocate it can be made."

"no further attempt to reallocate it can be made" so It may be reallocation. (It is not explicit, but it hints at it being reallocation)

But reallocation is not allocation.

They are two separate defined processes

Lots of excellent arguments for and against the legality of LoSing a FF wound. My 2 cents worth...

FF says you have no chance to would models with a better cover save, in the same way that "Out Of Sight" says you cannot wound models that are out of sight. Then LoS tells the owner of the wounded character that he is allowed to resolve a wound against the nearest model (FAQ) within 6", even if that model is out of sight or out of range. So LoS allows the target owner to do something that the attacker is not normally allowed to do - wound a model out of sight. This is where the choice of words is significant. A wound allocated to the character is resolved against another model, even one that is out of sight/range. The resolution uses the best save possible for that model (if the model is out of sight, the save is determined by whatever is intervening, per normal cover rules)).

Consequently, the FF Wound must be allocated to a model that is in the FF group, but LoS allows the target to resolve (2nd bullet) the wound against another model, even one that would normally not be subject to the wound.

If you accept this interpretation, no rules are being broken. The FF wound has been allocated to a legitimate target, and if the LoS is successful, it is being resolved against a legitimate alternative model (even one that is not normally allowed to be wounded).

Yes, there is an argument about the use of words like resolve, reallocate, and so on, but it seems to me that LoS is allowing the target owner to shift wounds to places they can't normally go, so I don't see why FF would be an exception to this.

Snapshot wrote:
Lots of excellent arguments for and against the legality of LoSing a FF wound. My 2 cents worth...

FF says you have no chance to would models with a better cover save, in the same way that "Out Of Sight" says you cannot wound models that are out of sight. Then LoS tells the owner of the wounded character that he is allowed to resolve a wound against the nearest model (FAQ) within 6", even if that model is out of sight or out of range. So LoS allows the target owner to do something that the attacker is not normally allowed to do - wound a model out of sight. This is where the choice of words is significant. A wound allocated to the character is resolved against another model, even one that is out of sight/range. The resolution uses the best save possible for that model (if the model is out of sight, the save is determined by whatever is intervening, per normal cover rules)).

Consequently, the FF Wound must be allocated to a model that is in the FF group, but LoS allows the target to resolve (2nd bullet) the wound against another model, even one that would normally not be subject to the wound.

If you accept this interpretation, no rules are being broken. The FF wound has been allocated to a legitimate target, and if the LoS is successful, it is being resolved against a legitimate alternative model (even one that is not normally allowed to be wounded).

Yes, there is an argument about the use of words like resolve, reallocate, and so on, but it seems to me that LoS is allowing the target owner to shift wounds to places they can't normally go, so I don't see why FF would be an exception to this.

Hmm. Somehow, it makes sense. Damn confusing.

@ Deathreaper: I really hope these rules work together the way you say they do, because sniping characters sucks. I've never liked JOTWW, Zogwort's Curse, Blood Lance(?) for this reason, and I've never even attempted the Curse, even when I took Zogwort.

I would say LOS trumps FF, but I wouldn't allow a better cover save.

"Forging a narrative" pinheaded space marine 'billy bob' dives out of cover to take the lascannon blast that was sure to rip 'sergeant slate's head off.

Kevlar wrote:
I would say LOS trumps FF, but I wouldn't allow a better cover save.

"Forging a narrative" pinheaded space marine 'billy bob' dives out of cover to take the lascannon blast that was sure to rip 'sergeant slate's head off.

I can see where you're coming from with not being comfortable with the better save, but (a) deciding to FF or not is a free decision made by the attacker (there is not really a downside, except the possibility of "losing" wounds 'cause the FF group is all dead), and (b) LoS is not guaranteed to succeed (50% for characters and 83% for ICs). Disallowing the better cover is a house-rule that is perfectly legitimate, but probably not in a tournament (assuming my reading of the rules is right ).