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.

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.

This I agree with.

Running down the order of things:

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.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Running down the order of things:

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.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

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.

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.

 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.

Is precedent RAW or (subjective) evidence of intent?

rigeld2 wrote:
Is precedent RAW or (subjective) evidence of intent?

I believe it is precedent as they are analogous cases.

That doesn't answer my question. At all.

POKEYtheBIG wrote:

 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

Consider the following Scenario:

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.

Bojazz wrote:
Consider the following Scenario:

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.

IIRC, "LoS/range-sniping" skipped 5th edition. 3rd, 4th, and 6th, though...

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.

FF sniping has always been best at removing special weapons, banners, that type of stuff.

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).

No, I dont expect the nearest models to die first, it is incredibly unrealistic. Watch war documentaries.

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.