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.

On page 16 of the rule book for Look Out Sir rolls, it states "When a Wound (or unsaved Wound) is allocated..."

Does this mean you can choose do perform the LOS roll after attempting saves? I have always thought it was before saves until I noticed this.

From the BRB FAQ:

Page 16 – Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Delete “(or unsaved Wounds)” from the first paragraph.

Ah ok thanks. Should have check the FAQ!

Yep, only before saving throws.

Also, interesting to note: Vindicare assassin's Exitus Rifle shots are all precision shots, and Look out Sir rolls can't be taken against them.

If all of the saving throws are the same in the unit you could use fast save method then Look Out Sir after you roll your saves, to save time.

The outcome is the same statistically.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If all of the saving throws are the same in the unit you could use fast save method then Look Out Sir after you roll your saves, to save time.

The outcome is the same statistically.

Except that goes against the rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If all of the saving throws are the same in the unit you could use fast save method then Look Out Sir after you roll your saves, to save time.

The outcome is the same statistically.

Except that goes against the rules.

True, but I'm sure they only removed the "same save Vs. mixed save" thing because so many people couldn't get their heads round it.
It's still a sound method, statistically the same and potentially faster.
Perfectly good house rule if you use it properly.

It does matter though - doing LOS! after saves gives you information.

3 STR8 wound vs SMs.
IC is in front (without EW). Do you LOS! and save the IC, but potentially kill the meltagunner behind him? Rolling saves first you'll know the answer.

 Mavlun wrote:
Yep, only before saving throws.

Also, interesting to note: Vindicare assassin's Exitus Rifle shots are all precision shots, and Look out Sir rolls can't be taken against them.

The strange thing is that it says the roll can be taken but that the assassin's owner still gets to allocate the wound, does that mean to another model in the unit or can it give it back to the character? HIWPI is allocate it to a different memeber of the unit of the assassin's chosing.

 GreatAtuin wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
Yep, only before saving throws.

Also, interesting to note: Vindicare assassin's Exitus Rifle shots are all precision shots, and Look out Sir rolls can't be taken against them.

The strange thing is that it says the roll can be taken but that the assassin's owner still gets to allocate the wound, does that mean to another model in the unit or can it give it back to the character? HIWPI is allocate it to a different memeber of the unit of the assassin's chosing.

Irrelevant. The FAQ states:

Q: Does the Vindicare Assassin’s Deadshot special rule supersede the
Look Out, Sir special rule for the purposes of Wound allocation,
meaning that the player who owns the Vindicare Assassin is still
allowed to allocate the wounds from its shooting even if their opponent
makes and passes a Look Out, Sir roll? (p53)
A: Yes

So whether you roll for LoS or not, I can still put that wound back on my original target. I read it as "he can even place it back onto the initial character/IC"

The reason it was errata'd out from the way it was worded in the book is people were abusing it. I admit I was one of those people. Ever try to take out a 30 man Cultist blob where they've effectively got a 3++ save because of the Tzeentch lord leading them? You would just roll 3++ and if it failed, LOS the wound after the fact. Was pretty silly. It was a necessary changed.

 SRSFACE wrote:
You would just roll 3++ and if it failed, LOS the wound after the fact.

It's true that a lot of people did that, but it was never legal. You have to LOS! at the time of allocation to a model; once a specific model is taking its specific save, you've already passed the point of choosing whether to LOS!. Whether LOS! was done on wounds or unsaved wounds was based on which were being allocated, not on personal preference at any given moment; it was a result of two different ways of allocating, not an option for the player.

Pyrian wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:
You would just roll 3++ and if it failed, LOS the wound after the fact.

It's true that a lot of people did that, but it was never legal. You have to LOS! at the time of allocation to a model; once a specific model is taking its specific save, you've already passed the point of choosing whether to LOS!. Whether LOS! was done on wounds or unsaved wounds was based on which were being allocated, not on personal preference at any given moment; it was a result of two different ways of allocating, not an option for the player.

Its easy to see that that was what was intended...

But that was not the way it was written actually played out if you played it as written.

Its just one of those "GW cant write rules..." situations, like smart missiles not being able to wound out of line of sight.

Look Out Sir! is one of the dumbest rules of this edition. It's been errata'd and re-written at least 3 times I'm aware of, so, people "playing it wrong" was the norm for the longest time after 6E hit.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:
You would just roll 3++ and if it failed, LOS the wound after the fact.

It's true that a lot of people did that, but it was never legal. You have to LOS! at the time of allocation to a model; once a specific model is taking its specific save, you've already passed the point of choosing whether to LOS!. Whether LOS! was done on wounds or unsaved wounds was based on which were being allocated, not on personal preference at any given moment; it was a result of two different ways of allocating, not an option for the player.

Its easy to see that that was what was intended...

But that was not the way it was written actually played out if you played it as written.

Its just one of those "GW cant write rules..." situations, like smart missiles not being able to wound out of line of sight.

Actually it was the way it was written. "When a wound (or unsaved wound) is allocated ..."

When is an Unsaved Wound allocated? They were only ever allocated when everyone's save was the same. If models had different saves you allocated the pre-save Wounds, not Unsaved Wounds. So anyone who was, in a Mixed Saves situation, allocating a wound, making a save and then trying to use LoS was doing it wrong because they missed their chance. By the time the wound becomes unsaved it is already long past the point where the wound was allocated.

^ Exactly, allocating unsaved wounds to mixed save models was always against the rules.

Not really. Ignore precision shots for a moment.

Three marines in front of an artificer armor commander. They take 5 plasma hits.

The front three models die, leaving 2 wounds left hitting the artificer commander.

Before the change you could attempt to make two iron halo 4++ saves, and if he failed he could LOS them to other models.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Not really.

Yes, really.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Three marines in front of an artificer armor commander. They take 5 plasma hits.

The front three models die, leaving 2 wounds left hitting the artificer commander.

Before the change you could attempt to make two iron halo 4++ saves, and if he failed he could LOS them to other models.

You're not paying attention. LOS! occurs at the point of allocation. When the wound is allocated to the commander, he may LOS! right then and there, but if he does not, he cannot later change his mind. Once he rolls his own, specific save, he cannot (and never could) use LOS!. The FAQ did not change this path of the rules.

What the FAQ changed was what happens if the character has the exact same save as his compatriots. In the old rules, these saves would be made before any were allocated. Then, unsaved wounds allocated to the character could be LOS!'d. Note that this is still happening at the point of allocation, it's just that the point of allocation was different.

Per the FAQ, you never use save-first allocation if a unit has a character. This means that unsaved wounds can never be LOS!'d.

While I imagine that clearing up confusion was part of the reasoning behind the change, your interpretation was never correct.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If all of the saving throws are the same in the unit you could use fast save method then Look Out Sir after you roll your saves, to save time.

The outcome is the same statistically.

Except that goes against the rules.

not really.

Same save units can allocate Wounds "in groups equal to however many models with the same, best save are nearest to the firing unit" (16)

Pyrian wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Not really.

Yes, really.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Three marines in front of an artificer armor commander. They take 5 plasma hits.

The front three models die, leaving 2 wounds left hitting the artificer commander.

Before the change you could attempt to make two iron halo 4++ saves, and if he failed he could LOS them to other models.

You're not paying attention. LOS! occurs at the point of allocation. When the wound is allocated to the commander, he may LOS! right then and there, but if he does not, he cannot later change his mind. Once he rolls his own, specific save, he cannot (and never could) use LOS!. The FAQ did not change this path of the rules.

What the FAQ changed was what happens if the character has the exact same save as his compatriots. In the old rules, these saves would be made before any were allocated. Then, unsaved wounds allocated to the character could be LOS!'d. Note that this is still happening at the point of allocation, it's just that the point of allocation was different.

Per the FAQ, you never use save-first allocation if a unit has a character. This means that unsaved wounds can never be LOS!'d.

While I imagine that clearing up confusion was part of the reasoning behind the change, your interpretation was never correct.

The fact that it was a fairly common occurance disagrees with your assessment.

I'm with Steel-Wolf.

There is more to an outcome than a statistical result, in the case of Look Out Sir after saves you gain an ability to apportion wounds through out the squad that you shouldn't have.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If all of the saving throws are the same in the unit you could use fast save method then Look Out Sir after you roll your saves, to save time.

The outcome is the same statistically.

Except that goes against the rules.

not really.

Same save units can allocate Wounds "in groups equal to however many models with the same, best save are nearest to the firing unit" (16)

Yes really.

Page 15 – Shooting Phase, Mixed Saves
Change subheader to “Mixed Saves and Characters”.
Change the first sentence to read “If the target unit contains
several different saving throws, or at least one character…”

As soon as you have a character, you must use Mixed Saves method, which means you allocate before taking saves. Furthermore, the very next errata says to "Delete “(or unsaved Wounds)” from the first paragraph.", so even if you could use the same save method, you cannot LOS wounds that have failed a saving throw.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
The fact that it was a fairly common occurance disagrees with your assessment.

No, it doesn't. Incorrect rules interpretations have always been common. Being common doesn't make them correct.

Pyrian wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
The fact that it was a fairly common occurance disagrees with your assessment.

No, it doesn't. Incorrect rules interpretations have always been common. Being common doesn't make them correct.

Sorry, but the two dice rolls happen at the same stage of the round, before the errata you could say, "my lord takes a wound, rolls his save, then LoS's it over to cultist Bob...." beacause untill the lord rolled his armor save it was not an "unsaved wound" which the rules said you could LoS.

I wont disagree and say I think it was intended that way, but like a lot of things what GW intends and what they write dont always line up.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
The fact that it was a fairly common occurance disagrees with your assessment.

No, it doesn't. Incorrect rules interpretations have always been common. Being common doesn't make them correct.

Sorry, but the two dice rolls happen at the same stage of the round, before the errata you could say, "my lord takes a wound, rolls his save, then LoS's it over to cultist Bob...." beacause untill the lord rolled his armor save it was not an "unsaved wound" which the rules said you could LoS.

I wont disagree and say I think it was intended that way, but like a lot of things what GW intends and what they write dont always line up.

Only if your Lord and Cultist Bob had the same save, otherwise, you would have had to LOS before taking saves, due to Mixed Saves.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
The fact that it was a fairly common occurance disagrees with your assessment.

No, it doesn't. Incorrect rules interpretations have always been common. Being common doesn't make them correct.

Sorry, but the two dice rolls happen at the same stage of the round, before the errata you could say, "my lord takes a wound, rolls his save, then LoS's it over to cultist Bob...." beacause untill the lord rolled his armor save it was not an "unsaved wound" which the rules said you could LoS.

Changing the point of contention back and forth is not improving your argument any. LOS! must be done (now and before) when a wound is allocated. If you move on from allocating the wound to saving the wound, as in your example, it's too late; you're directly breaking the LOS! rule, because that rule must be invoked when the wound is allocated. It's not "the same stage" at all.

Is there any point in arguing what the situation might have or have not been in the past?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Is there any point in arguing what the situation might have or have not been in the past?

Somebody's wrong on the internet. It must be rectified.

 ruprecht wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Is there any point in arguing what the situation might have or have not been in the past?

Somebody's wrong on the internet. It must be rectified.

Best LOL this month