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.
rtunian wrote: I think this is a case of a FAQ changing the rules instead of clarifying them, because as written in the book, LOS! involves a player choice, which to me would be subject to the restrictions on wound allocation imposed by FF. However, the FAQ removes that choice and tells you which model to resolve the wound against. So I'm inclined to agree that LOS! takes priority in this scenario. The way I interpret the order of operations, wounds are allocated from the wound pool following FF restriction until a wound is allocated to a character, at which point a LOS! may be taken, which bears its own wound allocation rule.
The change, while distributed in an FAQ document, was part of an errata. Errata are supposed to changes to the rules. It did not however, change who is allocating (or to be more persice, reallocating) the wounds as a result of a successful role.
Happyjew wrote: Actually the rules for ff say (paraphrasing here) "if you declare focus fire, your opponent can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to our worse than what you declared." The only time your opponent allocates wounds was when they utilised los (and close combat but that is not applicable).
This is not quite true. In the LoS rules themselves, they call the LoS a re-allocation of the wound. However, if you have been FF'd then you cannot allocate the wounds to models with a cover save better than x.
You've missed the point. Normally the player doing the shooting allocates the wounds, not the player getting shot at. FF only prevents the player getting shot at from allocating wounds to certain models. Normally FF does nothing because it prevents the player getting shot at from doing something its already not doing. The only time the player getting shot at is allowed to allocate any of the wounds is when they make a LOS role.
The shooting player doesn't get to allocate wounds. Wounds are automatically resolved against the closest enemy. FF prevents wounds from being allocated to models with saves better than X, so it just changes what the 'closest model' is for wound allocation. The only time players get to intervene with how wounds are resolved are for there are mixed wounds, and that still would follow the rules for allocation.
No, the shooting player is instructed on page 15 of the BRB to allocate the wounds to the enemy model closest to the firing unit. FF, if you go by RAW, does not matter here because FF only prevents the shooting player's opponent from allocating wounds to certain models. Its does not, by RAW, change how the shooting player allocates any wounds at all.
Its very clear that the RAW does not match the RAI because GW has no doubt failed to proof read the damn book again. You cannot go by RAW any time FF is involved.
I keep reading page 15 and I see nothing saying the shooting player is allocating wounds. The game system tells us to keep a tally of the number of wounds in the wound pool, then allocate them to the nearest model. It never says the shooting player allocates wounds. The only choice the shooting player has past rolling to hit and wound is under mixed wounds, where the shooter gets to decide which order the wounds will be resolved. It doesn't matter however, as wounds cannot be allocated to models that have been FF'd out, and that includes the re-allocation of wounds from LoS.
To determine how many casualties are caused you will need to allocate the Wounds...
As the book has been speaking to the shooting player up to this point there is no reason not to believe the 'you' they are referring to is the shooting player. One thing is clear, a player is allocating wounds.
Next, allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.
The player allocating wounds is allocating them to 'enemy' models in the target unit. Only the shooting player's opponent could own the target unit. If the models in the target unit are enemy models then the player allocating the wounds must be the shooting player.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: No FF prohibits the owning player from reallocating. Good job the erratad los rules mean it is the rule making the decision, not the owning player
The owning player is still choosing to try and reallocate the wound, they just don't have a choice of where they are reallocating it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/18 08:42:27
Again, the rule prohibits the owning player from allocating the wound. The player never allocates the wound, Los does. Previously you would have a point, as after evoking the rules t eh player might have a choice, however not any longer
DJGietzen wrote: Taking away the choice of WHERE to reallocate the wound does not change WHO is reallocating the wound.
The rule is not a "who".
Previously the player reallocated the wound. Now, they do not. FF therefore does not apply
Why is the player not reallocating the wound any more? All the errata did was change where the wound can be allocated but the mechanism, and the permission for a player to make use of that mechanism remained the same.
Why does having a choice matter though? If you order a sandwich from the deli for lunch every day and the deli provides you with a choice of sandwich then one day suddenly they only offer a single sandwich but you order it anyway you are still ordering the sandwich.
I thought you had to roll to see if your model first was able to look out sir! and then you roll that model's save. The basic idea is that the model is literally jumping out in front of the shot that would have otherwise hit the character. The model is allowed to take its armor/invuln save.
I think RAI, it does not mean that the model's cover save carries over because it's no longer in cover; it just jumped up in front of the character to protect him! Even if RAW, it may not seem clear this way, RAI would clearly point to the model being able to take the cover save of the model it is protecting only.
But to answer the poll question, Why would it not be able to? You are focusing your fire on the character. That means that a lot of shots are going into that one guy. The Look out sir! models have to be within 6in to be able to do so, and they have to pass the look out sir! roll. Consider for a moment precision shots. They work in the exact same way. You can still take Look out sir rolls for it, even though the shot was so good, you nailed the character for sure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/18 23:47:13
AnonAmbientLight wrote: I thought you had to roll to see if your model first was able to look out sir! and then you roll that model's save. The basic idea is that the model is literally jumping out in front of the shot that would have otherwise hit the character. The model is allowed to take its armor/invuln save.
I think RAI, it does not mean that the model's cover save carries over because it's no longer in cover; it just jumped up in front of the character to protect him! Even if RAW, it may not seem clear this way, RAI would clearly point to the model being able to take the cover save of the model it is protecting only.
This is the way I've done it in friendly games as it makes sense... But GW cant write rules that make sense.
AnonAmbientLight wrote: I thought you had to roll to see if your model first was able to look out sir! and then you roll that model's save. The basic idea is that the model is literally jumping out in front of the shot that would have otherwise hit the character. The model is allowed to take its armor/invuln save.
I think RAI, it does not mean that the model's cover save carries over because it's no longer in cover; it just jumped up in front of the character to protect him! Even if RAW, it may not seem clear this way, RAI would clearly point to the model being able to take the cover save of the model it is protecting only.
This is the way I've done it in friendly games as it makes sense... But GW cant write rules that make sense.
Yea i know. My issue is not that they have trouble with rules as it seems fairly easy to even bungle your own wording. But they take their sweet ass time updating and fixing FAQ. That grinds my gears.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/18 23:51:36
nosferatu1001 wrote: It says when the player allocates. The point I have made is that the player does NOT allocate it. The rule now allocates it.
FF cares about the former.
And the point I'm trying to make is although they player does not get a choice as to where the wound is allocated, the player is still the one allocating the wound when they make a successful look out sir role.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It says when the player allocates. The point I have made is that the player does NOT allocate it. The rule now allocates it.
FF cares about the former.
And the point I'm trying to make is although they player does not get a choice as to where the wound is allocated, the player is still the one allocating the wound when they make a successful look out sir role.
No he is not, you make a Look Out Sir roll, then the rule re-allocates the wound if the roll was successful.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It says when the player allocates. The point I have made is that the player does NOT allocate it. The rule now allocates it.
FF cares about the former.
And the point I'm trying to make is although they player does not get a choice as to where the wound is allocated, the player is still the one allocating the wound when they make a successful look out sir role.
No he is not, you make a Look Out Sir roll, then the rule re-allocates the wound if the roll was successful.
And you are still told to ignore certain models entirely, as you can NEVER have a chance of killing them.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It says when the player allocates. The point I have made is that the player does NOT allocate it. The rule now allocates it.
FF cares about the former.
And the point I'm trying to make is although they player does not get a choice as to where the wound is allocated, the player is still the one allocating the wound when they make a successful look out sir role.
No, the player does not allocate the wound. The LOS rule absolutely, categorically and without room for interpretation on this, is the "thing" allocating the rule. The player does not
steel - irrelevant , as that only comes into play when the player allocates. FF is not in force when you make LOS as the rule allocates, not the player
2200
4500
3500 
