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.

So I was asking my friend about the vindicare assassins shieldbreaker move and he said that the way it works is "I shoot, I hit who i want, (if they are an independent character) they look out sir, then when that is over the model with the shot on it takes all saves available (including invulns) b/c its taking its saving throws, then if it fails it takes a wound and loses its invulns from that point on." The way i understood it was i shoot, i allocate the wound, then if you dont have a lookout sir or fail or whatever the model IMMEDIATELY loses all invulns b4 it takes the saves then can use a cover if it has one or whatever save it might have left.

Anyways thats the delema, please tell me what you think!!

the rule says allocated. Even if you LOS it the original would lose the invul.

Yes, you lose the INV save during allocation (before saves are rolled). You cannot take an INV save against a shield breaker round.




I am not certain, about the interaction of Look Out Sir and the shield breaker. It kinda looks like LOS does not "allocate" the wound to someone else, but just that the wound is "resolved" against the unlucky fellow.

personally, I would PLAY it that LOS transfers all effects of the shieldbreaker, but I am not sure if that is RAW.

This old chestnut has been played out a few times here since 6th edition began. Try using the search bar next time.

How I've been playing it and how it seems to be fairly accepted is that the Shieldbreaker round is allocated to whomever the Vindicare's owner would like and that model immediately loses its Invulnerable save. If the model chosen is capable of a Look out Sir they're free to try that to pass off the wound but they still have lost their invulnerable save.

It's "reallocated" on a successful LoS! roll.

You cannot make a LOS roll against shield breaker, because there is no unsaved wound to make. You roll to wound as normal, but instead of causing a wound, you destroy wargear. As no unsaved wound is caused, there is nothing to LOS from.

 djdarknoise wrote:
You cannot make a LOS roll against shield breaker, because there is no unsaved wound to make. You roll to wound as normal, but instead of causing a wound, you destroy wargear. As no unsaved wound is caused, there is nothing to LOS from.

Absolutely false. Shieldbreaker still causes a wound.

Technically, both the guy who was originally targeted and the guy jumping in the way lose their invulns. Both had the shot allocated to them, thus both meet the trigger for destroying the Invuln granted by Wargear.

Only the guy jumping in the way takes the wound however.

 djdarknoise wrote:
You cannot make a LOS roll against shield breaker, because there is no unsaved wound to make. You roll to wound as normal, but instead of causing a wound, you destroy wargear. As no unsaved wound is caused, there is nothing to LOS from.

Odd, because it still causes a wound at AP1

 Grey Templar wrote:
Technically, both the guy who was originally targeted and the guy jumping in the way lose their invulns. Both had the shot allocated to them, thus both meet the trigger for destroying the Invuln granted by Wargear.

Only the guy jumping in the way takes the wound however.

I believe that "reallocation" would disagree with this assessment as your method would require allocation to both models.

To "reallocate" is completely divert from the original.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Technically, both the guy who was originally targeted and the guy jumping in the way lose their invulns. Both had the shot allocated to them, thus both meet the trigger for destroying the Invuln granted by Wargear.

Only the guy jumping in the way takes the wound however.

I believe that "reallocation" would disagree with this assessment as your method would require allocation to both models.

To "reallocate" is completely divert from the original.

Only in a perfect rules set. You allocated to the IC, the IC's controller LOS's it off. It's now been allocated twice.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Technically, both the guy who was originally targeted and the guy jumping in the way lose their invulns. Both had the shot allocated to them, thus both meet the trigger for destroying the Invuln granted by Wargear.

Only the guy jumping in the way takes the wound however.

I believe that "reallocation" would disagree with this assessment as your method would require allocation to both models.

To "reallocate" is completely divert from the original.

Only in a perfect rules set. You allocated to the IC, the IC's controller LOS's it off. It's now been allocated twice.

It has not. It has been reallocated. To allocate twice would be to allocate two wounds and two shots.

 Kevin949 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Technically, both the guy who was originally targeted and the guy jumping in the way lose their invulns. Both had the shot allocated to them, thus both meet the trigger for destroying the Invuln granted by Wargear.

Only the guy jumping in the way takes the wound however.

I believe that "reallocation" would disagree with this assessment as your method would require allocation to both models.

To "reallocate" is completely divert from the original.

Only in a perfect rules set. You allocated to the IC, the IC's controller LOS's it off. It's now been allocated twice.

It has not. It has been reallocated. To allocate twice would be to allocate two wounds and two shots.

Not in the least. Unless you're telling me you don't allocate with the Vindi.

It's worth noting pg 16 BGB LOS says nothing about reallocating. Just transferring a wound.

But what breaks the shield is the hit not the wound. So a wound being allocated would not break the invul save now would it?

 pizzaguardian wrote:
But what breaks the shield is the hit not the wound. So a wound being allocated would not break the invul save now would it?

Actually what breaks the shield is a wound being allocated - per the Shieldbreaker rule.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Technically, both the guy who was originally targeted and the guy jumping in the way lose their invulns. Both had the shot allocated to them, thus both meet the trigger for destroying the Invuln granted by Wargear.

Only the guy jumping in the way takes the wound however.

I believe that "reallocation" would disagree with this assessment as your method would require allocation to both models.

To "reallocate" is completely divert from the original.

Only in a perfect rules set. You allocated to the IC, the IC's controller LOS's it off. It's now been allocated twice.

It has not. It has been reallocated. To allocate twice would be to allocate two wounds and two shots.

Not in the least. Unless you're telling me you don't allocate with the Vindi.

It's worth noting pg 16 BGB LOS says nothing about reallocating. Just transferring a wound.

Read the very last line of the LoS! rules on that page.

I believe there are several other places that reference reallocation using LoS! but I don't remember off the top of my head where they were.

*Edit*
Pg 26.

Pg 64 - Fighting a challenge

Precursory search...

Yes, a wound needs to be allocated for the Shieldbreaker to break the wargear.

1) Vindicare Hits

2) Vindicare wounds

3) Vindicare's controlling player allocated the wound to Character X

3a) Character X's invulns are broken

4) Character X gets to LoS the wound he was allocated

5) Joe Schmo from the unit gets reallocated the wound

5a) Joe Schmo's invuln is broken



If the wound was reallocated, it must have been allocated prior to the reallocation. Therefore, the criteria for breaking invulns is satisfied and the Invulns are broken on both poor sods.

Yep, reallocation requires an initial allocation

Well, my hands are tied with not being able to bring in english definitions of words so I'll bow out of this.

It's ludicrous and I'd never agree to it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, a wound needs to be allocated for the Shieldbreaker to break the wargear.

1) Vindicare Hits

2) Vindicare wounds

3) Vindicare's controlling player allocated the wound to Character X

3a) Character X's invulns are broken

4) Character X gets to LoS the wound he was allocated

5) Joe Schmo from the unit gets reallocated the wound

5a) Joe Schmo's invuln is broken



If the wound was reallocated, it must have been allocated prior to the reallocation. Therefore, the criteria for breaking invulns is satisfied and the Invulns are broken on both poor sods.

This is incorrect. The wound is not "re-allocated" only re-assigned, so Shieldbreaker doesn't magically go off twice. It should be:

1) Vindicare Hits

2) Vindicare wounds

3) Vindicare's controlling player allocated the wound to Character X

3a) Character X's invulns are broken

4) Character X gets to LoS the wound he was allocated

5) Joe Schmo from the unit gets transferred the wound

Estimated number of opponents & TOs willing to accept this: 0.0.
Shield breaker acts on allocation in oorder to prevent invus from stopping it. It was never intended to break a wargear in one model and wound another. It's simply ridiculous. As with any other re-, reallocating the wound would transfer all its properties to the LOS model.

MadmanMSU wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, a wound needs to be allocated for the Shieldbreaker to break the wargear.

1) Vindicare Hits

2) Vindicare wounds

3) Vindicare's controlling player allocated the wound to Character X

3a) Character X's invulns are broken

4) Character X gets to LoS the wound he was allocated

5) Joe Schmo from the unit gets reallocated the wound

5a) Joe Schmo's invuln is broken



If the wound was reallocated, it must have been allocated prior to the reallocation. Therefore, the criteria for breaking invulns is satisfied and the Invulns are broken on both poor sods.

This is incorrect. The wound is not "re-allocated" only re-assigned, so Shieldbreaker doesn't magically go off twice. It should be:

1) Vindicare Hits

2) Vindicare wounds

3) Vindicare's controlling player allocated the wound to Character X

3a) Character X's invulns are broken

4) Character X gets to LoS the wound he was allocated

5) Joe Schmo from the unit gets transferred the wound

It does reallocate, as specified earlier in this thread.

Nowhere in the LoS! rule is the word "re-allocated" used. Only "re-assigned". The wound only gets allocated once, therefore there is only one place Shieldbreaker can activate.

MadmanMSU wrote:
Nowhere in the LoS! rule is the word "re-allocated" used. Only "re-assigned". The wound only gets allocated once, therefore there is only one place Shieldbreaker can activate.

Read the thread, and the rule. Yes, it is there.

MadmanMSU wrote:
Nowhere in the LoS! rule is the word "re-allocated" used. Only "re-assigned". The wound only gets allocated once, therefore there is only one place Shieldbreaker can activate.

Please quote the rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:
Nowhere in the LoS! rule is the word "re-allocated" used. Only "re-assigned". The wound only gets allocated once, therefore there is only one place Shieldbreaker can activate.

Please quote the rule.

To make a Look Out, Sir attempt, rol1a D6.
. On a roll of 3 or less, the look Out, Sir attempt fails.
. On a roll of 4+,the look Out, Sir attempt is successful.
You must pick a model from the same unit within 6"
and resolve the W'ound against them instead. This can
even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the
Shooting attack.

MadmanMSU wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:
Nowhere in the LoS! rule is the word "re-allocated" used. Only "re-assigned". The wound only gets allocated once, therefore there is only one place Shieldbreaker can activate.

Please quote the rule.

To make a Look Out, Sir attempt, rol1a D6.
. On a roll of 3 or less, the look Out, Sir attempt fails.
. On a roll of 4+,the look Out, Sir attempt is successful.
You must pick a model from the same unit within 6"
and resolve the W'ound against them instead. This can
even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the
Shooting attack.

The "entire" rule:

Look Out SIr
When a wound (or unsaved Wound) is allocated to one of your
characters, and there is another model from the same unit within
6", he's allowed a look Out, Sir attempt. This represents the
character ducking back further into the unit, holding a comrade in
the line of fire, or being pushed aside by a selfless ally. If no model
is in range, then you cannot make a look Out, Sir attempt.
To make a Look Out, Sir attempt, roll a D6.
. On a roll of 3 or less, the look Out, Sir attempt fails.
. On a roll of 4+,the look Out, Sir attempt is successful.
You must pick a model from the same unit within 6"
and resolve the W'ound against them instead. This can
even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the
Shooting attack.
If the unit only consists of characters, a look Out, Sir attempt can
still be rnade, with one character within 6" taking the place of the
erstwhile victim if the roll is passed. Only one Look Our, 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.

Also, I stated earlier, there are two other places that reallocation is mentioned. One place, however, is just a rehash of this rule.

 Kevin949 wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:
Nowhere in the LoS! rule is the word "re-allocated" used. Only "re-assigned". The wound only gets allocated once, therefore there is only one place Shieldbreaker can activate.

Please quote the rule.

To make a Look Out, Sir attempt, rol1a D6.
. On a roll of 3 or less, the look Out, Sir attempt fails.
. On a roll of 4+,the look Out, Sir attempt is successful.
You must pick a model from the same unit within 6"
and resolve the W'ound against them instead. This can
even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the
Shooting attack.

The "entire" rule:

Look Out SIr
When a wound (or unsaved Wound) is allocated to one of your
characters, and there is another model from the same unit within
6", he's allowed a look Out, Sir attempt. This represents the
character ducking back further into the unit, holding a comrade in
the line of fire, or being pushed aside by a selfless ally. If no model
is in range, then you cannot make a look Out, Sir attempt.
To make a Look Out, Sir attempt, roll a D6.
. On a roll of 3 or less, the look Out, Sir attempt fails.
. On a roll of 4+,the look Out, Sir attempt is successful.
You must pick a model from the same unit within 6"
and resolve the W'ound against them instead. This can
even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the
Shooting attack.
If the unit only consists of characters, a look Out, Sir attempt can
still be rnade, with one character within 6" taking the place of the
erstwhile victim if the roll is passed. Only one Look Our, 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.

Also, I stated earlier, there are two other places that reallocation is mentioned. One place, however, is just a rehash of this rule.

Well, I suppose if you read it that way, then you're right, Shieldbreaker does affect both models, so they would both lose their invulnerable save. Doesn't seem right to me, but that's how it reads.

I will restate, I do not agree that shieldbreaker affects both models.