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.

Disagree all you want, the rules are quite clear. You may not play with them, just be aware you are breaking the rules by doing it that way.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Disagree all you want, the rules are quite clear. You may not play with them, just be aware you are breaking the rules by doing it that way.

And I see it as those using the vindicare in this way are bending the rules to the fullest extent to achieve an outcome that is extremely radical in it's concept.

To "re-" something is to discount the first. You can say what you like, I follow this line.

But let me ask you...when you reroll a die, do you still count the first result for anything?

Thats only because a "Reroll", as explicitly defined in the BRB, explicitly says the first roll never happened. Not so with a reallocation.

It is allocated twice, and only the wound itself never happens to the guy who passes the LoS. Any other effects from being hit/wounded(but not an unsaved wound) will still apply. Because we are not told they are changed with the LoS roll.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats only because a "Reroll", as explicitly defined in the BRB, explicitly says the first roll never happened. Not so with a reallocation.

It is allocated twice, and only the wound itself never happens to the guy who passes the LoS. Any other effects from being hit/wounded(but not an unsaved wound) will still apply. Because we are not told they are changed with the LoS roll.

No, it says no such thing. Pg 5. All it says is that the second roll counts, it says nothing of the first roll never happening. Now we know this is not the case because we are (generally) understanding people of the rules and the English language.

Let me be clear, too, I do understand that is pretty much no situation I can think of where it would matter if the first roll was successful or not anyway, I'm just illustrating a point.

Reallocation by definition means the assignment or allotment to something other than that which was originally intended.

By that definition I would say that the shot and its effects should be placed on whoever actually is required to make a save against it.

Logic would dictate that if someone was to in fact jump in front of said individual with an invul. save that person would not be hit by it therefore eliminating the possibility of their shield being destroyed.

I am sure these are just restatements of things being said again just my 2 cents.

I plan to play it as whoever is actually suffering the wound is the one who is suffers the effects of the shot because well... that actually makes sense.

This entire argument is ludicrous, and one of the reasons we stopped playing with a hardcore RAW bloke at our FLGS.

The game is meant to be fun, and it is the SPIRIT of the game that matters. Imagine in your heads the scene which is happening here: A sniper in a tower takes a shot at an important character. A heroic individual sees the glint from the sniper's scope out of the corner of his eye, and at the last moment shoves the character out of the way, or dives infront of him to take the shot.

The bullet from the sniper *NEVER STRIKES THE CHARACTER*, as the heroic individual who passed the LOS roll took the bullet for him. The Shield Breaker should only have an effect on the model the round actually struck, which is the guy who the wound was LOS'd onto. If you are trying to twist the wording of the rules to make shield breaker apply to BOTH models, then you have lost sight of the purpose of the game: To have *FUN*, not to WAAC.


I understand that point of this sub is to hash out RAW, but I think it needs to be said that if anyone tried to pull this on me or a friend in a game I would just stop playing at that point.

If you assume every person arguing for a point also plays that way then you've missed the point of this forum and should reread the tenets before getting angry and lashing out.

There is no twisting of the wording here. Nor is it bending the rules. Its folllowing the rules exactly.

Accept that some people actually enjoy playing games like that. Hardcore and to the hilt. Its balls out each and every game. And guess what? Its lots of fun too.


From the point of view of such a person, you would come accross as little whiny fluffbunnies that want the games to be realistic and anything that isn't is automatically unfair and should be ignored by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Lalalala I'm not listening..."

its annoying, just accept the rules are what they are. You are free to disregard them as always, just aknowledge that you are actually breaking the rules by doing so.

Cheesedoodler wrote:
This entire argument is ludicrous, and one of the reasons we stopped playing with a hardcore RAW bloke at our FLGS.

The game is meant to be fun, and it is the SPIRIT of the game that matters. Imagine in your heads the scene which is happening here: A sniper in a tower takes a shot at an important character. A heroic individual sees the glint from the sniper's scope out of the corner of his eye, and at the last moment shoves the character out of the way, or dives infront of him to take the shot.

The bullet from the sniper *NEVER STRIKES THE CHARACTER*, as the heroic individual who passed the LOS roll took the bullet for him. The Shield Breaker should only have an effect on the model the round actually struck, which is the guy who the wound was LOS'd onto. If you are trying to twist the wording of the rules to make shield breaker apply to BOTH models, then you have lost sight of the purpose of the game: To have *FUN*, not to WAAC.


I understand that point of this sub is to hash out RAW, but I think it needs to be said that if anyone tried to pull this on me or a friend in a game I would just stop playing at that point.

Please dont ever play in a tourney or GT than.

I play strict RAW to the best of my ability, no fluffy nonsense to get in the way

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is no twisting of the wording here. Nor is it bending the rules. Its folllowing the rules exactly.

Accept that some people actually enjoy playing games like that. Hardcore and to the hilt. Its balls out each and every game. And guess what? Its lots of fun too.


From the point of view of such a person, you would come accross as little whiny fluffbunnies that want the games to be realistic and anything that isn't is automatically unfair and should be ignored by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Lalalala I'm not listening..."

its annoying, just accept the rules are what they are. You are free to disregard them as always, just aknowledge that you are actually breaking the rules by doing so.

So long as you acknowledge you're not following English. *Shrug*

Another question then...when you break the invul save on the target and then on the LOS guy, are you following the rules for LOS that states to "resolve the wound on them instead."? No, you're including the original target AND the LoS target, which is not allowed for a single shot like this. Losing the invul is part of resolving the wound from this round, no? If you remove the invul from the original target then is he still allowed to take any other available saves along with the LoS target?

No, it isnt actually. It is a consequence of being allocated a wound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it isnt actually. It is a consequence of being allocated a wound.

Being allocated a wound is part of resolving a wound. It is, in fact, the first step to it. Possibly the second, depending.

Losing the invul is not part of resolving the wound - it's part of allocating the wound.

Since, you know, that's what the Shieldbreaker rule says.
And not all rules follow English definitions - shooting for example.

rigeld2 wrote:
Losing the invul is not part of resolving the wound - it's part of allocating the wound.

Since, you know, that's what the Shieldbreaker rule says.
And not all rules follow English definitions - shooting for example.

See above, allocating the wound is part of resolving the wound. You must resolve the wound on the LoS target *instead*, not in addition to, if you apply any part of the wound resolution process to any other model then you're breaking steps of the process.

I'm not talking about a rule following english definitions, I'm talking about a word. A single word.

Right. What's the English definition of shoot?

Allocation is a prerequisite to resolving a wound, but not the entirety of the process. Wounds can be resolved without allocation - Gets Hot, Perils, etc.

 Kevin949 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it isnt actually. It is a consequence of being allocated a wound.

Being allocated a wound is part of resolving a wound. It is, in fact, the first step to it. Possibly the second, depending.

Gets Hot! says otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it isnt actually. It is a consequence of being allocated a wound.

Being allocated a wound is part of resolving a wound. It is, in fact, the first step to it. Possibly the second, depending.

Gets Hot! says otherwise.

I would argue that Gets Hot! would still follow the same general guidelines.

The only difference is that the allocation of the wound is already determined for you by the rule book. A wound is still "allocated" to the model that suffers the Gets Hot! that step however is not mentioned because there is no need for it to be said because the rules state that the firing model is the one who suffers the wound.

No, there is NO allocation within Gets Hot! None at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, there is NO allocation within Gets Hot! None at all.

Yes, there is. Just because you don't pick who it goes to doesn't mean it's not allocated.

Find the allocation step then.

A rules quote would be handy.

The allocation step is implied it does not specifically mention the requirement of allocating a wound however without "allocating" whether automatic or not a model cannot be required to make an armor save.

Just because there is only 1 option for whom the wound can be allocated to does not mean allocation does not happen.

Now that we have totally moved away from the original discussion....

If a model shoots at a unit containing only one model those shots are still allocated to the single model, it is simply done without saying "these 5 wounds are going on X model" because there is no other choice. They are still allocated to said model because they have to be allocated in order for an armor save to be made.

Again, rules citation required - given that it states the model suffers a wound. You are then required to make any applicable save.

Allocation is the step before resolving the wound, and is part of emptying the wound pool.

Allocation is required for a wound to be suffered. It is taking the wound that was caused from the Gets Hot! roll and placing it onto the model who is carrying the weapon. The allocation is automatic there is no rule citation needed.

TheMostWize wrote:
Allocation is required for a wound to be suffered. It is taking the wound that was caused from the Gets Hot! roll and placing it onto the model who is carrying the weapon. The allocation is automatic there is no rule citation needed.

So you can Look Out, Sir! a Gets Hot, Perils, Dangerous Terrain, <insert other model wounding ability>?

TheMostWize wrote:
Allocation is required for a wound to be suffered. It is taking the wound that was caused from the Gets Hot! roll and placing it onto the model who is carrying the weapon. The allocation is automatic there is no rule citation needed.

Rules citation required for your first assertion. If you cannot do so, withdraw it

You are claiming allocation occurs, meaning you must be able to LOS! it - because LOS! works on allocation

Really, this boils down to common sense as reallocation is not a definable quantity in the rules. Reallocation, by any sensible definition, needs the original allocation to be nullified, otherwise you haven't actually reallocated anything, you've simply made a new allocation - the original hasn't changed. If you say it has changed at all, you deny the original allocation. The wound isn't allocated to a model if it is reallocated to a different model, as that implies both should resolve the wound, which is not how LOS! tells us to resolve it. That would be my opinion on it anyway, in lieu of perfectly clear rules.

As for this Gets Hot! wound allocation stuff, take it to another thread. It's not relevant or useful here. I'm sure you'd also get more people weighing in on it as well.

It is actually relevant if you read the posts that reference it.

As above. It is directly relevant, as some people are convinced allocation is resolving the wound, when it is most certainly not

The allocation of the wound is relevant, yes. The argument about whether Gets Hot! allocates a wound is not.

Now that we have hashed out allocated and re-allocated, why is it so hard to understand that a 140 some odd point model who's specialty is long-range assassination couldn't take out any inv. save that it strikes in a turn? The way I see LoS is that someone barely interposes themself between the attacker and the attacked and without their intervention the original target would be struck. So in my mind a Shieldbreaker round could conceivably pass through two shield that were overlapping in the first place. Or in the other arguement still penetrate the Inv. save, a.k.a. shield surrounding the original target, while only damaging the LoS model. We are talking 40,000 years in the future here...