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.

Had an incident come up in a game today where a model received 2 wounds both of which it used Look Out Sir to push back into the squad.

The first wound killed the visible person immediately behind the character, and then there was some debate over whether the next wound would go to the next closest model (who was out of Line of SIght) or the closest model in line of sight.

We resolved that and allowed the wound to go onto the non-visible model, but were unsure if the model should then be entitled to a cover save or not since it's not a situation you can encounter without Look Out Sir.

Anyone know how this goes?

Closest model is correct. LOS! rules state that wound can be transferred to model that is out of sight, and errata makes no change to that.

The cover rules (BRB page 18) all seem to talk about "the model", and Look Out Sir (BRB page 16) says to resolve the wound against that model instead. Oddly, the section describing units of characters being able to Look Out Sir other characters says "with one character... taking the place of the erstwhile victim..." It's not clear to me if that's meant to mean they physically exchange places or if it's just a mildly flowery turn of phrase, but it's only mentioned in relation to units of characters.

RAW, I think the model should get a cover save, though that might not be intended and arguably doesn't make much sense. If you wanted to rule that the intervening model had the same cover save as the character then that would have some basis per fluff, just not, apparently, RAW (unless it's a unit of characters, maybe).

I'd assume the intervening model lept infront of the character.
Since the rules state you can use it to transfer wounds to models out of line of sight, the assumption has to be that the model that is hit moves out to where the character is.

I'd also allow any cover save that the character had on the intervening model for the same reason.

Yeah I was looking at a similar set up for my Hive tyrant w/ 2 guard. Have the tyrant(Improved to a 2 armor save) w HVC and Devourers w/ BLW at a wall with the 2 gaurd behind the wall out of sight but base to base. They are so short they can't be seen over most walls. I looked and didn't see anything w/ LOS and them not being able to jump in way.

It just makes a funny picture the guard only jumping up from out of sight when something you want to intercept gets shot at the tyrant. Bite the missile boy... bite the missile..... SPROING ..... Booommm......

 Purifier wrote:
I'd assume the intervening model lept infront of the character.
Since the rules state you can use it to transfer wounds to models out of line of sight, the assumption has to be that the model that is hit moves out to where the character is.

I'd also allow any cover save that the character had on the intervening model for the same reason.

The cover rules say you receive cover if you're "at least" a certain percentage obscured by cover. 100% is above that percentage, so there doesn't seem to be any conflict, as written, with a model entirely out of line of sight receiving cover, and thus no need for it to move anywhere (something the rules do not seem to say to do, except possibly for units of characters) for the process to work as written.

Usually what prevents you from being unable to wound models out of line of sight is, AFAIK, that you can't allocate wounds to them per the typical shooting process, but Look Out Sir seems to bypass this by telling you to resolve the wound against them instead.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I'd assume the intervening model lept infront of the character.
Since the rules state you can use it to transfer wounds to models out of line of sight, the assumption has to be that the model that is hit moves out to where the character is.

I'd also allow any cover save that the character had on the intervening model for the same reason.

The cover rules say you receive cover if you're "at least" a certain percentage obscured by cover. 100% is above that percentage, so there doesn't seem to be any conflict, as written, with a model entirely out of line of sight receiving cover, and thus no need for it to move anywhere (something the rules do not seem to say to do, except possibly for units of characters) for the process to work as written.

Usually what prevents you from being unable to wound models out of line of sight is, AFAIK, that you can't allocate wounds to them per the typical shooting process, but Look Out Sir seems to bypass this by telling you to resolve the wound against them instead.

They can have different saves though. And getting a save for being 100% in cover isn't something that is done..

 Purifier wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I'd assume the intervening model lept infront of the character.
Since the rules state you can use it to transfer wounds to models out of line of sight, the assumption has to be that the model that is hit moves out to where the character is.

I'd also allow any cover save that the character had on the intervening model for the same reason.

The cover rules say you receive cover if you're "at least" a certain percentage obscured by cover. 100% is above that percentage, so there doesn't seem to be any conflict, as written, with a model entirely out of line of sight receiving cover, and thus no need for it to move anywhere (something the rules do not seem to say to do, except possibly for units of characters) for the process to work as written.

Usually what prevents you from being unable to wound models out of line of sight is, AFAIK, that you can't allocate wounds to them per the typical shooting process, but Look Out Sir seems to bypass this by telling you to resolve the wound against them instead.

They can have different saves though. And getting a save for being 100% in cover isn't something that is done..

The "Determining Cover Saves" subsection of "Cover Saves" on p.18 of the BRB talks about the requirements to receive cover. Being 100% obscured seems to meet the requirements, as written, to receive a cover save. If you could clarify on why you don't think that is the case then that would be helpful!

I agree that it seems weird. The weirdness is a function of the models not actually moving at all when a Look Out Sir is performed, I think, but as written there doesn't seem to be anything saying to transpose the positions of the models, even for purposes of resolving the wound (except possibly in the case of units of characters (p.16, Look Out Sir box-out, last paragraph) which talks about "taking the place" of the victim).

Personally, I think that by all rights and possibly RAI the intervening model should not get a cover save, but RAW there doesn't seem to be anything disallowing it from receiving any cover save that its current position would grant it under the shooting rules.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The "Determining Cover Saves" subsection of "Cover Saves" on p.18 of the BRB talks about the requirements to receive cover. Being 100% obscured seems to meet the requirements, as written, to receive a cover save. If you could clarify on why you don't think that is the case then that would be helpful!

Not the person you were asking but, the thing that gave me pause with regards to RAW is the opening wording for "Determining Cover Saves"

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured..."

Basically my issue was, you definitely allocate the wound to the Character initially, but then, Look Out Sir never actually refers to the other model who receives the wound instead of the character as having it allocated to himself, it simply refers to it as resolved against the new model.

I'm not sure that necessarily equates to allocating the wound a second time, and it seems like according to RAW, if you aren't allocating the wound a second time, then you don't check for cover saves on the second model.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The "Determining Cover Saves" subsection of "Cover Saves" on p.18 of the BRB talks about the requirements to receive cover. Being 100% obscured seems to meet the requirements, as written, to receive a cover save. If you could clarify on why you don't think that is the case then that would be helpful!

Not the person you were asking but, the thing that gave me pause with regards to RAW is the opening wording for "Determining Cover Saves"

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured..."

Basically my issue was, you definitely allocate the wound to the Character initially, but then, Look Out Sir never actually refers to the other model who receives the wound instead of the character as having it allocated to himself, it simply refers to it as resolved against the new model.

I'm not sure that necessarily equates to allocating the wound a second time, and it seems like according to RAW, if you aren't allocating the wound a second time, then you don't check for cover saves on the second model.

Ooh, that's an interesting idea! However, the final sentence in the p.16 Look Out, Sir boxout mentions "further attempts to reallocate it", which implies to me that the movement of the wound via Look Out, Sir is a reallocation. If something has been reallocated to something else, does that mean it has been allocated to that new thing? I think the answer is yes, and a dictionary definition seems to bear that out. Given that, the wound has indeed been allocated to the new target and the cover save section would not be skipped - it would be visited again, providing the new target with a cover save.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The "Determining Cover Saves" subsection of "Cover Saves" on p.18 of the BRB talks about the requirements to receive cover. Being 100% obscured seems to meet the requirements, as written, to receive a cover save. If you could clarify on why you don't think that is the case then that would be helpful!

Not the person you were asking but, the thing that gave me pause with regards to RAW is the opening wording for "Determining Cover Saves"

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured..."

Basically my issue was, you definitely allocate the wound to the Character initially, but then, Look Out Sir never actually refers to the other model who receives the wound instead of the character as having it allocated to himself, it simply refers to it as resolved against the new model.

I'm not sure that necessarily equates to allocating the wound a second time, and it seems like according to RAW, if you aren't allocating the wound a second time, then you don't check for cover saves on the second model.

Ooh, that's an interesting idea! However, the final sentence in the p.16 Look Out, Sir boxout mentions "further attempts to reallocate it", which implies to me that the movement of the wound via Look Out, Sir is a reallocation. If something has been reallocated to something else, does that mean it has been allocated to that new thing? I think the answer is yes, and a dictionary definition seems to bear that out. Given that, the wound has indeed been allocated to the new target and the cover save section would not be skipped - it would be visited again, providing the new target with a cover save.

But by that logic a character not in LOS of the person firing the gun would not be elligable to be allocated to.

 Purifier wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The "Determining Cover Saves" subsection of "Cover Saves" on p.18 of the BRB talks about the requirements to receive cover. Being 100% obscured seems to meet the requirements, as written, to receive a cover save. If you could clarify on why you don't think that is the case then that would be helpful!

Not the person you were asking but, the thing that gave me pause with regards to RAW is the opening wording for "Determining Cover Saves"

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured..."

Basically my issue was, you definitely allocate the wound to the Character initially, but then, Look Out Sir never actually refers to the other model who receives the wound instead of the character as having it allocated to himself, it simply refers to it as resolved against the new model.

I'm not sure that necessarily equates to allocating the wound a second time, and it seems like according to RAW, if you aren't allocating the wound a second time, then you don't check for cover saves on the second model.

Ooh, that's an interesting idea! However, the final sentence in the p.16 Look Out, Sir boxout mentions "further attempts to reallocate it", which implies to me that the movement of the wound via Look Out, Sir is a reallocation. If something has been reallocated to something else, does that mean it has been allocated to that new thing? I think the answer is yes, and a dictionary definition seems to bear that out. Given that, the wound has indeed been allocated to the new target and the cover save section would not be skipped - it would be visited again, providing the new target with a cover save.

But by that logic a character not in LOS of the person firing the gun would not be elligable to be allocated to.

Normally you'd be correct, but in the case of LoS! there is explicit permission to assign wounds to models outside of LOS and range of the firer.

However, if you continue reading into the part about units only of characters it specifically states that no further attempts to reallocate the wound can be made. So (IMO) it clearly is allocation.

 Happyjew wrote:
However, if you continue reading into the part about units only of characters it specifically states that no further attempts to reallocate the wound can be made. So (IMO) it clearly is allocation.

It is re-allocation. The rules prevent me as the attacker allocating wounds to models out of LOS, however the person that allocated the wound to that model was not me the attacker it was the defender.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
However, if you continue reading into the part about units only of characters it specifically states that no further attempts to reallocate the wound can be made. So (IMO) it clearly is allocation.

It is re-allocation. The rules prevent me as the attacker allocating wounds to models out of LOS, however the person that allocated the wound to that model was not me the attacker it was the defender.

I was at work when I posted and have issues with quoting on phone. I was referring to the following:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
I'm not sure that necessarily equates to allocating the wound a second time, and it seems like according to RAW, if you aren't allocating the wound a second time, then you don't check for cover saves on the second model.

Ah right. Ignore me so.