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.

 AndrewC wrote:
Re the nearest model thing, I haven't checked out the BL FAQs, but I thought they had ditched that particular ruling to go back to the BRB. Can someone clarify?

Andrew

Still in there:

Page 16 – Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Change the second sentence of the second bullet point to:
“Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character,
and resolve the Wound against that model instead.”

Couldn't tell if anyone was disagreeing with my earlier statement or not, so I''ll elaborate:

If DR's earlier statement is correct about LOS! ignoring FF, because LOS! chooses the model for you and not the player.... Then any normal shooting attack ignores FF as well, because the shooting rules choose who gets hit, and not the player.

So using that logic makes any shooting attack not work with FF... Which we know cannot be right,

Or it means they wrote the ff rules not understanding the basic shooting allocation rules

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Death you are prevented by one rule and allowed by another

No you are not as the Look Out Sir rule does the re-allocation for you.

Focus Fire says " Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models..." (18)

By this logic, focus fire does absolute nothing at all. Players themselves dont allocate wounds, the rules tell you who the wound goes to.... and since the player is never allocating the wound focus fire as no effect and is just fluffy page filler.


Its either that.....or your opinion is wrong.... Hmmm, tough call.

Except players do allocate wounds...

"To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed" (15, Emphasis mine)

Look who allocates the wounds. (I bolded and underlined it for you).

Therefore my "Opinion" is not an opinion it is actually backed up by rules.

So either the rules are wrong.....or your opinion is wrong.... Hmmm, tough call.

DR, right you allocate wounds.

When does your opponent allocate wounds your unit causes by shooting?

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, right you allocate wounds.

When does your opponent allocate wounds your unit causes by shooting?

After rolls to wound but before saves are taken.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Death you are prevented by one rule and allowed by another

No you are not as the Look Out Sir rule does the re-allocation for you.

Focus Fire says " Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models..." (18)

By this logic, focus fire does absolute nothing at all. Players themselves dont allocate wounds, the rules tell you who the wound goes to.... and since the player is never allocating the wound focus fire as no effect and is just fluffy page filler.


Its either that.....or your opinion is wrong.... Hmmm, tough call.

Except players do allocate wounds...

"To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed" (15, Emphasis mine)

Look who allocates the wounds. (I bolded and underlined it for you.

Therefore my "Opinion is not an opinion it is actually backed up by rules.

So either the rules are wrong.....or your opinion is wrong.... Hmmm, tough call.

Straw grasping noted.

Both mechanics operate the exact same, and in neither case is the "player" allocating a wound. In both cases the rules tell you exactly which models take the wounds and do so in the exact same manner using range.

This is totally ignoring the fact that you are advocating purposefully breaking one rules restrictions without specific permission, to allow another rules permission to function. Which is the exact opposite of the way the rule set actually functions. Restrictions always over rule permissions, unless the permission specifically mentions the restriction.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Both mechanics operate the exact same, and in neither case is the "player" allocating a wound. In both cases the rules tell you exactly which models take the wounds and do so in the exact same manner using range.

This is totally ignoring the fact that you are advocating purposefully breaking one rules restrictions without specific permission, to allow another rules permission to function. Which is the exact opposite of the way the rule set actually functions. Restrictions always over rule permissions, unless the permission specifically mentions the restriction.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is of course an incorrect premise as I have proven with the rules quote above, and as such your statements based off of that false premise are false.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Death you are prevented by one rule and allowed by another

No you are not as the Look Out Sir rule does the re-allocation for you.

Focus Fire says " Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models..." (18)

With Look Out Sir your Opponent is not the one re-allocation so it does not break the Focus Fire rule at all.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But you are not allocating a wound to a model with a better cover save, the Look Out sir rule is doing that.

The Focus Fire rules prevent you from allocating, not anything else that may re-allocate a wound.

The problem is that Focus Fire says the attacked unit's owner cannot allocate wounds to those models. When does the attacked player allocate shooting wounds?

This does not matter as the attacked unit's owner is not re-allocating the wound, the Look Out Sir rule is doing the re-allocating.

So you allocate a wound to the Character since he is eligible, declare Look out sir, and if successful the Look Out Sir rule re-allocates the wound.

The BRB disagrees, it says you cannot reallocated again after LOS'ing a wound off, so by your understanding as YOU arent re allocating in the first place this part of the rule wouldnt apply meaning you can LOS as many times as you want?.

There can be satisfactory RAW conclusion to this discussion, here is why.

When making a shooting attack, the attacking player allocated the wounds. Note on page 15 of the BRB where it says "Next,allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to
the firing unit." The wounds are allocated to the defending players models. As they are described as enemy models the BRB is instructing the attacking player to allocate the wounds.

The attacking player chooses to focus fire. When the BRB says "If you choose to Focus Fire, choose a cover save value. This can be between 2+and 6+. Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse (i.ea higher value) than the value stated." on page 18 it only prevents the defending player from allocating the wounds to models outside the scope as the opponent of the attacking player must be the defending player.

RAW = Focus Fire does not prevent the attacking player from allocating wounds to models outside the scope. Normally Focus Fire alone does nothing at all.

Look Out Sir allows the defending player to reallocate a wound away from a character. The opening paragraph gives the defending player permission to make a look out sire attempt. Its clear its the defending player as page 16 of the BRB says "If no model
is in range, then you cannot make a Look Out,Sir attempt." and "When a Wound is allocated to one of your characters...". Since a successful attempt reallocate the wound the defending player is in fact reallocating the wound.

RAW = Look Out Sir attempts are the only time Focus Fire does anything at all as it is the only time the defending player allocates any wounds. The defending player is explicitly not allowed to allocate the wound to a model outside the scope.

Unarguably this is not what the writers of the BRB intended. So we generally assume the Focus Fire was intended to prevent the attacking player from allocating wounds to models outside the scope, or that the normal shooting rules intended the defending player to allocate wounds instead of the attacking player. Either interpretation effects the assumptions we would make about how Focus Fire and Look Out Sir are supposed to interact.
RAI = Who knows. I can see it going either way.
HIWPI = Look Out Sire already has permission to ignore common restrictions like Line of Sight, I have no issue with it also ignoring the restriction from Focus Fire.

@DJGietzen...would they then get their own cover save via your HIWPI.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Both mechanics operate the exact same, and in neither case is the "player" allocating a wound. In both cases the rules tell you exactly which models take the wounds and do so in the exact same manner using range.

This is totally ignoring the fact that you are advocating purposefully breaking one rules restrictions without specific permission, to allow another rules permission to function. Which is the exact opposite of the way the rule set actually functions. Restrictions always over rule permissions, unless the permission specifically mentions the restriction.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is of course an incorrect premise as I have proven with the rules quote above, and as such your statements based off of that false premise are false.

Fail

As evidenced by the way the rules actually work.

And you still lack specific permission to ignore FF's restriction. Specific permission not granted in the LOS! rule.

MarkyMark wrote:
The BRB disagrees, it says you cannot reallocated again after LOS'ing a wound off, so by your understanding as YOU arent re allocating in the first place this part of the rule wouldnt apply meaning you can LOS as many times as you want?.

No it does not disagree, you are allocating in the first place, here is the rule that proves it.

"To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed" (15, Emphasis mine)

you allocate wounds, it says so right there in the RAW.

with FF you are not reallocating the wound, the rule is doing that for you. (Check the FAQ since page 18 has been changed).

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
As evidenced by the way the rules actually work.

And you still lack specific permission to ignore FF's restriction. Specific permission not granted in the LOS! rule.

Incorrect, the player actually allocates the wound, as noted by the quote of page 15

DR. My unit of Guardians shoot at your Tac Marines.

I roll To Hit.
I roll To Wound
I separate the Wounds into two groups within the Pool (some were 6's, yay pseudo-rend).
Who allocates the Wounds, you or me?

As per page 15, you do (the person making the saving throws) as evidenced by the context of this passage in the BRB:

"To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed." (15)

 DeathReaper wrote:
As per page 15, you do (the person making the saving throws) as evidenced by the context of this passage in the BRB:

"To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed." (15)

That "you" is referring to the person shooting, not the person taking saves.

More evidence of that is in the following paragraphs -
Take Saving Throws: The target unit gets to make one saving throw for each Wound being resolved.
Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties: Allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest...

We'll if someone is silly enough to put the IC standing out front, outside of cover while 10 dudes cower in the bunker then he deserves to be shot to crap. You may not LOS to models with a different cover save, defeats the purpose focus fire to just be able to ignore it. Now if you wanna look out sir and not take a cover save then by all means let the choads die.

Lungpickle wrote:
You may not LOS to models with a different cover save...

Yes you can Look Out Sir to models with a different cover save, the Look out Sir rules are more specific than the focus fire rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
You may not LOS to models with a different cover save...

Yes you can Look Out Sir to models with a different cover save, the Look out Sir rules are more specific than the focus fire rules.

How are they more specific?

Normal:
Models must be in range of one weapon
Models must be in line of sight.

Focus Fire
Same as normal
Models cannot have a better cover save then what is declared (before going to ground, activating special abilities etc).

Look Out Sir!
Overrides range restriction
Overrides line of sight restriction
Says nothing about overriding the FF restriction.

they are in fact not more specific. And they never mention ignoring focus fire.

You keep saying that but fraid not. try somthing else.

Look Out Sir! is an advanced rule available only to characters, Focus fire is a basic rule available to everyone.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look Out Sir! is an advanced rule available only to characters, Focus fire is a basic rule available to everyone.

And there is no conflict between the two.

Focus fire says in addition to X and Y only Z can be Wounded.
Look Out Sir says you can ignore X and Y.

Since there is no conflict you must fulfill both rules, meaning the wound gets re-allocated to the nearest model that does not have a better cover save then what was declared.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look Out Sir! is an advanced rule available only to characters, Focus fire is a basic rule available to everyone.

And there is no conflict between the two.

Focus fire says in addition to X and Y only Z can be Wounded.
Look Out Sir says you can ignore X and Y.

Since there is no conflict you must fulfill both rules, meaning the wound gets re-allocated to the nearest model that does not have a better cover save then what was declared.

You are fulfilling both rules.

"If you choose to Focus Fire... Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to..."

You opponent is not allocating the wounds from Look Out Sir, so all is well.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look Out Sir! is an advanced rule available only to characters, Focus fire is a basic rule available to everyone.

And there is no conflict between the two.

Focus fire says in addition to X and Y only Z can be Wounded.
Look Out Sir says you can ignore X and Y.

Since there is no conflict you must fulfill both rules, meaning the wound gets re-allocated to the nearest model that does not have a better cover save then what was declared.

You are fulfilling both rules.

"If you choose to Focus Fire... Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to..."

You opponent is not allocating the wounds from Look Out Sir, so all is well.

Your opponent never allocates wounds, so Focus fire apparently does nothing. The last time your opponent allocated wounds was before the changed Look Out, Sir!

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look Out Sir! is an advanced rule available only to characters, Focus fire is a basic rule available to everyone.

I'd go with: LOS! applies one specific wound (at a time), FF applies to every wound in that pool.

Given that LOS! wounds can explicitly be applied to models not in range or LoS of the original attack, I don't see why FF should be able to bypass it.

But the whole problem then concentrates on P19, last couple of sentences.

FF actually tells us that we cannot kill models with a better cover save than that declared, that we must ignore models with a greater cover save, how do we resolve wounds on another model via LOS!?

Cheers

Andrew

Yeah, I believe the problem here is that LOS! allows models to put themselves in harm's way in other situations where the attack would be unable to wound them but neither rule seems to acknowledge the other's existence and both are fairly specific.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Both mechanics operate the exact same, and in neither case is the "player" allocating a wound. In both cases the rules tell you exactly which models take the wounds and do so in the exact same manner using range.

This is totally ignoring the fact that you are advocating purposefully breaking one rules restrictions without specific permission, to allow another rules permission to function. Which is the exact opposite of the way the rule set actually functions. Restrictions always over rule permissions, unless the permission specifically mentions the restriction.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is of course an incorrect premise as I have proven with the rules quote above, and as such your statements based off of that false premise are false.

The rules just state "you" not the shooting player. It could easily mean either player as the allocation is not determined by either player.

Edit: *BONUS* Isn't it you that is always stating that the word "cannot" always takes precedence over "must" and "may"?

@ductvader. Yes, if Look Out Sir allows you to ignore Focus Fire there is no reason the new victim should be denied any saves.

@deathreaper. One rule is nor more advanced than the other. As you pointed out one is more situational but that does not make it more specific.

@Idolator. The use of 'you" in the shooting rules always clearly refers to one of the two players based on the context of its use. Could you please indicate the situation you are referring to where you believe "you" could refer to either player?

 DJGietzen wrote:


@Idolator. The use of 'you" in the shooting rules always clearly refers to one of the two players based on the context of its use. Could you please indicate the situation you are referring to where you believe "you" could refer to either player?

No necessarily so. The use of the word "you" is used in the beginning of the section listed as Allocate Wounds &Remove Casualties. It's in the first sentence. "To determine how many casualties are caused, YOU will need to allocate Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed."

This could be taken as two ways. The "you" in question could easily be plural and referring to both (all) players, which I believe that it does as the rules are written to inform the reader no matter which player that is. It could also be construed are referring to the player controlling the targeted unit as he is the one that performs the action of resolving saving throws.

"You" is also used when determining random allocation, with no distinction on which player determines or even rolls for the determination.

When you get to the "Emptied Wound Pool" portion it is clear that the "you" references the shooting player as it tells you that you may begin your next shooting attack.

It then moves to mixed saves with the same above mentioned wording.

The wording of the section "Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties" There is no reference to "you" at all. There are instructions to allocate wounds by a strict determining manner and instructions to remove casualties. Do both players do this? What if there was a scattered blast and the shooting unit and wounded unit are controlled by the same player?

So the term "you", except in the "emptied wound pool" portion, is in reference to the reader and is not assigned to either player.