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.

I couldn't find the answer anywhere, and my gut says you can't, but their is nothing I could find that sad you couldn't. All I am talking about is looking out the wound portion. Someone put out my misery and point me to the page where it says you can't.

Look Out Sir is something that you can do when a wound is allocated to one of your characters.

Perils isn't an attack that allocates wounds. It is just a wound suffered by the Psyker.

What is stopping someone from saying that the perils wound is "allocated" to the psyker then the looks out happens? Where is the distinction between "suffers" and "allocates" spelled out?

 tastytaste wrote:
What is stopping someone from saying that the perils wound is "allocated" to the psyker then the looks out happens?

The fact that the rules don't tell you to allocate a wound.

Where is the distinction between "suffers" and "allocates" spelled out?

It's not. Nor does it need to be - they're just different processes.

Wound allocation is a very specific thing that happens when we are told to do it. If a wound is simply suffered by a model, no allocation occurs... because the rules don't tell us to allocate the wound.

 tastytaste wrote:
What is stopping someone from saying that the perils wound is "allocated" to the psyker then the looks out happens?

In context:
"Allocates". Assign or Allot. Implies external stimulus such as a gunshot. "Suffers". Feels pain or distressed. In this case seems to imply internal suffering such as brain damage or bodily damage from within. "Hey Private, take this brain tumor for me."

No look out sir, but thats just my take on it.

 tastytaste wrote:
Where is the distinction between "suffers" and "allocates" spelled out?

Is GW required to print a dictionary along with the rulebook in the bulky 3 box kit?

 insaniak wrote:

 tastytaste wrote:
What is stopping someone from saying that the perils wound is "allocated" to the psyker then the looks out happens?

The fact that the rules don't tell you to allocate a wound.

Where is the distinction between "suffers" and "allocates" spelled out?

It's not. Nor does it need to be - they're just different processes.

Wound allocation is a very specific thing that happens when we are told to do it. If a wound is simply suffered by a model, no allocation occurs... because the rules don't tell us to allocate the wound.

So the same goes for powers like say Psychic Shriek which causes a unit to "suffer" a number of wounds none of those can be look out sir?

Nonono. Psychic shriek is a witchfire, which uses shooting rules (badly) and requires you to us the allocation rules.

Perils isn't an attack, it has no allocation step like shooting and close combat attacks.

 tastytaste wrote:
So the same goes for powers like say Psychic Shriek which causes a unit to "suffer" a number of wounds none of those can be look out sir?

Psychic Shriek is a shooting attack. You're told to allocate wounds from shooting attacks.

Pyeatt,
YES!

A glossary of terminology tends a normal thing to include in a Rule book.
Had Game Work done so, wouldn't have people arguing their local meaning of an individual world is the only correct meaning....

I have an example.

For the GEt hot rule, it says that the model suffers a wound that can not be allocated to another model. So if it specifically says that you can not allocate this wound to another model it mean that in other cases when you "suffer a wound" you are able to to a look out sir roll.


Therefore you can make an look out sir roll for a perils of the warp wound arguments?

Keep in mind, all of the perils of the warp state "the Psyker suffers" the wounds, not "the unit suffers" the wound. There's no LoS, because the wound is being allocated to the Psyker, and specifically the psyker. The one exception to this is that a BoP/BoS unit can allocate the wound to any model in the unit, as they're all psykers. Essentially, they're a coven of low-level psykers joining together to manifest powers.

In fluff terms, a perils wound comes from the inside out. It is the result of the psyker failing to contain the extremely dangerous energy he is attempting to harness. There's no LoS, because there's no physical attack that a borther-in-arms can push the psyker out of the way of. Even with dragged into the warp, basically, the psyker is the focal point of the damage, he implodes into a warp singularity, and those around him get dragged in with him. Those wounds, however, can be LoS.

page 100. Look Out, Sir rules specify that they only work against shooting and assault wounds. See sections "look out, sir and shooting" and "look out, sir and assaults". Normally I would not advocate that titles are rules, however in the rules themselves there are multiple references to how the rules pertain to attacks of their respective titles, such as under the assault rules stating "this works exactly the same way as for shooting attacks."

Ironically, an Inquisitorial Henchmen squad with a single Battle Psyker model is a BoP unit that can allocation Perils wounds to any model in the unit, not just the Psyker. Got the love 7th.

Threadomancy, at its best.

SJ

 insaniak wrote:

 tastytaste wrote:
So the same goes for powers like say Psychic Shriek which causes a unit to "suffer" a number of wounds none of those can be look out sir?

Psychic Shriek is a shooting attack. You're told to allocate wounds from shooting attacks.

Psychic Shriek does wounds to a unit. That is the essential difference. If the wound is caused to a unit you use the wound pool and wound allocation to apply those wounds to a model. This triggers the use of LoS. If a model suffers the wound then that wound applies to the model so no wound pool is created, no wound allocation happens and LoS is available.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 tastytaste wrote:
So the same goes for powers like say Psychic Shriek which causes a unit to "suffer" a number of wounds none of those can be look out sir?

Psychic Shriek is a shooting attack. You're told to allocate wounds from shooting attacks.

Psychic Shriek does wounds to a unit. That is the essential difference. If the wound is caused to a unit you use the wound pool and wound allocation to apply those wounds to a model. This triggers the use of LoS. If a model suffers the wound then that wound applies to the model so no wound pool is created, no wound allocation happens and LoS is available.

Focused witchfires and precision strikes allocate wounds to models, but they are still allowed Look Out, Sir rolls. The essential difference is that Psychic Shriek is a shooting attack, and Look Out, Sir works for shooting (and close combat) attacks. Since Perils is neither of these, Look Out, Sir is not allowed.

Nope precision strikes/shots still hit units you just get control over wound allocation. They still follow normal allocation but the attacker picks who gets allocated to rather than closest.

Focussed Witchfires however do resolve against models and thus deny LoS as no wound pool is created.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Nope precision strikes/shots still hit units you just get control over wound allocation. They still follow normal allocation but the attacker picks who gets allocated to rather than closest.

Focussed Witchfires however do resolve against models and thus deny LoS as no wound pool is created.

Seriously you are hung up on that terminology. Yes, you can LoS Focussed Witchfires, as long as the rules to not say otherwise. The rules for LoS say "when a wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters". It has nothing to do with Wound pools. "Allocate" is plain English. If at some point, through whatever method used for the attack in question, it has been determined that a particular model has to take the Wound, then it has been allocated to that model. That is the definition of allocate. It is not some special game term with a meaning applied with a specific, in-game, meaning, it is plain English.

So yes, you can absolutely make a LoS against a focussed witchfire.

Wound allocation is what triggers Look out Sir.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You quoted yourself allocated wounds trigger LoS. Wound allocation is a specific thing in 40k. It's like words matter...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Wound allocation is what triggers Look out Sir.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You quoted yourself allocated wounds trigger LoS. Wound allocation is a specific thing in 40k. It's like words matter...

No, allocate is just a word. A word with a plain English meaning, not a game term. Hence why it is not capitalized in the book, like every term with a specific game meaning is. It is just a freaking word. Seriously, I'm American, and I don't think "allocate" is a difficult word to understand. You Brits are always going on about how we barely understand English over here, so if an ignorant, buck-toothed, in-bred Yank like me can understand the meaning of a teensy little word like "allocate", what is your hang-up? LoS applies when a character has a wound allocated to it. If something, be it his proximity to the attacking unit or a special rule dictates that the wound is suffered by that particular model, than the wound has been allocated to that character.

Look, here's the definition, right out of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Distribute for a particular purpose

From the Latin ad locare, "to place at"

So again, unless you can post a single, actual, written rule that establishes, as you claim, that "allocate" is a specific game term, with a specific in game meaning, not to be read as plain English, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

So let me get this straight your rules interpretation is that when they say allocate a wound they are not referring to wound allocation? That is the basis of your interpretation correct?

 Pyeatt wrote:

 tastytaste wrote:
What is stopping someone from saying that the perils wound is "allocated" to the psyker then the looks out happens?

In context:
"Allocates". Assign or Allot. Implies external stimulus such as a gunshot. "Suffers". Feels pain or distressed. In this case seems to imply internal suffering such as brain damage or bodily damage from within. "Hey Private, take this brain tumor for me."

No look out sir, but thats just my take on it.

 tastytaste wrote:
Where is the distinction between "suffers" and "allocates" spelled out?

Is GW required to print a dictionary along with the rulebook in the bulky 3 box kit?

that why when you read any legal doc that draft up by a lawyer that worth a dam has "bulky 3 box kit" attached/ref to it. With those boxes you have a lesser of a chance ending up like the above 2 players trying to define things.