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.

If the Commander is grounded can you look out sir the wound to a drone?

While swooping, the drones are not on the battlefield.
But the codex says that they come back immediately when the commander changes to gliding mode or is grounded.
The BRB says that when you fail the grounded test, the swooping creatures suffers a single hit, and become grounded (it says "and", not "then").
So to me it seems like all these events (taking the hit, becoming grounded, and the return of the drones to the battlefield) happen at the same time.

But I can only find the look out sir rule mentioned when being shot at, or when being assaulted. So I would say that you can't look out sit this specific wound, unless stated otherwise (the same way you can't look out sir a gets hot or a perils of the warp wound).

You can onlyl LOS! an allocated wound which has not happened from a failed grounding check

Can't an IC that is unattached to a unit Look Out Sir from any model within 3 or 6"? I do not have the rule book on hand, and won't have it for several hours.

Given its a very small number of occurrences this would happen in, but you could look out sir the wound if you have another unit within 3" of your base, and not need to take a grounding test if i can recall correctly

 pumaman1 wrote:
Can't an IC that is unattached to a unit Look Out Sir from any model within 3 or 6"? I do not have the rule book on hand, and won't have it for several hours.

No, you're probably thinking of Warhammer 8th (where characters can LoS! to nearby units). In 40k, you can only LoS! to the unit the character is in.

 Quanar wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
Can't an IC that is unattached to a unit Look Out Sir from any model within 3 or 6"? I do not have the rule book on hand, and won't have it for several hours.

No, you're probably thinking of Warhammer 8th (where characters can LoS! to nearby units). In 40k, you can only LoS! to the unit the character is in.

If you have the book handy, can you double check, because i don't play fantasy or Sigmar, so i've never read those rules. I thought it read something closer to "to make an LOS attempt there must be models within 6" for both the shooting and assault" but assault not in a challenge...

 pumaman1 wrote:
If you have the book handy, can you double check, because i don't play fantasy or Sigmar, so i've never read those rules. I thought it read something closer to "to make an LOS attempt there must be models within 6" for both the shooting and assault" but assault not in a challenge...

Yes, there is a range limit on LoS!, but the wound still gets moved within the same unit:

Rulebook, page 100 wrote:When a Wound is allocated {...} and there is another model from the same unit within 6", ...

(Emphasis mine).

Thanks! I really appreciate that!

This has been widely discussed, by I believe the consensus that was reached was that RAW it can, as it suffers an auto-hit, when grounded, which at the same time the drones reappear, which place models within 6" within his own unit, the to wound roll is made, and can then be LoS to one of the drones.

It is a strange set of circumstances that only happens with this unit in all of 40k, but I believe the last chain fell to that conclusion.

That would be nonsense as the drones are ineligible to take a grounding test, nor can the have wounds allocated to them as there was no attack to cause the wound, and they commander didn't elect to land/becoming jump unit so the drones would not deploy

 pumaman1 wrote:
That would be nonsense as the drones are ineligible to take a grounding test, nor can the have wounds allocated to them as there was no attack to cause the wound, and they commander didn't elect to land/becoming jump unit so the drones would not deploy

A grounding test is a forced change in flight, that results in the model receiving an automatic S9 hit with no armor saves allowed. Per the coldstar rules, as soon as a coldstar changes flight modes from swooping to gliding, (as is forced by grounding) the drones reappear, and simultaneously the coldstar receives the S9 hit. Per LoS rules, any wound may be reallocated to any model in the character's unit, provided they are within 6" when the wound is received. There is specification that states this must be a shooting attack or CC, simply any wound.

Nothing in the rulebook or rules for the coldstar prevents you from LoS'ing the grounding check wound

 gameandwatch wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
That would be nonsense as the drones are ineligible to take a grounding test, nor can the have wounds allocated to them as there was no attack to cause the wound, and they commander didn't elect to land/becoming jump unit so the drones would not deploy

A grounding test is a forced change in flight, that results in the model receiving an automatic S9 hit with no armor saves allowed. Per the coldstar rules, as soon as a coldstar changes flight modes from swooping to gliding, (as is forced by grounding) the drones reappear, and simultaneously the coldstar receives the S9 hit. Per LoS rules, any wound may be reallocated to any model in the character's unit, provided they are within 6" when the wound is received. There is specification that states this must be a shooting attack or CC, simply any wound.

Nothing in the rulebook or rules for the coldstar prevents you from LoS'ing the grounding check wound

So do you allow Psykers to LOS wounds caused by Perils? What about wounds caused by Dangerous Terrain or Gets Hot?

I had tried to respond with a similar point.

Look out, sir only applies to the 2 situations that have the rule: shooting wounds and melee wounds.

I don't know, but I think a Space Marine Captain and his squad playing 'Hot Potato' with his overheating plasma pistol is definitely 'forging the narrative'

The grounding check is not a randomly allocated wound, its not an allocated wound, its an automatic to the flyer being forced to take the grounding test, that failed it. The drones didn't take the grounding test, they are ineligible for the wound, and cannot have it allocated to them.

We are talking about Tau here. Is it really so hard to believe they are the exception to yet another rule?

That cynicism is unhelpful, as tau are not the exception to that many rules.

Per RAW, the Cold Star can use a Drone to break his fall on a successful LO,S! test. Whether or not that was intended, GW is silent on at the moment.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per RAW, the Cold Star can use a Drone to break his fall on a successful LO,S! test. Whether or not that was intended, GW is silent on at the moment.

SJ

RAW is clear that it doesn't work because a wound was never allocated

CrownAxe is correct.

'Look out sir' rolls must be preceded by a wound allocation step.

No, a LO,S has to be a wound from Shooting(I.E. direct result of an enemy unit's shooting attack) or melee.

The rule literally does not exist for any other situation.

So, your argument is that "suffers a wound" is not the same as "alocated a wound"?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, your argument is that "suffers a wound" is not the same as "alocated a wound"?

SJ

Precisely, otherwise you could Look Out Sir! failed dangerous terrain tests ("watch out sir! there's some loose rocks over - aarrgh!"), failed Gets Hot ("Watch out sir! your pistol is overheating! Quick, give it here...") (thanks for that image Ghaz) wounds caused by Perils of the Warp ("look out sir! there's a daemon attacking your brain from another plane of existence! Let me dive in-front of it somehow..."). Look Out Sir! gives you a chance to respond when a wound is "allocated", to "re-allocate" that wound onto someone else. GW hasn't given us any indication that "suffers" is meant to be treated the same way (which is not to say it's impossible we'll find we've been wrong all along if it turns up in a FAQ), so we treat it as something different, otherwise they could have just used the same word for both.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, a LO,S has to be a wound from Shooting(I.E. direct result of an enemy unit's shooting attack) or melee.

The rule literally does not exist for any other situation.

You may want to read the Look Out Sir! and Assaults section. It never mentions melee in it aside from the title. The closest it comes to is forbidding it for Wounds Allocated in Challenges.

This demonstrates the problem with setting up rules in a sidebar. It is not consistent, and should have been addressed as its own section as much as the movement section.

Fething CONTEXT.

Where is the sidebar located?

What section of rules is being discussed where this bit of rules comes into play?

What is the topic of the rules?

Learn to fething read the rules. Look out, sir and assaults has as much to do with the grounded hit as "No Escape" does.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Fething CONTEXT.

Where is the sidebar located?

What section of rules is being discussed where this bit of rules comes into play?

What is the topic of the rules?

Learn to fething read the rules. Look out, sir and assaults has as much to do with the grounded hit as "No Escape" does.

Calm down. No reason to use an obtuse form of profanity to get your point across.

While there is such a context, it should also be pointed out that the words used do not limit to just such an occasion. In every other occasion when a rule is referencing a specific occasion, they do limit to those actions or times in occasion. Look Out Sir and Assault does not aside from its title.

If we want to use Draft FAQ precedences even further, the Phase alone does not determine alone when such things are used.

Look Out Sir is usable when a Wound is Allocated to a Character. If a Wound is not Allocated, then it is allowed to ignore Look Out Sir, simple.

Well really the only time I see it coming to play is when the guy gets shot down. Which would mean the guy who's turn it is decides on the order of simultaneous actions. So yes the wound may be caused and the drones reappear at the same time, but it all comes down to how nice the player who shot the coldstar down imo. And in most cases I see him deciding the guy smacks the ground before one of his drones smacks into the ground to save him.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Fething CONTEXT.

Where is the sidebar located?

What section of rules is being discussed where this bit of rules comes into play?

What is the topic of the rules?

Learn to fething read the rules. Look out, sir and assaults has as much to do with the grounded hit as "No Escape" does.

Calm down. No reason to use an obtuse form of profanity to get your point across.

While there is such a context, it should also be pointed out that the words used do not limit to just such an occasion. In every other occasion when a rule is referencing a specific occasion, they do limit to those actions or times in occasion. Look Out Sir and Assault does not aside from its title.

If we want to use Draft FAQ precedences even further, the Phase alone does not determine alone when such things are used.

Look Out Sir is usable when a Wound is Allocated to a Character. If a Wound is not Allocated, then it is allowed to ignore Look Out Sir, simple.

Apologies for the lack of decorum in the quoted post and impoliteness of the response.

But based on your reply I would like to point out 2 situations where the rules can be similarly taken out of context or utilized without regard to the title of the rule and what it is discussing:

The first is Roll to hit under the Assault phase rules: never once does this set of rules say anything about hitting in the assault phase, it simply tells us that in order to hit we compare WS, use the chart, or understand the mechanics behind tge chart.

Now, you wouldn't expect that section to be used for shooting attacks or witchfires, no would you?

But that one is a main rule in a main section of the rulebook, so let's go with a sidebar(as more restrictive):

Under Jetbikes unit type is the sidebar for "Eldar and Dark Eldar Jetbikes" all the rules therein reference Eldar Jetbikes but not Dark Eldar(nor Harlequin) Jetbikes. So if the sidebar need to have more than the title as what it is talking about than only "Eldar Jetbikes" get the assault move.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Apologies for the lack of decorum in the quoted post and impoliteness of the response.

Apology accepted. I know a few posters here that get my dander up. You are not one, and you usually stay even keeled. You at least try to be cordial and provide an intelligent argument even if it disagrees with me or another.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
But based on your reply I would like to point out 2 situations where the rules can be similarly taken out of context or utilized without regard to the title of the rule and what it is discussing:

The first is Roll to hit under the Assault phase rules: never once does this set of rules say anything about hitting in the assault phase, it simply tells us that in order to hit we compare WS, use the chart, or understand the mechanics behind tge chart.

Now, you wouldn't expect that section to be used for shooting attacks or witchfires, no would you?

No. Mostly because another system is already put in place. But then again, a rule that states that can only be used in the Shooting Phase (ala Monstrous Creatures) is considered to be able to be used in the Assault Phase for Overwatch and Movement Phase for Interceptor, which is why I prefaced it with the Draft FAQ setting the precedent. There is also the question on how Stomp Attacks work as well.

Indeed, there are many things that require filling in the blanks and making invisible connections between them in order to get this game to work any where near functionally. I feel that the Drunken Monkeys really need to get off their tonic and clear a year's AA before they're allowed near a typewriter again just to prevent stupid things like this from happening.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Under Jetbikes unit type is the sidebar for "Eldar and Dark Eldar Jetbikes" all the rules therein reference Eldar Jetbikes but not Dark Eldar(nor Harlequin) Jetbikes. So if the sidebar need to have more than the title as what it is talking about than only "Eldar Jetbikes" get the assault move.

Do not the Jet Bike units in the Dark Eldar and Harlequin codex state the unit type is Eldar Jetbike or make the reference in their Wargear sections? I could be misremembering.

 Quanar wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, your argument is that "suffers a wound" is not the same as "alocated a wound"?

SJ

Precisely, otherwise you could Look Out Sir! failed dangerous terrain tests ("watch out sir! there's some loose rocks over - aarrgh!"), failed Gets Hot ("Watch out sir! your pistol is overheating! Quick, give it here...") (thanks for that image Ghaz) wounds caused by Perils of the Warp ("look out sir! there's a daemon attacking your brain from another plane of existence! Let me dive in-front of it somehow..."). Look Out Sir! gives you a chance to respond when a wound is "allocated", to "re-allocate" that wound onto someone else. GW hasn't given us any indication that "suffers" is meant to be treated the same way (which is not to say it's impossible we'll find we've been wrong all along if it turns up in a FAQ), so we treat it as something different, otherwise they could have just used the same word for both.

The difference between suffering a wound and being alocated a wound is whether or not you get a save. And AP2 wound is suffered, for example. Check out the wording for Feel No Pain. The destinction you are making has no support in the rules.

SJ