Look out sir and it gets hot stack ...

[StrayCatt]

For characters armed with it gets hot weapons ...

 

i.e. SM Sgt with a plasma pistol rolls a 1 to hit ... Fails his save ... You can perform look out sir with one of the other squad members to try and save the Sgt ...

 

Discuss:

[DarkGuard]

RAW it works. RAI I don't think it should work, and will likely be in the FAQ.

 

However, LO,S does mention that the when it is successful the wound can be relocated onto a model out of range of LoS of the Shooting attack. I don't think that's enough to prevent it RAW, but I do think it certainly backs up my RAI point.

[Legatus]

I dunno. 'Look Out, Sir!' can be attempted when a wounds is "allocated" to a character. If the roll is successful, the wound will then be "resolved against" a different nearby model.

 

If a model rolls a 1 with a 'Gets Hot' weapon, it will "suffer a wound". I am not sure the term "suffer a wound" is defined anywhere, but I would take that more as "a wound is being resolved against the model", and not as "a wound is allocated to the model".

[shortysl]

For characters armed with it gets hot weapons ...

 

i.e. SM Sgt with a plasma pistol rolls a 1 to hit ... Fails his save ... You can perform look out sir with one of the other squad members to try and save the Sgt ...

 

Discuss:

 

I hate these kinds of posts. There's nothing to discuss; there are going to be those who favour Rules As Written and say it's ok, then there are those who favour Rules As Intended and say it's not ok. Neither is right and neither is wrong.

[Isiah]

Well that's not quite right shortysl, as RAW should = win ^_^.

 

I'm with Legatus, a Gets Hot wound isn't an allocated wound as it's one you are forced to take on a specific model. Look Out, Sir! is by RAW only for use with allocated wounds.

 

Cheers

I

[StrayCatt]

I am not so certain this is against RAI ... Remember, they were going for a more cinematic feel ... Regular trooper looks over his shoulder to see his Sgt holding a PP in the process of overheating, and rushes over to knock it from his hands, suffering the overload in his stead. Sgt looks down at his fallen comrade with a tear in his eye, picking up the now cooled PP and lining up for another shot.

[Legatus]

I am not so certain this is against RAI ...

I tried to point out that it is against RAW.

[StrayCatt]

I saw that, and was replying to the RAI argument. As for your argument ...

 

I hate being a rules lawyer, and generally I am not, but I have too much experience in criminal law to not try and apply it here.

 

In legal circles, laws often have set definitions for words that do not always match dictionary definitions. However, when a specific hard line definition has not been not been established, you default to established definitions as listed in the dictionary. With that in mind;

 

Allocate

verb (used with object), al·lo·cat·ed, al·lo·cat·ing.

1. to set apart for a particular purpose; assign or allot: to allocate funds for new projects.

2. to fix the place of; locate.

 

For the Character to suffer a wound, it has to be allocated to him, i.e. assigned, or set apart for him.

 

Now having said all of this, I am not married to the idea of these rules stacking, but it seems to me that RAW allows it, and RAI is grey on this. I started this thread to see what kind of opinions it would raise, and to provide GW an opportunity to FAQ it if they don't want them to stack. (This is assuming they bother to watch forums such as this, which I believe they do.)

[BassWave]

Now, i'm too lazy to look up the dictionary definition for suffer, but if we follow your reasoning, to "suffer" a wound would imply immediate and direct effect, where as "allocate" means to set side for other rules to intervene. Therefore , LO,S cannot be used against gets hot! wounds. Cinematically speaking, there would be no way for an observer to know when the gun will overheat, otherwise the user would have dropped it. The troopers can only watch in horror as their sargent is consumed in a blinding flash...

[Isiah]

Cinematically speaking, there would be no way for an observer to know when the gun will overheat, otherwise the user would have dropped it. The troopers can only watch in horror as their sargent is consumed in a blinding flash...

 

Ha, that's an awesome point!

[StrayCatt]

See, now this is why I brought it up ... And why I hate parsing words, because it just keeps coming back to bite you, or me in this case ...

[shortysl]

Well that's not quite right shortysl, as RAW should = win ;).

 

Yeah I agree, Rules As Written probably SHOULD win (even though I'm a Rules As Intended player) but that should is the sticking point. As long as there is ambiguity about the matter, there is always going to be an argument.

 

For my part (again Rules As Intended), I don't believe that a Plasma Pistol overload can be reassigned. As a previous poster said, the overload is an immediate thing, or else the affected Sergeant would just drop it. The Rules As Written state that it can be reallocated but let's face it, it wouldn't happen. It's a loopphole, simple as that, and loopholes will always be exploited by players who are desperate to win (i'm aware that the OP is not attempting to exploit anything, just to raise a point). To me, if desperation EVER enters your GAMES of 40k, then you're in a bad place.

[ShinyRhino]

Does said loophole also extend to wounds caused by Dangerous Terrain test failures that result in a failed armor save?

[dswanick]

Does said loophole also extend to wounds caused by Dangerous Terrain test failures that result in a failed armor save?

If true, then yes it should.

[Legatus]

In legal circles, laws often have set definitions for words that do not always match dictionary definitions. However, when a specific hard line definition has not been not been established, you default to established definitions as listed in the dictionary. With that in mind;

 

Allocate

verb (used with object), al·lo·cat·ed, al·lo·cat·ing.

1. to set apart for a particular purpose; assign or allot: to allocate funds for new projects.

2. to fix the place of; locate.

 

For the Character to suffer a wound, it has to be allocated to him, i.e. assigned, or set apart for him.

That is not the case. Wounds are only "allocated" if one player has accumulated a number of undetermined "wounds" via successful "to wound" rolls into a "wound pool" (6e BRB, p. 14). This process is described on page 15 for shooting and on page 25 for close combat, and it has quite a bit of text devoted to it to just interpret "allocating wounds" as any given moment any model is wounded in any manner.

 

Generally, a player

 

- generates wounds, usually via to-wound rolls, accumulated in a wound pool (usually saves are taken at this stage, if all models have same save)

 

then

 

- allocates wounds, from his to-wound pool to enemy models in the target unit

 

then

 

- resolves wounds, where wounds are substracted from a model's profile (possibly with saves taken at this stage, if unit saves are different and wounds are allocated one at a time)

 

 

The allocation process consists of several specific mechanics, such as having to allocate to closer or BtB models first.

 

Failed 'Gets Hot!' rolls or 'Dangerous Terrain' rolls do not generate wounds in a pool in that manner, and are not then allocated to models in the affected unit. Instead, these wounds are immediately "suffered by" models failing the test.

 

 

Some more instances of "suffering a wound" I have found:

P. 16 - "If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater(...), it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty."

P. 26 - "Note that Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count (including all of the Wounds lost by models that have suffered Instant Death (...))"

P. 40 - "If a non-vehicle unit suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with the Pinning special rule, it must immediately take a Leadership test."

So, generally, the term "suffer a wound" refers specifically to one wound being substracted from a model's profile. If a wound from a weapon of double strength is substracted from a model's profile, it is instantly removed. Only wounds substracted from enemy profiles count towards combat resolution. And only when a pinning wound is substracted from one model in a unit the unit has to take a pinning test.

 

For models failing 'Gets Hot!' or 'Dangerous terrain' tests that means that upon failing such a test, a wound is substracted from the model's profile. However, they are allowed to take armour saves to prevent this loss of a wound.

 

There is no "wound allocation" procedure involved, which would often preceed the resolving or "suffering" of wounds. During shooting and close combat, wounds are allocated, and then resolved/suffered.

 

'Look Out, Sir!' takes effect once a wound as been allocated, and has the effect that the wound is then not resolved/suffered by the character, and is instead resolved/suffered by a different model instead.

'Gets Hot' and 'Dangerous terrain' specify that a wound is resolved/suffered by the model failing the test.

[ShinyRhino]

Well done, Legatus! That's about as airtight as you can get.

[dizzy-xc]

Well that's not quite right shortysl, as RAW should = win :teehee:.

 

Yeah I agree, Rules As Written probably SHOULD win (even though I'm a Rules As Intended player) but that should is the sticking point. As long as there is ambiguity about the matter, there is always going to be an argument.

 

Nonsense. There are plenty of times RAI have won over RAW. Case in point: Putting bikes into land raiders. Or rhinos for that matter. In 5th it was totally legal RAW and totally against RAI. But if you tried doing it because the rules let you, you often didnt have an opponent willing to play vs. hehe.

[shortysl]

Well that's not quite right shortysl, as RAW should = win :teehee:.

 

Yeah I agree, Rules As Written probably SHOULD win (even though I'm a Rules As Intended player) but that should is the sticking point. As long as there is ambiguity about the matter, there is always going to be an argument.

 

Nonsense. There are plenty of times RAI have won over RAW. Case in point: Putting bikes into land raiders. Or rhinos for that matter. In 5th it was totally legal RAW and totally against RAI. But if you tried doing it because the rules let you, you often didnt have an opponent willing to play vs. hehe.

 

So what you're saying is, there would be an argument over whether or not it could be done. Which is what I said.......

 

It's the ambiguity that's the issue. If GW outright said "everything is to be taken RAW, no exceptions" then people would be upset, but there'd be no case to argue. Rules As Intended is a probelm because it's open to interpretation, and I say that as a Rules As Intended player.

[StrayCatt]

That is not the case. Wounds are only "allocated" if one player has accumulated a number of undetermined "wounds" via successful "to wound" rolls into a "wound pool" (6e BRB, p. 14). This process is described on page 15 for shooting and on page 25 for close combat, and it has quite a bit of text devoted to it to just interpret "allocating wounds" as any given moment any model is wounded in any manner.

 

Generally, a player

 

- generates wounds, usually via to-wound rolls, accumulated in a wound pool (usually saves are taken at this stage, if all models have same save)

 

then

 

- allocates wounds, from his to-wound pool to enemy models in the target unit

 

then

 

- resolves wounds, where wounds are substracted from a model's profile (possibly with saves taken at this stage, if unit saves are different and wounds are allocated one at a time)

 

 

The allocation process consists of several specific mechanics, such as having to allocate to closer or BtB models first.

 

Failed 'Gets Hot!' rolls or 'Dangerous Terrain' rolls do not generate wounds in a pool in that manner, and are not then allocated to models in the affected unit. Instead, these wounds are immediately "suffered by" models failing the test.

 

 

Some more instances of "suffering a wound" I have found:

P. 16 - "If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater(...), it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty."

P. 26 - "Note that Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count (including all of the Wounds lost by models that have suffered Instant Death (...))"

P. 40 - "If a non-vehicle unit suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with the Pinning special rule, it must immediately take a Leadership test."

So, generally, the term "suffer a wound" refers specifically to one wound being substracted from a model's profile. If a wound from a weapon of double strength is substracted from a model's profile, it is instantly removed. Only wounds substracted from enemy profiles count towards combat resolution. And only when a pinning wound is substracted from one model in a unit the unit has to take a pinning test.

 

For models failing 'Gets Hot!' or 'Dangerous terrain' tests that means that upon failing such a test, a wound is substracted from the model's profile. However, they are allowed to take armour saves to prevent this loss of a wound.

 

There is no "wound allocation" procedure involved, which would often preceed the resolving or "suffering" of wounds. During shooting and close combat, wounds are allocated, and then resolved/suffered.

 

'Look Out, Sir!' takes effect once a wound as been allocated, and has the effect that the wound is then not resolved/suffered by the character, and is instead resolved/suffered by a different model instead.

'Gets Hot' and 'Dangerous terrain' specify that a wound is resolved/suffered by the model failing the test.

 

You have chosen your name well sir ... And you have established precedence, as it exists in the RAW ...

 

Now a minor counter argument ... It could be argued, that the rule itself allocates the wound to the model. So if the rule is triggered, then a wound has been allocated, allowing for LO,S to be used. Or to use your verbiage:

 

The player controlling the model

- generates the wound by triggering the special rule

 

then

- allocates the wound to the model that triggered the special rule

 

then

-resolves the wound by taking any allowed saves then applying the result

[Legatus]

Now a minor counter argument ... It could be argued, that the rule itself allocates the wound to the model.

I would contest that a wound that is being suffered by a model would by logical necessity have in some way be "allocated" to that model.

 

The "Allocate Wounds" processes on page 15 and page 25 are for shooting and close combat. Those are both "external" causes of wounds, i.e. the enemy player causes a number of wounds via shooting or attackin a unit, and those wounds that were caused by his attack rolls are then "allocated" to the target models.

 

However, if the loss of a wound would not come from an outside source or be generated by another palyer, but instead be the result of some internal effect (like the soldier spontaneously combusting) then the model would simply "lose a wound". In such a case it would hardly be appropriate to refer to the process as "the loss of a wound has been allocated to this model".

[thade]

Guys...Legatus buried this one. No LOS! for Gets Hot! fits both RAW and RAI...something so rare and so nice that it does us a disservice to flail about trying to unroot it. <3

[StrayCatt]

As the OP, I have to agree that it has been buried. My continuing of the discussion was just that, a discussion on how to look at the RAW ...

 

-Adam

[Tamwulf]

In my mind, allocation means you have a choice- you have to allocate, but you have a choice in where/how that is being allocated. It doesn't matter if there is only one model to allocate to- if there were 3-4 models, you would allocate the wounds as appropriate.

 

Get's Hot, Dangerous Terrain Tests are not allocated- you have no choice in the matter. You don't choose which model takes the wound- the model that fails the test is the one suffering the wound. So how is it you can use another model to take the wound for you? You can't.

 

I hate these kinds of posts, because it's like arguing for the sake of arguing. Have you ever talked with someone that keeps saying "yeah, but..." "yeah, but..." It's annoying and pointless. They will never concede your point, and it's tiring to continue arguing with them. This is a "yeah, but..." argument.

[StrayCatt]

I resemble that remark. :cuss And to use your words, "Yeah, but... " I have conceded the point. I discovered a possible loophole in the wording of the rules that I found troublesome. I then brought it to the attention of this board to be disproven, or disseminated as a warning. As far as my continuing discussion with Legatus goes, I saw a flaw in his reasoning. I was wrong about the flaw, but did not fully establish that mistake until after I had voiced it and he addressed it. Your post would be more appropriate in the flak missile or signum threads, where there are innumerable "Yeah, but ..." posts.

 

I question why you felt the need to rant like this in a thread that has been civil, and mostly well voiced. (I, if anyone, was the weak voice in this thread.)

[thade]

Bit far afield, that.