Look Out Sir!

[Raeven]

Must be dementia.

 

The point I was originally going to go with (when I got distracted by the one save per wound rule, which I hadn't noticed before) is, when discussing who gets what regarding armor and invul saves it refers to the model, but when the book refers to cover saves it refers to the "target" model/unit. It can be argued that the model getting in the way of the wound via LO,S is not the target model, so it doesn't get cover saves for being out of sight, but only benefits from cover saves granted to the model that was the original target of the wound.

[pingo]

Raeven, no model is ever the target of a wound. Wounds are allocated. Units are targetted.

 

If we're talking about LO,S in a unit of all the same armour/cover save, then all this is moot as the saving throws have already been taken before the wounds are allocated (and therefore when LO,S is triggered).

 

Mixed armour units and units partially in cover is where the issue lies. Especially if some models are out of Line of Sight. In these cases, saves are taken after the wound is allocated, and therefore LO,S happens before saving throws are attempted.

 

It must be that you use the save available to the model the wound is (re)allocated to. Logic/narrative/sense issues aside, this seems to be the way to do it if you are following the procedure in the Rulebook.

[Gentlemanloser]

If we're talking about LO,S in a unit of all the same armour/cover save, then all this is moot as the saving throws have already been taken before the wounds are allocated (and therefore when LO,S is triggered).

 

What about the basic - basic rule conflict of not being able to wound minis out of LoS/Range?

[pingo]

If we're talking about LO,S in a unit of all the same armour/cover save, then all this is moot as the saving throws have already been taken before the wounds are allocated (and therefore when LO,S is triggered).

 

What about the basic - basic rule conflict of not being able to wound minis out of LoS/Range?

What of it? Does LO,S not tell me I can ignore range and LoS when chooing the model to reallocate the wound to? Am I remembering wrong here?

 

To illustrate:

 

Rule A says 'always do X'.

 

Rule B says in situation Y, do not follow Rule A.

 

That wouldn't be a conflict.

[Gentlemanloser]

Becuase LO,S! isn't an advanced rule.

 

Which takes precendence?

 

The Basic LO,S! rule? Or the basic Out of LoS rule?

[pingo]

I think you are seeking to see the conflict when there is none there. I don't know how else to describe it other than what I already posted.

 

If you really want to see it as a conflict, then we can surely easily decide this. It is up to the player who's turn it is!

 

But ... that's a basic rule ... oh no!

 

Let's work through it, maybe that will help:

 

- LO,S says we can allocate to models out of range.

 

- But, another basic rule says we can't do that! We have a two-way conflict.

 

- Another basic rule says the player who's turn it is decides in conflicts.

 

- But no matter which he chooses, he breaks a basic rule. All of which have equal precidence. We now have a three-way conflict.

 

- In the event of a conflict, the player who's turn it is decides. But, we already tried that, and we get stuck in an infinite loop.

 

Anyway, that's obviously nonsense. And as you know I don't think there's a conflict anyway.

[Gentlemanloser]

While I think the ideal behind the Codex > Advanced > Basic resolution GW has given us is sound, they just haven't got it right yet.

 

;)

 

Currently, all we can do for Basic - Basic conflicts is wait for a BRB FAQ, sadly. ;)

[thade]

The question remains as to whether a model must elect LOS! prior to or after making any saves of it's own. Here are the two scenarios I see:

 

1. Vulkan soaks every single hit from a Land Raider Redeemer with his 2+/3++, confident that - should he fail one or two - he can safely LOS! them to the sternguard he is otherwise guarding.

 

2. The Vulkan player needs to decide how many saves he's willing to risk on Vulkan, taking LOS! before taking any of Vulkan's saves.

 

Rules-wise I see nothing that contradicts either. Speaking from the perspective of narrative, it sounds like you are all thinking what I'm thinking...that the model crying "Look Out, Sir!" is taking the bullet for the Character. Were it the case that the Character was gaining some kind of improved save from being "dragged into cover" (i.e. getting a cover save it didn't previously have) that would be spelled out for us. It's not; of course, RAW, the Character model doesn't move due to LOS!, so we have no reason to assume that it's own available set of Saves changes at all.

 

I honestly think 2 makes the most sense to me; so, in my example here (which actually happened on a real table), the Vulkan player needs to - one at a time - roll LOS! then save (or suffer) each wound on elected models if he means to LOS! any wounds from Vulkan at all.

 

My Fantasy rulebook is at home (with my 40k rulebook) but it might be worth considering the Order of Ops in Fantasy; not a solid precedent, but good food for thought (as it does serve as the model here).

 

ADDENDUM: You know, the more and more I think on it, the less and less Scenario 1 seems like it's in the spirit of the game. An application of LOS! that turns the super Character (e.g. Vulkan) into a bodyguard for the unit - instead of the other way around - really does not jive with me.

 

EDIT: typo

[dswanick]

The question remains as to whether a model must elect LOS! prior to or after making any saves of it's own. Here are the two scenarios I see:

ADDENDUM: You know, the more and more I think on it, the less and less Scenario 1 seems like it's in the spirit of the game. An application of LOS! that turns the super Character (e.g. Vulkan) into a bodyguard for the unit - instead of the other way around - really does not jive with me.

There is no question, thade. LO,S is rolled when a model is allocated a Wound. In a Single Save scenario, a model is allocated a Wound after the Save is rolled. In a Mixed Save scenario a model is allocated a Wound before the Save is rolled.

In your Vulcan example, he would either get allocated the save, take his LO,S roll, and then make his saves against those that were not reallocated (Mixed Saves) or he would have to be in a unit consisting of all SS TDA (Single Saves scenario) where the Saves would be rolled first and he can then LO,S any Wounds allocated to him (which then can't be "re-Saved"). Either way the recipient of the Wound is only getting the benefit of his own saves against LO,S Wounds.

[thade]

A little more Thade RAI for you all (while you're no doubt still sick of it):

 

One of the biggest changes to the game now is how normal Wound Allocation works (pulling models from the front instead of by unique wargear/elective allocation) which makes positioning - in particular, flanking - a real thing. Flanking is advantageous to the attacker and deleterious to the defender's unit: it puts that melta gun at risk! By extension, it should put heroic Characters at risk as well. In fact it does, so we have LOS!.

 

However, under Scenario 1 (in my previous post) Vulkan shouldn't be hiding in the back...he should be out in front, fearlessly soaking every wound and passing off his failed saves to his unit.

 

Yea, it seems weird to me.

[thade]

There is no question, thade.

Perhaps I should clarify: "I have a question and am still confused" is what I was saying. <3

 

LO,S

Uuuuug a comma. I beg you, please don't use a comma in the abbreviation. haha

 

In a Single Save scenario, a model is allocated a Wound after the Save is rolled. In a Mixed Save scenario a model is allocated a Wound before the Save is rolled.

This actually makes sense to me, semantically; it still defies my intuition, even more than most rules we wrangle with. However...

 

In your Vulcan example, he would either get allocated the save, take his LO,S roll, and then make his saves against those that were not reallocated (Mixed Saves) or he would have to be in a unit consisting of all SS TDA (Single Saves scenario) where the Saves would be rolled first and he can then LO,S any Wounds allocated to him (which then can't be "re-Saved"). Either way the recipient of the Wound is only getting the benefit of his own saves against LO,S Wounds.

This makes sense to me. In a "Single Save scenario" as you call it, should the Character have the same Save as the selfless LOS! mook, the Save itself is the same no matter who takes it. When a distinction is important (which is the case with a Mixed Save like Vulkan and Sternguard) this comes into play.

 

Thanks, dswanick. :lol:

[dswanick]

LO,S

Uuuuug a comma. I beg you, please don't use a comma in the abbreviation. haha

Well, I've found it necessary for clarity when debating rules where both Look Out, Sir! (LO,S) and Line Of Sight (LOS) are an issue. If I thought LOS/LoS or LOS!/LoS could be clearly accepted as standards I would go for that, but... :)

Thanks, dswanick. :)

You're welcome.

[Seahawk]

Well, it does say you can take the LOS! roll immediately before or after making saves (but NOT both!). I don't have my BRB handy, but I do remember reading that.

 

LOS!/LoS could be clearly accepted as standards I would go for that

This has been the accepted standard for WHFB for a few years now. You never capitalize unimportant words, like 'of', anyway. :)

[MalachiOfRuss]

In your Vulcan example, he would either get allocated the save, take his LO,S roll, and then make his saves against those that were not reallocated (Mixed Saves) or he would have to be in a unit consisting of all SS TDA (Single Saves scenario) where the Saves would be rolled first and he can then LO,S any Wounds allocated to him (which then can't be "re-Saved"). Either way the recipient of the Wound is only getting the benefit of his own saves against LO,S Wounds.

This is bang on.

 

Here's the bottom line when it comes to Allocating Wounds, taking Saves, and Look Out Sir: If a model fails its save, it takes a Wound. You can not allocate every incoming Wound to your 2+ armor guy, "see if he passes," then Look Out Sir the Wound away afterward. You have to decide if the model is taking the save first, if you decide no and fail your 2+ the model takes a Wound. Period.

 

I really wish GW would have written Look Out Sir into the steps for the 2 Wound Allocation methods, rather than having it in its own rule box with a whole bunch of confusing, conflicting wording. It also puzzles me why they don't release a series of videos demonstrating some of the new rules when the edition gets released.

[Seahawk]

Well, you do allocate wounds, then save, then allocate wounds, then remove fails. GW can't write rules nicely, is all :).

[dswanick]

Well, you do allocate wounds, then save, then allocate wounds, then remove fails. GW can't write rules nicely, is all :blush:.

In what instance do you allocate/save/allocate/remove?

In a unit with the same Saves, you roll saves and then allocate. In a unit with mixed Saves, you allocate first and then roll saves.

[Seahawk]

When I get home to my book I'll look it up.

[Raeven]

Raeven, no model is ever the target of a wound. Wounds are allocated. Units are targetted.

 

Explain the wording on pg 18 under cover saves then. Models are the "target" of an allocated wound for the purpose of cover saves.

 

Mixed armour units and units partially in cover is where the issue lies. Especially if some models are out of Line of Sight. In these cases, saves are taken after the wound is allocated, and therefore LO,S happens before saving throws are attempted.

 

It must be that you use the save available to the model the wound is (re)allocated to. Logic/narrative/sense issues aside, this seems to be the way to do it if you are following the procedure in the Rulebook.

 

Sorry, but the rulebook procedure doesn't say one way or another in a clear manner. I believe the fluff and wording of cover saves makes the intentions of the rule known in this case. If you adhere to a strict interpretation of the rules, a model that is out of sight cannot be allocated the wound, so it must be that it is taking the place of the wounded model. Adding the wording of "target model" to cover saves defines it even more. The fluff can't be used to make a rule, but in this case helps to clarify this rule and supports the model replacement theory.

 

You first allocate the wound to the target model. In LO,S, if successful, you are switching places with the target model, not adjusting where the shot lands. It has already been determined that the wounding shot hits the target model. What hasn't been determined is whether the target model takes the wound, or transfers it to another model. Transfering the wound, in my opinion, doesn't change the scenario the wound was originally allocated in.

 

Under your thesis, you can hug a fortification with your characters out in front, and your LO,S models can get a 3+ cover save to hits already established against a visible model. Does that seem right in any way?

[thade]

Under your thesis, you can hug a fortification with your characters out in front, and your LO,S models can get a 3+ cover save to hits already established against a visible model. Does that seem right in any way?

You giving complete amiss to the new Focus Fire rule. :(

 

EDIT: Clarification.

[Raeven]

Wut?

[pingo]

Under your thesis, you can hug a fortification with your characters out in front, and your LO,S models can get a 3+ cover save to hits already established against a visible model. Does that seem right in any way?

I don't see what the problem would be with that. Not sure why someone would actually do it, but if that's what the rules say I have no issue.

[Seahawk]

Okay, examples!

 

First, you can allocate Wounds or Unsaved Wounds to your character, it says that right in the first sentence of LOS!, indicating that it can be rolled for before or after allocation (but not both).

 

Second, the first sentence in "Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties". You allocate wounds caused, then resolve any saving throws, then allocate the unsaved wounds and remove casualties.

 

Third, under Mixed Saves, you allocate Wounds before rolling saves.

 

Fourth, in the Assault phase section, under "Allocating Wounds", the first sentence says you allocate wounds, then take saves, then allocate and remove.

 

 

This is how it's done in every phase in all the rules. GW seems to have deliberately chosen to write so poorly that...well, you know...:P

 

 

When you make a successful LOS! roll, you are reallocating the wound to the fellow in cover. You then resolve the wound against him as normal. All of this is stated right in the BRB. If you were wise enough to make the LOS! roll before rolling saves, then the model in cover (and out of range/LoS) can attempt to pass its cover save.

 

Whatever fluff one wants to use to justify otherwise, the rules are starting to become pretty clear the more I reread them: Cover save for the chump.

[Raeven]

hmm, the more I read and think about it, I don't think look out sir! was ever intended to be used against wounds that hadn't been saved against yet. When I get back to my book, I'll see if the wording and my memory match up to support that idea.

[dswanick]

First, you can allocate Wounds or Unsaved Wounds to your character, it says that right in the first sentence of LOS!, indicating that it can be rolled for before or after allocation (but not both).

It is written this way because there are two different processes to saving and allocating wounds. Turn back one page to Pg.15.

- if the unit has all the same saves (3+ Armor, 2+5+ Invulnerable, etc) : you roll your saves first and then allocate wounds starting with the closest model.

- if the unit has mixed saves (a unit of 3+ Armor with one 2+ Armor) : you allocate the wounds to the closest model first and then roll his save

The LO,S! roll when a Wound or Unsaved Wound is allocate is written because there are two different process based on the saves in a unit. Not because you can choose to save before or after.

 

Second, the first sentence in "Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties". You allocate wounds caused, then resolve any saving throws, then allocate the unsaved wounds and remove casualties.

Actually, no. The first highlighted section (of the procedure for uniform saves) is Take Saving Throws. If all models are identical in Saves, you just take all the identical wounds from the pool and throw your saves. No Wounds are allocated. The Unsaved Wounds are then allocated starting with the closest model and working away from the firer.

 

Third, under Mixed Saves, you allocate Wounds before rolling saves.

Correct. When the unit has uniform saves you Take Saving Throws and then Allocate. When the unit consists of Mixed Saves you Allocate and the Take Saving Throws.

At no time do you Allocate, Take Saves, and then Allocate.

 

Fourth, in the Assault phase section, under "Allocating Wounds", the first sentence says you allocate wounds, then take saves, then allocate and remove.

It says no such thing. It says:

"After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular Initiative step, Wounds are Allocated, saves taken and casualties removed. Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase.", BRB, Pg.25

 

This is how it's done in every phase in all the rules. GW seems to have deliberately chosen to write so poorly that...well, you know...B)

 

 

When you make a successful LOS! roll, you are reallocating the wound to the fellow in cover. You then resolve the wound against him as normal. All of this is stated right in the BRB. If you were wise enough to make the LOS! roll before rolling saves, then the model in cover (and out of range/LoS) can attempt to pass its cover save.

 

Whatever fluff one wants to use to justify otherwise, the rules are starting to become pretty clear the more I reread them: Cover save for the chump.

This is the only part I agree with.

[Slick]

Alright, according to my rulebook, on pg 16 and 26 under the Look Out Sir rule: "Pick a model in the unit within 6" and resolve the wound against them. This can even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the shooting attack"

 

Now, cover save rule on pg18.

 

Determining Cover Saves

If, when you come to allocate a wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save.

 

You're resolving the wound against the new model, therefore, if the NEW model is in cover, they get a cover save. I would say out of sight models should be treated as in cover.

 

By the way, the fluff of the rule DOES in fact say it represents the character ducking back further into the unit, holding a comrade in line of fire or being pushed out of the way.