pingo Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 LO,S talks about 'transferring' and then 'resolving' the wound against the selected model within 6''. It doesn't say the wound is '(re)allocated'. 'Allocation' of wounds is associated with saves. I really don't think this is helpful wording. There should be more properly defined terms in the rules. GW need to FAQ this and illustrate the rule with a set of examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raeven Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 LO,S talks about 'transferring' and then 'resolving' the wound against the selected model within 6''. It doesn't say the wound is '(re)allocated'. 'Allocation' of wounds is associated with saves. I really don't think this is helpful wording. There should be more properly defined terms in the rules. GW need to FAQ this and illustrate the rule with a set of examples. Actually it does, in a round about way. The last sentence in LOS! says, "once the Wound has been transferred (or not), no further attempts to reallocate it can be made". It would have been nice if they had kept the terminology seperate, where Allocate is for unsaved wounds and Resolve is for saves yet to be made. As it is, after reading through multiple times, I concur with everyone else. It does indeed say resolve the wound against the new model. So, whatever saves the model gets it gets, including cover. This entire argument is probably academic anyway. There will be few situations where you will have a character model without a save that is better than a model out of LoS's cover save, and I suspect the majority of LOS! attempts will be for unsaved wounds. It's been enlightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Happy to provide stimulating discussion :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.