Focus Fire, Attack Bikes and Sanguinary Priest

[CitadelArmyGuy]

Well Gentlemen this came up in a game last weekend and I figure I'd open it up to the community to let everyone weigh in.

 

Long Story short: A Jump Pack Sanguinary Priest attached himself to a unit of Attack Bikes after the Bikes had finished their movement. Although they are in the open, the Priest puts the Bikes he's attached to in-between himself and some Missile Launcher Long Fangs.

 

In the opponent's shooting phase, he declares Focus Fire against models with No Cover Saves, and argues that since the Bikes have 5+ Cover (Jink), he can only hit the Priest. However, the Priest model is 25% obscured by the Bikes [which cannot themselves be allocated wounds since they have 5+ Cover].

 

Do the Bikes give the Priest 5+ Cover, meaning no wounds can be allocated to anyone? (ie Focus Fire usage is useless here...) Or does the Priest take all the wounds with No Cover Save and just dies?

[Brother Noah]

I think that the Priest simply drops, I don't believe that you may benefit from cover from models in your own unit. I could be wrong though. I don't have a book with me at this very moment.

[JamesI]

The priest can't count models in the unit he has joined for cover, so in this case the priest dies.

[dswanick]

I agree with Brother Noah and JamesI.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

So on page 18, we ignore Column 1 paragraph 2? I can see because of Column 2 paragraph 4, just wasn't so sure...

[ChapelXIII]

It seems that is how it is working out. I will have to remember this for later. It seems very tricky.

[BloodReavers]

You can still "Look out, Sir!" on the priest. But the bikes would not confer a cover save to the priest. The priest himself would have to be behind or in some kind of terrain or other unit of intervening models to keep from being allocated to.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

You can still "Look out, Sir!" on the priest. But the bikes would not confer a cover save to the priest. The priest himself would have to be behind or in some kind of terrain or other unit of intervening models to keep from being allocated to.

 

If the Priest does a Look Out Sir, does the Bike he allocates onto get its cover save?

 

Edit: Reason I'm asking is due to Page 18, last paragraph... I'm not even sure the Priest can do a Look Out Sir at all.

 

2nd Edit: This may need to get moved over to the Official Rules forum.

[Brother Noah]

I did wonder if you could look out sir to a bike...I had that a conundrum similar to that earlier this week. My priest was in the open, opponent declared focus fire on models with no cover save, I wanted to look out sir to the next closest model who happened to be standing in some area terrain. I think focus fire says something about wounds being limited to the allocation of models with the save or lack there of that the opponent declared though. I can't quote it because I have no book with me right now. It just seemed like the "look out sir" and "focus fire" rules came into contention.

[Kem]

LoS! is a separate rule, not a normal wound allocation, therefore it isn't restricted by the FF.

Practically you can dump a wound on a model that is out of sight (behind a wall) and get a 4+ save out of nowhere.

 

So it is legal to dump a wound on a bike a take a Jink save.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

LoS! is a separate rule, not a normal wound allocation, therefore it isn't restricted by the FF.

Practically you can dump a wound on a model that is out of sight (behind a wall) and get a 4+ save out of nowhere.

 

So it is legal to dump a wound on a bike a take a Jink save.

 

It is a wound re-allocation. Page 16 wording uses both the words 'resolve' and 'reallocate' when discussing a Look Out Sir wound.

 

The LoS! rules specifically discuss that you can resolve the wound to a model which is either out of line of sight or out of the weapon's range or both. It does not say 'can reallocate to a model which cannot normally be allocated to, such as...' Instead, it only delineates two permissions to break normal allocation rules. Focus Fire is not one of those permissions. It also says you can only reallocate a wound once (ie cannot LoS to another Character, who then LoS again to non-Character). That last sentence is only pertinent because it codifies a Look Out Sir! as a re-allocation.

 

So... Focus Fire prevents a wound from being allocated to a model with a specified cover save (or lower). I suppose you could argue Focus Fire does not prevent a wound 're-allocation', simply prevents an allocation. lol.

[Brother Noah]

The part that makes me believe that you would not be able to do the LOS in this situation, is the bolded sentence on the bottom of page 18 under the second column. ""Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse than the value stated." This seems to place a restriction on the person being fired upon. From this perspective, the sanguinary priest would not be allowed to allocate wounds to the attack bikes because the controlling player can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse than the value stated, which in the OP was no cover save. Anyone else agree? Disagree?

[JamesI]

Looking this over, I think we'll get more responses if the thread is in the OR, so I'll bounce it there.

[dswanick]

The part that makes me believe that you would not be able to do the LOS in this situation, is the bolded sentence on the bottom of page 18 under the second column. ""Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse than the value stated." This seems to place a restriction on the person being fired upon. From this perspective, the sanguinary priest would not be allowed to allocate wounds to the attack bikes because the controlling player can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse than the value stated, which in the OP was no cover save. Anyone else agree? Disagree?

Disagree -

Focus Fire - "If you choose to Focus Fire, choose a cover save value. This can be between 2+ and 6+. Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a Cover save equal to or wrose than the value stated.", BRB, Pg.18

Mixed Save - "If the target unit contains several different saving throws, or at least one character, you'll need to follow this process instead of the one presented above.

Allocate Wounds - First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.

Take Saves & Remove Casualties

Emptied Wound Pool", BRB, Pg.15

Look Out, Sir! - "When a Wound is allocated to one of your Characters,... he is allowed a Look Out, Sir! attempt.

On a roll of 4+...Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character, and resolve the Wound against that model instead.", BRB, Pg.16

 

So the unit was shot at. The shooter chose Focus Fire (no Cover save). The wound was, therefore, allocated to the IC in the open. The LO,S! roll was made and the Wound is now resolved against one of the bike models. The bike model takes it's best save from amongst those it has available (in this case the Cover save).

[CitadelArmyGuy]

Except a Look Out Sir attempt is codified as both a resolution and a reallocation . See last sentence of the Look Out Sir box inset, Page 16.

[Brother Noah]

dswanick, I see your point, my only contention with your argument is the last line in the Look Out, Sir "Box" on page 16. Stating that "once the wound has been transferred(or not), no further attempts to reallocate it can be made." This last line appears to suggest that a "Look Out, Sir" is a reallocation of the wound, which would come into conflict with the Focus Fire "Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse than the value stated." Just as a heads up, this is not me trying to prove you or any one else wrong or prove myself right, I am simply hoping to aid in the best interpretation of this tricky situation. What do you guys think?

[Seahawk]

No. A wound gets allocated. Then, due to LOS! it gets re-allocated. There can be no more allocations after that; that's what it refers to.

 

So, the shooter Focus-Fires to the priest. He passes his LOS! and the hit goes to a bike, who now gets a cover save because he's entitled to it. Super simple process that's covered by the rules just fine.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

So allocated and re-allocated are different things. I can dig that for sure.

 

Our only contentions, as stated piecemeal above, is that if allocated and re-allocated are considered equal (meaning re-allocation is a form of allocation), then you cannot re-allocate a LoS! onto the Bikes per the Page 18 Focus Fire rules.

 

 

But I think you're right Seahawk, the Look Out Sir! does work because a wound cannot be allocated to the bikes---- but a wound may be re-allocated to a bike. Nothing prevents re-allocation, the FF rule only prevents allocation.

[DarkGuard]

The part that makes me believe that you would not be able to do the LOS in this situation, is the bolded sentence on the bottom of page 18 under the second column. ""Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse than the value stated." This seems to place a restriction on the person being fired upon. From this perspective, the sanguinary priest would not be allowed to allocate wounds to the attack bikes because the controlling player can only allocate wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse than the value stated, which in the OP was no cover save. Anyone else agree? Disagree?

Disagree -

Focus Fire - "If you choose to Focus Fire, choose a cover save value. This can be between 2+ and 6+. Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a Cover save equal to or wrose than the value stated.", BRB, Pg.18

Mixed Save - "If the target unit contains several different saving throws, or at least one character, you'll need to follow this process instead of the one presented above.

Allocate Wounds - First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.

Take Saves & Remove Casualties

Emptied Wound Pool", BRB, Pg.15

Look Out, Sir! - "When a Wound is allocated to one of your Characters,... he is allowed a Look Out, Sir! attempt.

On a roll of 4+...Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character, and resolve the Wound against that model instead.", BRB, Pg.16

 

So the unit was shot at. The shooter chose Focus Fire (no Cover save). The wound was, therefore, allocated to the IC in the open. The LO,S! roll was made and the Wound is now resolved against one of the bike models. The bike model takes it's best save from amongst those it has available (in this case the Cover save).

 

As usual dswanick hits the nail on the head, this is certainly how I feel it plays out.

 

Interesting tidbit, if you had not attached the Priest to the Bikes, then he would have got his cover save as the bikes would have then been obscuring him. Funny how these things work out.

[King Willy]

If you can't convince your opponent just roll off as lame as it is, thats the fairest way to resolve it cause otherwise the game just becomes annoying and less fun.

 

Also, makes me think of the IC being picked up by the bikers and carried away from the missile, but if he fails his save he just skids in front of it.

[dswanick]

dswanick, I see your point, my only contention with your argument is the last line in the Look Out, Sir "Box" on page 16. Stating that "once the wound has been transferred(or not), no further attempts to reallocate it can be made." This last line appears to suggest that a "Look Out, Sir" is a reallocation of the wound, which would come into conflict with the Focus Fire "Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse than the value stated." Just as a heads up, this is not me trying to prove you or any one else wrong or prove myself right, I am simply hoping to aid in the best interpretation of this tricky situation. What do you guys think?

No. A wound gets allocated. Then, due to LOS! it gets re-allocated. There can be no more allocations after that; that's what it refers to.

 

So, the shooter Focus-Fires to the priest. He passes his LOS! and the hit goes to a bike, who now gets a cover save because he's entitled to it. Super simple process that's covered by the rules just fine.

So allocated and re-allocated are different things. I can dig that for sure.

 

Our only contentions, as stated piecemeal above, is that if allocated and re-allocated are considered equal (meaning re-allocation is a form of allocation), then you cannot re-allocate a LoS! onto the Bikes per the Page 18 Focus Fire rules.

 

 

But I think you're right Seahawk, the Look Out Sir! does work because a wound cannot be allocated to the bikes---- but a wound may be re-allocated to a bike. Nothing prevents re-allocation, the FF rule only prevents allocation.

I'd like to expand on this point of contention - re: "reallocate".

 

I believe this is an unfortunate choice of wording on the part of GW. My thought on this is - there is no "re-allocate". "Wound Allocataion" is a specific, clearly defined step in the Shooting Phase process where a Wound is taken from the Wound Pool and applied to a specific Model defined in the normal rules as the Model closest to the Firer. Said Allocated Wound is then Resolves (ie, Saves are taken and Wounds are deducted from the models Wounds Characteristic). There is no such rule process defined for "Re-allocation". When a Model makes a successful Look Out, Sir! roll the Wound which was Allocated to the Model is, instead, resolved on a different model. As this LO,S! process is not an "Allocation" nor a "Reallocation" the Wound can not then be further bounced around in some "Hot Potato(e)" fashion. This is also, in my opinion, why the LO,S! rule can be used to Resolve a Wounds against a model with a different set of Saves.

 

It is unfortunate that GW used the word "reallocate" in the last sentence of their LO,S! rule. But I view it more as a rational for why more than one LO,S! roll can not be made on the same wound - as LO,S! doesn't "Allocate" or "Reallocate" the wound, but "Resolves" it, no further LO,S! attempts may be made. It would have been less open to argument if they had used "transfer" both times, but I think the common-sense interpretation is sufficient in this case.

[*Furyou Miko]

As usual dswanick hits the nail on the head, this is certainly how I feel it plays out.

 

Interesting tidbit, if you had not attached the Priest to the Bikes, then he would have got his cover save as the bikes would have then been obscuring him. Funny how these things work out.

 

Well, he'd have had to be 3" back from the bikes for that, and would have been more vulnerable to other shooting.

 

Remember, you can't move within 2" of a friendly unit as an IC without joining it.

[Lysere]

Also, random tidbit that should end any arguments your opponent has, Focus fire says specifically that your opponent can only allocate wounds to models within the parameters. Look out sir however is done by you and therefore does not follow the same restriction regardless of allocation reallocation phrasing.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

Also, random tidbit that should end any arguments your opponent has, Focus fire says specifically that your opponent can only allocate wounds to models within the parameters. Look out sir however is done by you and therefore does not follow the same restriction regardless of allocation reallocation phrasing.

 

Check your grammar mate-- opponent here means the model owner. You are focus firing, your opponent is allocating.

 

@dswanick, well done I feel you've wrapped it up nicely. I'm pretty happy Focus Fire does not affect Look Out Sir!

[Lysere]

Also, random tidbit that should end any arguments your opponent has, Focus fire says specifically that your opponent can only allocate wounds to models within the parameters. Look out sir however is done by you and therefore does not follow the same restriction regardless of allocation reallocation phrasing.

 

Check your grammar mate-- opponent here means the model owner. You are focus firing, your opponent is allocating.

 

@dswanick, well done I feel you've wrapped it up nicely. I'm pretty happy Focus Fire does not affect Look Out Sir!

 

Dang Context beat me, well I still don't see how you can't look out sir. I swear I remember something bringing up that particular example somewhere, but don't remember where.