How does Look out sir work, with character failed save?

[Token]

If i have a character, like a wolfguard, in a unit of grey hunters and the wolfguard fails his armor save, say a terminator aromr of 2+, do you then roll for "look out sir" suceding on 4+, or do you roll the look out sir before roling for a save?

[Cactus]

You make 'Look out sir!' rolls before armour saves. I believe it's in the rulebook errata but I'm not able to check it right now.

[Fibonacci]

They dropped the "(or unsaved wound)" part of the rule entirely. 

 

Roll to hit

Roll to wound

Allocate wounds

Look Out, Sir test

Make any saves allowed

Feel No Pain

Allocate next wound

 

Once you fail the save, that model is reduced 1 wound on its profile.

[Dam13n]

The way we play it goes as follows:

 

- Enemy unit causes unsaved wounds (shooting or combat)

- Separate unsaved wounds by strength/AP into broad groups eg:

1 - armour saves allowed, no ID

2 - armour saves allowed, ID

3 - no armour saves. no ID

4 - no armour saves, ID

etc.

- these groups are then resolved in an order set by the player causing the wounds.

 

You can then resolve a group of wounds as follows:

 

All models having the same save against wound pool # - may use fast dice mechanic for all saves, then apply look out sir during wound allocation.

ie:

- roll all saves

- apply unsaved wounds 1 at a time

- if would be applied to a character - attempt look out sir until character dies or all wounds allocated or no remaining models to enable a look out sir

 

Models having different saves against wound pool # - must resolve each wound individually, in which case to look out sir or not must be decided before rolling any saves, once a save has been made/failed you may not attempt a look out sir.

ie:

- apply wounds 1 at a time

- if would be applied to a character may attempt a look out sir before any saves are attempted

- roll any save (if applicable) - if a fail reduces a model to 0 wounds - remove it from play before applying the next wound

 

GW did put it in the FAQ that you should always use the mixed saves mechanic if a character is present, however (as most units come with a character) this is slow and impractical.  As a result, we choose to ignore that useless piece of advice and play it as above.

 

In your example you have mixed saves, so must choose whether or not to look out sir before rolling any saves regardless of the errata.

[Magpie]

The problem with using the fast dice procedure and only look out sir-ing (?) the failed saves is that you are drastically altering the number of look out sir rolls to be made.

 

So for example if there are 6 wounds to allocate to an IC that means statistically he will fail one of the LOS rolls and so will have to take 1 armour save which he has a 1 in 6 chance of failing. (Lets say he has a 2+ save) so his chances of being wounded are 1/6 * 1/6

 

If you go through the save process first and turn those 6 wounds into a single wound then his chances of being wounded are 1/6.

 

The overall probability of any particular model being wounded is the same but the chances of that one specific IC being wounded is now much greater.

[Fibonacci]

If the character and the squad have the same saves, the Look Out, Sir rolls become irrelevant for the saved wounds. Whether the character saved it or the closest squad member saved it but in either case, it was saved with the same roll.

[added]

Let me step through the process.

Sgt and 4 marines get fired on with Sgt in the front. They take 6 wounds. After Look Out, Sir rolls, on average ... 1/3 of those wounds will go to the sgt and the other 2/3 go to the next closest model.

Sgt faces 2 wounds and will fail 1/3 of those. So on average he will die 2/3 of the time. Also note the remainder of the squad will lose 4/3 models -- 4 wounds passed by Look Out and 3+ saves.

Fast rolling, 6 wounds are saved against becoming 2 unsaved wounds (6 wounds, 1/3 chance to fail save = 6/3 = 2)
Of those 2 unsaved wounds, Look Out, Sir passes 2/3 of the 2 unsaved to the next closest model while the sgt takes the remaining third.

Sgt takes 1/3 of 2 or 2/3 unsaved wounds. The squad takes 2/3 of the 2 unsaved wounds or 4/3.

They are mathematically identical. But only if the saves are also identical.

 

[edited again to say ...]

 

When in doubt, simpley revert back to rolling one at a time.  I have seen discussions about how to roll quicker grow way beyond the length of time it would take to just roll one die at a time.

[nurglez]

instead of doing it one at a time, or all in 1 go. My group does it like so.

 

Roll in batches of dice equal to the amount of wounds it would take to get to the character.

lets say 4 tactical marines are closest, then the sergeant, then another 4 marines. so you would roll 4 saves. if you fail 2, you then roll another 2 etc until you get to the sergeant, then you roll look out sir one at a time.

[Brother Casman]

instead of doing it one at a time, or all in 1 go. My group does it like so.

 

Roll in batches of dice equal to the amount of wounds it would take to get to the character.

lets say 4 tactical marines are closest, then the sergeant, then another 4 marines. so you would roll 4 saves. if you fail 2, you then roll another 2 etc until you get to the sergeant, then you roll look out sir one at a time.

This is how my group does it as well. It has the advantage of being faster than the one-at-a-time method and only a little slower than the fast dice rolling method.

[Dam13n]

Magpie - I fail to see how it really matters.

 

Example (average results used, but doesn't really matter):

 

IC in PA joined to 10 PA Marines

Suffer 12 wounds

Fail 4 saves of 3+

IC is at the front - 4 look out sir rolls of 2+

- Averages at 2/3 of a wound on the character and 10/3 dead marines.

 

same unit other mechanic

Suffer 12 wounds

Fail 2 look out sir rolls of 2+

2 3+ saves on the character and 10 3+ saves on the unit

- Averages at 2/3 of a wound on the character and 10/3 dead marines

 

In both examples the chance of an allocated wound on the character becoming an unsaved wound is 1/6 x 1/3 = 1/18

 

The only time it changes is if you have mixed saves.

 

I personally find the first method much quicker and as it gives the same result - who cares!

 

Nurglez - that's pretty much how we resolve mixed save units when the character isn't at the front.

[Magpie]

The problem with using fast dice with the IC is that you aren't matching up wounds that are LoS'ed with wounds that are unsaved.

 

12 wounds v 3+ armour means you'll fail 4. The problem is you don't know which 4 weren't saved, the ones that were failed or the ones that succeeded in LoS'ing.

 

The other point is that under the new FAQ you are directed to use the mixed save method if the unit contains a character.

[nurglez]

so a squad of 20 chaos marines with a champion at the back takes 3 wounds and you roll them one at a time?

 

Yes that is what the faq specifies, however I do it the way our group does, and I haven't had any issues with anyone in tournaments.

 

Batch roll until you get to a character, then look out sir 1 at a time.

[Dam13n]

Magpie - as I already said above, we chose to ignore the FAQ. The reason being because 6th edition games are slow enough to play already without further dragging out each offensive action made by each player.

 

So lets say I have 4 wounds that are unsaved regardless of which method I use for look out sir:

 

Using fast dice the closest 2 models are normal marines so are removed, I then reach the sergeant who must pass 2 look out sirs of 4+ or be removed. This is allocating the unsaved wounds.

 

Using mixed saves mechanic I would roll saves until those same 2 marines were dead then look out sir of 4+ before rolling a save. As this example sets the premise that I will fail 2 more saves, the look out sir rolls are irrelevant on all the saves I pass (it doesn't matter who passes the save, the wound is still ignored) which leaves the 2 failed saves, again I'll have rolled 2 4+ look out sir rolls for those wounds, just the order in which I rolled them was different.

 

Regardless of the method, the chances that the character will be slain are the same.

 

That's why we ignored the FAQ.

[Magpie]

Sure that is a good quick way if everyone agrees, wrong but it is good for game play.

[Spinsanity]

Gees Magpie, you sure do like to nitpick, do you?

 

The point is, it doesn't change *anything*.

 

The character will take the same number of wounds. It's that simple. There's no Ifs or whats or anything like that. The character will take just as many wounds, the unit will take just as many (statistically speaking).

 

Similarly, if you wanted "more realistic" gameplay you could roll armor saves before rolling to wound, the results would still be the same and models would just die as often...

 

I therefore fail to see where the problem lies...

 

+ Edit : oh, I see why now...

So for example if there are 6 wounds to allocate to an IC that means statistically he will fail one of the LOS rolls and so will have to take 1 armour save which he has a 1 in 6 chance of failing. (Lets say he has a 2+ save) so his chances of being wounded are 1/6 * 1/6

That's 1/36 per wound the unit suffered, NOT 1/36 per wound that got trough LoS..!

You had 6 wounds, 1 failed LoS which will be failed 1/6 times. That's 1/36 overall, sure enough, but since you had 6 wounds to begin with a net 1/6 wounds on your character.

If you go through the save process first and turn those 6 wounds into a single wound then his chances of being wounded are 1/6.

Once again, same result. Each wound has a 1/36 chance of blowing trough both LoS and armour. The result is a net 1/6 wounds on your char, same as above

[Magpie]

So how do you reconcile that in one method the character has to pass 6 LoS rolls but in "fast dice" they one need to pass 1 ?

[Spinsanity]

There's nothing stopping you from making your LoS rolls on the armour saves you passed if you so desperately need to figure out WHO passed those tests, but it won't change anything in the end.

[Dam13n]

Because it doesn't matter if you pass or fail the look out sir if you pass the armour save.

The wound is still discounted, if all the models have the same save, which model passed the armour save is irrelevant.

Example - 5 wounds suffered:

1 - Armour save passed - look out sir irrelevant

2 - Armour save failed - look out sir matters

3 - Armour save passed - look out sir irrelevant

4 - Armour save passed - look out sir irrelevant

5 - Armour save failed - look out sir matters

 

There are therefore 2 relevant look out sirs, whether I pass or fail the other 3 doesn't matter as the wound will be discounted regardless of the result.

 

It only changes with mixed armour because the armour saves are different.

 

Example - 5 wounds suffered by a unit with an IC with a 2+ at the front of a unit with a 3+:

- I elect to take look out sirs on 2 wounds then take the rest on the character

1 - Look out Sir passed, Armour save passed

2 - Look out Sir passed, Armour save failed - 1 marine removed

3 - Armour save passed

4 - Armour save passed

5 - Armour save failed - Character takes 1 wound

 

The reason I cannot look out sir wound #5 is because the model I would be transferring the wound to has a different armour save:

- armour 1/6 x look out 5/6 = 5/36 chance of losing a single power armoured marine thanks to look out sir

- armour 1/6 x look out 1/6 = 1/36 chance of the character suffering a wound

rather than:

- look out 5/6 x armour 1/3 = 5/18 chance of losing a single power armoured marine thanks to look out sir

- look out 1/6 x armour 1/6 = 1/36 chance of the character suffering a wound

 

You would effectively halve the chance of losing a power armoured marine from what the chance should be (it is the marine taking the wound after all, he shouldn't benefit from the 2+ armour because he doesn't have it).

[Squirrelloid]

yeah, the FAQ is being dumb here.  Of course, that GW fails at math should surprise no one.

[Spinsanity]

Let's roll LoS first, but do not look at it yet.

 

roll 1, test failed

 

 

Roll armor : 6, passed.

 

Does it matter whether you passed the LoS or not? Do you even have to take a look at the result?

 

So, even though I rolled LoS first, I looked at the AS first and the result is the same.

In this case, since I passed the save, the fact I had failed the LoS is irrelevant.

 

So, one more time : rolling LoS first, or last, doesn't change anything (if the char and unit have the same save).

[Magpie]

What you are doing is allowing a form of wound allocation like it was in 5th Ed.

 

If you only distribute the unsaved wounds you can very easily palm the wounds off to other members in the squad.

 

Lets say you have a unit of Paladins and a Librarian.

Libby is at the front. So when a wound is allocated to him he can attempt to hand it off or he can take the wound himself.

If he doesn't know if the wound will be unsaved or not he cannot be sure if it is the one to hand off or not, if he knows it is unsaved he can elect to not LoS it.

So that means I can very easily take the first two wounds and LoS them with a good chance of success and pass them  to the two nearest Paladins, who are equally distant from the Libby and I can then take the final wound on the Libby which I can do with surety because I know that wound is unsaved.

If I do it as instructed by the rules however I have no way of knowing which wounds are saved or not so I am taking a chance each time I LoS that I might end up killing a model.

 

GW might be failing Maths but this isn't about maths it's about what goes on on the table which I think we lose sight of sometimes.

[Raeven]

If the results are statistically the same, it doesn't matter how you arrive there.

[Dam13n]

As a specific example, yet the Libby and Paladins complicate things as even though they all have the same save, they also all have multiple wounds.

 

If it's a tactical squad however and we're using look out sir for the sergeant - the chances are you're going to attempt that look out sir on every wound whether it's save has been rolled or not (unless that LO,S would kill off a valuable special/heavy weapon, in which case you might choose to let the sergeant die, therefore not attempting any look out sirs at all.)

 

And you couldn't pull those wound shenanigans off as the moment you allocate a wound to the "closest friendly model", that model will be considered the "closest friendly model" for all other look out sirs until he's dead, equidistant models or not.

 

 

Page 16 – Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Change the second sentence of the second bullet point to:
“Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character, and resolve the Wound against that model instead.”

 

As soon as the model is determined, he's the closest by definition until he's moved or removed.

[Spinsanity]

Let me try to understand your logic here.

 

Your unit is wounded 3 times, and you fail all 3 saves :

You roll LoS, pass, hand the wound to a nearby trooper (who then fails his save).

You roll LoS again, pass, hand the wound to a second nearby trooper (who also fails his save).

Left with noone you can hand a wound to without risking their death, you elect not to LoS and your Libby takes the hit, and fails his save too.

 

Did I understand this correctly?

 

Note : Had you decided to roll saves first, you could then have decided to hand 2 hits to the troopers and taken the third on the Libby, same as above.

 

Let's try this again, but this time you pass one of the first 2 saves.

You roll LoS, pass, hand the wound to a nearby trooper, who passes his save.

You roll LoS, pass, hand the wound to the same trooper, who fails his save.

You roll LoS a third time, pass, hand the wound to a second trooper, who fails his save.

 

Had you rolled saves first, you would have rolled LoS only twice, instead of 3 times, and ended up with the same result.

 

I still fail to see you point.

[Magpie]

If you take LoS after the saves you know that those wounds are going to be applied.

 

So if you have 6 wounds and 3 of them become unsaved you know that you want to LoS 2 of them and keep one of them. As there is only a 1/6 chance of failing the LoS roll it is a pretty safe bet to LoS the first two and take the final wound.

 

If you have 6 wounds and you have no idea which one will be saved and which won't then you have no idea which wounds to LoS on.

[Spinsanity]

Alright, if you're going to play it "by the book", then do so correctly, don't take only the rules you want to and ignore the others.

 

You resolve wounds completely before moving on to the next. Or, if you want to go a bit faster, you roll as many dice as wounds can be assigned to the current target.

 

Assuming you roll all 6 LoS die and roll all 1s, and then fail all 6 saves (unlikely, of course, but still possible). What now? Are you going to pretend the Libby is assigned all 6 wounds and the extras are lost?

 

When you have issues with possible LoS shenanigans, go ahead and roll all your wounds one at a time.

 

When you want to minimize the number of wounds your character gets, rolling saves first avoids rolling unnecessary LoSs. Simple. That's what we've all been saying all along.