Look out sir, aargh

[Melon-neko]

Written on page 16 i believe, in the shooting section, this has been my biggest issue with the game so far. It just kinda bogs things down and makes IC's very, very hard to kill.

So the first line is, "When a wound (or unsaved wound) is allocated to a character..." then it goes on to say "On a 4+ you can allocate a wound to a model in the same unit within 6"..."

In the independent character section it mentions that IC's can look out sir, argh on a 2+

The rule works in hand to hand and shooting and is not nullified by precision strikes. Characters in challenges however cannot use the rule.


So, please go read this. As far as I can tell I am reading the rules correctly and this is what it amounts to:

An IC with 2+ armour stands at the fore front of the unit so that he is the closest model. He uses his save for incoming strikes and on the off chance he fails a save, you roll the lookout sir roll and shunt it onto another model in the unit.

In my particular game, I was using a seer council and my far seer had a divination spell that let him reroll armor saves. Every strike at the unit got a look out sir roll to move the strike to my far seer so he could use the reroll (in this case not as good as fortune anyway, but it was still weird).

Thoughts?

[Lord_Victor]

Hmm,

Ive been thinking about this one for a while. I think your getting caught up on the "(Or unsaved wound)" part of that rule, and assuming that you can take an armor save first before passing it off. I thought this for a while too, but ive changed my mind.

The key part of the rule is "When a wound is Allocated. So you must Look Out sir immediatly after the wound is allocated, which is done before armor saves are taken.

Its really important to note that the Allocate Wounds rules section is clearly broken into 2 parts, one with similar armor saves where the saves are taken first and THEN wounds are allocated, and mixed saves where the wounds are allocated first and then saves are made.

The rule is awkwardly worded thats for sure. My belief is that the "or unsaved wound" part is directly referencing Characters with the same armor save as his unit, in that case you would roll all the saves first, and then allocate them to the unit removing models one at a time closest to furthest.

So for example you have a squad of 5 marines with the sgt 3rd from the front. The unit has taken a crap ton of bolter shots and after rolling armor saves has 4 unsaved wounds to allocate. First you would remove the 2 closest normal marines, and then you get to the sgt. At this point you have 2 unsaved wounds left to allocate, so you place one on the sgt and he takes his look out sir and passes it. So instead of removing the sgt you remove the dude behind him. Now you have the last wound to allocate, since the sgt is still the closest model to the enemy unit you have to allocate to him again and he gets a chance at a 2nd Look out sir. in this case he fails and is removed leaving just the lone battle brother left in the fight.

Does this sound right to you?

[DarkLink]

I'm with Victor on this. Your IC is the closest model, with a common armor save. You roll the armor save and fail, taking an unsaved wound, but can use the Look Out Sir rule to transfer the wound to one of the other models with a similar save.

On the other hand, your IC has a different armor save. You allocate the wound to him, but before rolling the save you perform Look Out Sir, transfer it to another guy, and he takes his armor save instead of the IC.

[Melon-neko]

Thanks guys, after playing another game I was thinking that was probably the way to go. I am starting to like the wound allocation rules, just takes some getting used to.

Ona side note, fnp negating power weapon wounds makes blood angels pretty scary

One stupid thing that happened thoug was a terminator with lightning claws vs a chaplain terminator challenge. No wounds done for like 8 phases

[Slind]

This rule is a mess! I was thinking exactly the same. Using a super armoured IC to give 30 orks terminator-saves (rediculous!)

Another case is the instant death scenario: My my multi-wound IC fails his save, and looses all his wounds. No worry I'll just transfer the unsaved wounds to my trusty 1 wound grut-friend, at make a massive overkill on a 4 pts. model instead.

Finally - they have just ensured that Paladins can keep the wound-allocation scheme going, by making them all caracters.

Don't get me wrong - I like the idea with the rule, but the execution/wording is just terrible (but that is unfortunately not the only thing that is messed up... to be honest I am very disappointed with this release)

[DarkLink]

Paladin's don't 'benefit' from this rule. This rule is a much weaker version of last edition's wound allocation shenanigans. It's much less reliable, and much easier to kill off whole models. It's still a pretty big nerf to Paladins.

[Wildeybeast]

This rule is a mess! I was thinking exactly the same. Using a super armoured IC to give 30 orks terminator-saves (rediculous!)

Another case is the instant death scenario: My my multi-wound IC fails his save, and looses all his wounds. No worry I'll just transfer the unsaved wounds to my trusty 1 wound grut-friend, at make a massive overkill on a 4 pts. model instead.

Finally - they have just ensured that Paladins can keep the wound-allocation scheme going, by making them all caracters.

Don't get me wrong - I like the idea with the rule, but the execution/wording is just terrible (but that is unfortunately not the only thing that is messed up... to be honest I am very disappointed with this release)

It's not a mess, you just haven't understood it properly. As others have pointed out, if everything in the unit has the same save, you take all the saves and allocate the unsaved wounds, so then the IC can pass his off to others. If, as will normally happen, the IC has a different save, you follow the mixed saves process and allocate the wounds before rolling saves, in which case you would pass the IC's off to other's before they make saving rolls on their own armour values. Either way, each model rolls on their individual armour save value, I don't see anything unfair about that.
Yes it gives characters a bit more survivability, but it's hardly game breaking one. A lot of the time people will take the hit on their character who has better save and often an invulnerable one. Besides, it has been around in fantasy for ages and no has complained about it in there.

[eldargal]

Yup, it means they have a 50% chance of getting what was automatic wound allocation in 5th. It makes paladins much more manageable.

Paladin's don't 'benefit' from this rule. This rule is a much weaker version of last edition's wound allocation shenanigans. It's much less reliable, and much easier to kill off whole models. It's still a pretty big nerf to Paladins.

[Slind]

It's not a mess, you just haven't understood it properly.

I have no doubt that your interpretation is the right (it is the only one that makes any sense), however I fear the day I end up with a RAW player who points to page 16 of the rulebook, and wants to allocate a wound that his IC has failed to save.
... I don't think that he will be content if I refer him to the fantasy rules for the RAI version (since that book apparently has a better description of the rule.)

[Wildeybeast]

I have no doubt that your interpretation is the right (it is the only one that makes any sense), however I fear the day I end up with a RAW player who points to page 16 of the rulebook, and wants to allocate a wound that his IC has failed to save.
... I don't think that he will be content if I refer him to the fantasy rules for the RAI version (since that book apparently has a better description of the rule.)

Just ignore the player that does that as they have read it wrongly. It's all there in RAW. And apologies if my last post came across as bit harsh, I've fallen into the trap of trying to correct Bean's nonsensical rules interpretations down in the rules section and I'm projecting frustration. Welcome to the forum!

[SotonShades]

Finally - they have just ensured that Paladins can keep the wound-allocation scheme going, by making them all caracters.


They won't be though, As pg 63 says;


They have their own profile, but do not have a separate entry.

If they are in a single unit, the Pladins will all share the same profile. Other than when an independent character joining the unit, Paladins won't have any characters other than an Apothecary. So at most he will be more survavible, but you will simply result in killing off the next nearest Paladin in the unit. The old system meant you could would all of them before killing any potentially. Now in any given shooting phase you are much more likely to kill one or two off, and if not the GK player has to cycle them to the back of the unit, reducing the overall movement of the squad, making them less effective (especially if you just wounded the Incnerator!)

Having played a game, this system did seem a bit alein and complicated at first, but we were quickly working out casualties much quicker than we had been under the old system; well compared to when you had units with at least 3 different wound allocation groups before anyway. Less is about the same.

[DarkLink]

All Paladins are characters. Go and read up on the unit entries in the appendix section. That's where it defines who's a character and who isn't, and how many hull points everything has for that matter.

[SotonShades]

All Paladins are characters. Go and read up on the unit entries in the appendix section. That's where it defines who's a character and who isn't, and how many hull points everything has for that matter.

Seems to go against the wording of rules on the Characters page, but you are right it is in there in the Apendix. Same is true for Nobs for the Orks. At least in that case you could have assumed it was because Nobs lead most of the other Mobs.

So wound allocation can be abused to spread them over everyone and they don't need to be in different wargear groups like before but there is only a 50% chance you will be able to choose.

[eldargal]

50% is conisderably better than 100%.

[SotonShades]

Absolutely. I'd deffinitely expect shear weight of firepower to be more effective at whittling away the unit now. They are still going to be monstrously effective, but not as bad as they were before. Imagining a unit of paladin's shoving each other out the way and constantly shouting 'Look out, Sir' makes me chuckle. I may have to model a unit with top hats and monocles...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I like that my Farseer could potentially have like 20 wounds. :D
Go Guardian meat shields!

[SotonShades]

Certainly, especially as an Independent character he'd be getting a 2+ Look Out, Sir. We really need to find a quicker way of writing that? LOS is taken, so... LOSir?

That said, before now, you have been able to put him at the front of the unit and had a fairly decent chance of watching the unit die behind him (unless someone could get a LOT of shots at that unit). Now, I'd be much happier with characters and ICs sitting in the second rank, along with Special weapons (ready to jump to the front only when they need to fire.)

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Yeah, that was my thought, chuck anything useful in the 2nd rank.
That's a point, normal weapon platforms have no wounds, you could use them as cover! :D

[Melon-neko]

So, I asked this question after my first game in 6th.

I have played 3 more games since then, using it the (i think) proper way as described by lord victor and it worked out very well. All character units can bog it down but no worse than wound allocation on nob squads and the like.

Also, IC's can't be singled out by dreadnaughts and powerfists in h2h which is much better imo. My ork warboss gets to krump dreads and wraithlords! (unless the wraithlord issues a challenge >.>)