Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys friend of mine said that by the wording of the "ensanguinate" rule that the BA can ignore one failed cover save for a vehicle. hmm sounds beardy to me. Any ideas/comments on this? I do not know much about the BA or have the wording of the codex near me.

I think your friend needs to explain how it is that the wording of the "Exsanguinator" licenses such a reading.

Exsanguinator: Once per player turn, a friendly model
within 6" of a model with an Exsanguinator may ignore
a failed save as long as the bearer is not Falling Back,
in close combat, or Pinned. It may not be used against
Instant Death or a close combat attack that ignores
armor saves.

A vehicle is also a model so your friend is correct.

Webbe wrote:

Exsanguinator: Once per player turn, a friendly model
within 6" of a model with an Exsanguinator may ignore
a failed save as long as the bearer is not Falling Back,
in close combat, or Pinned. It may not be used against
Instant Death or a close combat attack that ignores
armor saves.

A vehicle is also a model so your friend is correct.

Wow... just wow. RAW definantly fails in the realisim catagory on this one.

Quick quick, take this healing balm and rub it on that rhino that just got smashed by a krak missile.

Considering that neither Instant Death nor armour saves are applicable to vehicles, it's false to read the Exsanguinator rules as permitting a vehicle to ignore a failed save.

Jayden63 wrote:

Wow... just wow. RAW definantly fails in the realisim catagory on this one.

Quick quick, take this healing balm and rub it on that rhino that just got smashed by a krak missile.

What? You mean that healing balm can't soothe a bruised Machine Spirit?

/Sarcasm

Nurglitch, although I am not condoning this use of the rules in question, I don't see how you can come to your conclusion. Being able to be instant killed or able to make an armor save are not requirements for use of the exanguinator. By your logic, A hypothetical model with Sv - and Eternal Warrior would not be able to benefit from the Exsanguinator.

Edited for clarity and specificity.

Lordhat:

That's not my "logic".

My reasoning is that having these rules, the Instant Kill rule and the armour saving throw rule, be applicable to a model is a requirement of being able to use the Exsanguinator on it.

These rules would be applicable to a hypothetical model with Sv- and Eternal Warrior. The hypothetical model has a Sv- characteristic, which may be ignored by an attack despite having a value of '-'. The hypothetical model also has the Eternal Warrior rule, which is an exception to the Instant Death rule, and hence gets an exception from a rule that would otherwise apply in that case.

These rules would not be applicable to a vehicle model because a vehicle model does not have an armour save, and could never suffer Instant Death.

Do you see the difference between a model that cannot suffer Instant Death, and a model that may not suffer Instant Death if an exception is made? Likewise, do you see the difference between a model that has no armour save, and a model whose armour save is ignored despite automatically failing when it is not ignored?

Nurglitch wrote:Considering that neither Instant Death nor armour saves are applicable to vehicles, it's false to read the Exsanguinator rules as permitting a vehicle to ignore a failed save.

Not true. The only prerequisite for the use of the Exsanguinator is that it is a friendly model within 6", which a vehicle does indeed fall under.

Obviously this is not the Intended effect of the rule, and under RAI it would be completely disallowed. Sadly, RAW allows you to soothe the machine's poor, scuffed chassis with your healing herbs and salves.

MinMax:

That's precisely my point, that taking the only condition for an Exsanguinator to be used as there being a friendly model within 6", and thus including vehicles, is reading the stated rule falsely. The two additional conditions should make it clear, if not explicit, that the rule does not apply to vehicles.

I know sad isn't it? He is doing it for the Ard Boyz ::tear::

actually... Nurglitch.... I disagree.

Conditions to use:
not used this turn.
Bearer within 6inches of friendly model, not in close combat, Not falling back and Not pinned

IN ADDITION if above are true... which they could very easily be for a vehicle since they depend on the Bearer of the ensanguinator....

It may not be used against Instant Death or a close combat attack that ignores armor saves.

Ok so the vehicle fullfills the first... but the last couple is the question.

lets examine instant death on page 26.... it does not mention vehicles. Vehicles have no toughness... this does not apply.

next part. Close combat attacks that ignore armor saves. It can be used on a vehicle as long as it isn't being whacked by a power weapon of some sort... got it.

sooo yea... RAW it can be used :(

frgsinwntr:

Do you understand the distinction between non-applicability and negation that I pointed out in my third post?

Nurglitch
I'd Certainly hope so.

CAN YOU point out a rule that says vehicles negate instant death? I can't couldn't find one. Looked for it. Your argument is flawed.

Wow this is flippin' savage, i would note though that it might only apply when a vehicle would be obscured target, (as that is the only time they are allowed saves and it does say a failed save)

It's just that it doesn't seem like you do, given your posts that fail to address how vehicles cannot negate the .

The lack of an explicit rule saying "vehicles negate Instant Death" is absolutely no problem at all. In fact, it is one of the premises that makes my argument sound.

To summarize my argument:

The Exsanguinator rule can be negated by six conditions:

1. The model with the Exsanguinator is pinned

2. The model with the Exsanguinator is falling back

3. The model with the Exsanguinator is in close combat

4. The affected model is not within 6" of the model with the Exsanguinator.

5. The affected model has suffered Instant Death.

6. The affected model has been wounded by an attack that ignores armour saves.

Conditions 5 & 6 can only be negated if the affected model is a non-vehicle model, because these conditions are not applicable to vehicles. If these conditions cannot be negated, because they are not applicable to vehicle models, then they cannot also be affirmed by vehicle models.

Therefore, since these conditions mentioned in the text of the rule cannot be affirmed where vehicle models are concerned, the text of the rule refers only to non-vehicle models when the term 'friendly model' is used.

I don't know if you are allowed to fail a save if you can't make one. (as the AP on weapons says "automatically fails")

You're not simply allowed to fail an armour save if you can't make one, you're required.

If a model has a save of 6 or better on its profile, it is allowed a further dice roll to see if the armour stops it from being wounded. This dice roll can be either passed or failed. If the weapon's Armour Piercing value is equal to or lower than the model's armour save, then it is sufficiently powerful enough to punch straight through the armour and the target gets no armour save at all.

So far as the applicability of the rules are concerned, getting an armour save negated (ignored) is the same as failing that armour save.

Then with that as lame as it might seem, by RAW i see no reason why BA apothecaries cannot save vehicles. Since the shot DOES NOT cause instant death to vehicles, and the wargear makes not mention of "wounded" in its rule.

So, I take it that you also cannot discern a difference between negation and non-applicability?

Because 'not causing Instant Death' is the negation of 'causing Instant Death', and it is not simply what happens when Instant Death is non-applicable.

Likewise, if the Exsanguinator 'may not be used in the case of Instant Death', then that is the negation of 'may be used in the case of Instant Death'. It only applies to things to which the Instant Death rule might apply.

You are trying to connect dots that are not there. All it says about instant death is "It may not be used against
Instant Death"

That's it. Are the vehicles attempting to use it against instant death? I'm afraid not, by your logic a model with sv - and eternal warrior cannot be saved.

Red_Lives:

Maybe if you actually applied my reasoning rather than this strawman you call "your logic", then you might be able to address it.

As I pointed out earlier, by my reasoning a model with Eternal Warrior would be a candidate for the Exsanginator since Eternal Warrior is an exception to the Instant Death rule. As an exception, Eternal Warrior is relevant to Instant Death and negates cases of Instant Death. Being a vehicle is not an exception to the Instant Death rule, it has nothing to do with that rule; it is not applicable.

In exactly the same way, by my reasoning (what is it with you people and calling reasoning or argumentation 'logic'?), an Exsanguinator could apply to a model with Sv- if it failed a cover save or invulnerable save, but would not apply if the attack ignored armour saves. It's the same reasoning: A model with Sv- still has the armour save characteristic in its profile, an attack that ignores armour saves is relevant to it, is applicable to it.

A vehicle does not have an armour save, and cannot suffer Instant Death. Since the text of the Exsanguinator mentions armour saves and Instant Death as conditions for the effect of the rule to be negated, that defines what sort of model the Exsanguinator may be applied to: non-vehicle models.

I don't need to connect the dots for you. The dots have been connected, highlighted, and printed out in plain English for your convenience in the Codex.

You have failed to provide rules in the rulebook support you line of "thought" "reasoning" or "logic". All you are doing is to over analyze the line of "It may not be used against Instant Death" And in all fairness how did you get the idea in your head that if criteria is N/A then the entire rule must be negated? Its logic as that that supports that chaos lords with wings do not need to test for dangerous terrain.
(in case you are not familiar with the debate the debate is shown here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/216106.page)

"And if I beat the horse like this, it plays music!"
"Dude, that's it farting methane from decomposition."

Technically legal.
No-one in their sane mind would use it thusly.
Anyone who would do so deserves a 2nd ed. metal Dreadnought upside the head at high velocity... and I have a few spare.

There, sorted; feel free to move on to more substantive and useful topics.

Jayden63 wrote:

Webbe wrote:

Exsanguinator: Once per player turn, a friendly model
within 6" of a model with an Exsanguinator may ignore
a failed save as long as the bearer is not Falling Back,
in close combat, or Pinned. It may not be used against
Instant Death or a close combat attack that ignores
armor saves.

A vehicle is also a model so your friend is correct.

Wow... just wow. RAW definantly fails in the realisim catagory on this one.

Quick quick, take this healing balm and rub it on that rhino that just got smashed by a krak missile.

All GW rules ever written period always fail in the realism category on everything.

Nurglitch, you are trying to force something that isn't there.

There is no reason to assume that all conditions must be applicable to all targets.

You are correct, instant Death doesn't apply to vehicles. The rule does not say it must be able to.

The Exsanguinator may not be used against ID attacks. That is the extent of the 'condition'. The rule does *not* say "The Exsanguinator may only be used against targets that are suspectible to ID", or anything like that.

So RAW does allow it. But a powerfist taking out a vehicle, would still stop it from working.

I think the solution here is, if your friend pulls that rule on you again, pull out your trusty hammer and smash his vehicle to bits and say, "like to see you save that failed wound" and then hit him with the hammer so he gets the point of not cheating

Its not really cheating since the rules TECHNICALLY allow it, its just epically BEARDY!

I'd allow it against me. I'd really rather not like it, but I'd allow it...it's in the RAW

im sphynx and i like cover saves.

If my mate tried to use that rule in a friendly game he would get told where to go but if it was a tournament game it would have to stand...
Mick