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.

Greets guys.

I've used the search function but couldn't come up with relevant topics. So, if this has been done to death, apologies and throw a link at me!


This question comes up from a discussion I had with members on another board.
I was very one-sided on the argument, but have since seen the counter and am now in a state of confusion (especially considering the ruling with the INAT FAQ).


This rule is especially in regard to the Blood Angels/Dark Angels version of the Exsanguinator/Narthecium.

Exsanguinator rule: "Once per player turn, a friendly model within 6" of a model with an Exsanguinator may ignore a failed save.."

Page 24 BBB: " "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP."

Now, I had originally read that to very simply mean that unsaved wounds include wounds which no save can be attempted.


It has been pointed out, and i agree to an extent that a failed save is not the same as an unsaved wound.

So in a nutshell, how did you guys get to the conclusion that by RAW (as noted in the INAT) you could use the exsanguinator to ignore an AP1/AP2/AP3 shot?

Thanks in advance.

-Mort.

A failed save can include where you automatically failed the save.

Automatically failed is still == failed save.

Sadly though (and correct me if im wrong here), the book doesnt say automatically failed, it says "does not get a save" or 'suffers an unsaved wound' - which is not the same, no?

I would just treat it like FNP AP1/2 weapons that ignore armor (power weapons) are wounds that no save can be attempted.

so you get hit by a lascannon you cant use it, you get hit by a rending assault cannon you cant use, it power weapon cant use it, etc... is basically FNP (that auto passes) once per turn on one model within 6". This is how medics used to work until GW got smart and just said the whole squad gets FNP.

da gob smaka - can you please elaborate on the how medics used to work - (I know they were similar/identical to BA/DA narth now) but i need a bit more clarification.

I also need to know "why" you would "just treat it like FNP AP1/AP2).

Because at current the argument is that: "No save can be attempted does not = failed save"

I've read and re-read the the rules, and ap1,2,and 3 wounds fall under the ruling of the BGB; They are unsaved wounds. Power weapons and ID are specifically called out by the exsanguinator, and therefor are exceptions to the 'unsaved wounds' which may be ignored.

A Wound that allows no save is still an unsaved wound.

Geeze, and People think I am a Nitpicker

Can you clarify how you came to that conclusion at all?

How do we get that no save = unsaved ?

edit:

Especially when we have this on pg 20 - "If the weapon's AP value is equal to or lower than the models armour save then..[..] the target gets no armour save at all."

and this on page 27: "The lower the number, the better the weapon is at piercing armour, cancelling the target's armour save.

Again, how can you fail something you don't have?


Im aware (As mentioned) that the INAT FAQ lists "no save= unsaved" as a clarification. I would like to know what the grounds are for this.

Also, just for the record, I'm playing devils advocate with this, because as the INAT stands (as a BA player) this benefits me greatly. I just don't like to cheat my opponents.

Morticon wrote:Can you clarify how you came to that conclusion at all?

How do we get that no save = unsaved ?

edit:

Especially when we have this on pg 20 - "If the weapon's AP value is equal to or lower than the models armour save then..[..] the target gets no armour save at all."

and this on page 27: "The lower the number, the better the weapon is at piercing armour, cancelling the target's armour save.

Again, how can you fail something you don't have?


Im aware (As mentioned) that the INAT FAQ lists "no save= unsaved" as a clarification. I would like to know what the grounds are for this.

Also, just for the record, I'm playing devils advocate with this, because as the INAT stands (as a BA player) this benefits me greatly. I just don't like to cheat my opponents.

You quoted the rule itself......

Morticon wrote:

Page 24 BBB: " "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP."

I did you the favor of emboldening the relevant part.

How can a wound that wasn't saved (regardless of whether or not you get to attempt a save) be anything but unsaved? It's literally the definition of the word.

Lordhat - thats the quote I originally tried to use to defend my position.

However, on closer inspection, this simply means that:

(quoted from a poster on another board)

Yes, we're saying that pg. 24 says, in logical progression:
All "failed saves" cause "unsaved wounds".
All "not allowed a save" cause "unsaved wounds".
But not all unsaved wounds are failed saves, since failing a save is only one of two ways to arrive at "unsaved wounds".

Like how all fruit aren't apples.


And to answer your question,(this is gonna sound pedantic, so apologies in advance, its just was has been thrown at me) the wound was not "not saved" it was not allowed a save. The save was cancelled.

So the argument still hinges on proving that unsaved wounds are equal to failed saves.

><; Can you point me in the right direction?

It's not quite as cut-and-dried as FnP...

On the one hand it can be argued that ignoring an armour save is not the same as causing a model to automatically fail an armour save. Against a wound caused by an attack which ignores armour saves no save can be attempted, which means there is nothing to fail; the wound is simply applied automatically and thus is not an "unsaved wound". Saving throws can still be attempted against such wounds for models with invulnerable or cover saves, and so for these models the wound isn't automatic, it's application requires the failure of a saving throw, and thus any wound against such a model will always be an "unsaved wound" regardless of wether or not the attack ignores armour saves.

On the other hand, it's also arguable that ignoring a saving throw is the same as causing the model to automatically fail it. This is harder to evince, since 40K doesn't have an in-house definition of the word "ignore", and going by the English language definition applied in the context of the process by which wounds are scored in 40K, you've got to conclude that the armour save is simply negated. It doesn't happen. There's nothing to fail.

Frankly I think this is a case where an FAQ is needed for set-in-stone clarification, and although I'm partial to not calling it an unsaved wound in the case of models whose only saving throw(s) are ignored by the weapon causing the wound, I'd be willing to dice for it.

Frank Fugger wrote:
On the one hand it can be argued that ignoring an armour save is not the same as causing a model to automatically fail an armour save. Against a wound caused by an attack which ignores armour saves no save can be attempted, which means there is nothing to fail; the wound is simply applied automatically and thus is not an "unsaved wound". Saving throws can still be attempted against such wounds for models with invulnerable or cover saves, and so for these models the wound isn't automatic, it's application requires the failure of a saving throw, and thus any wound against such a model will always be an "unsaved wound" regardless of wether or not the attack ignores armour saves.

What I think some people seem to be forgetting is that the rule has no effect on unsaved wounds. The rule only tells you to ignore one failed save. If nothing happened that allowed you to take a save, then you can't have failed one.

How I would view this one, mechanically in any case, is that the rule lets you reroll one save, with the result automatically being a 6. If all you have is power armor and you get hit with a plasmagun, that 6 isn't going to help you.

No offence, but you are ignoring rules.

Page 24: "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP."

So being hit by plasma DOES count as an Unsaved wound, which is the same as failing a save.

Deffgob wrote:What I think some people seem to be forgetting is that the rule has no effect on unsaved wounds. The rule only tells you to ignore one failed save. If nothing happened that allowed you to take a save, then you can't have failed one.

See, this changes everything; thanks for pointing it out

So basically, yeah; unless you've rolled a saving throw and failed it the Exsanguinator has no effect. Seems pretty clear-cut now.

Frank Fugger wrote:

Deffgob wrote:What I think some people seem to be forgetting is that the rule has no effect on unsaved wounds. The rule only tells you to ignore one failed save. If nothing happened that allowed you to take a save, then you can't have failed one.

See, this changes everything; thanks for pointing it out

So basically, yeah; unless you've rolled a saving throw and failed it the Exsanguinator has no effect. Seems pretty clear-cut now.

You did bother to read my post?
Failing a Save and suffering an Unsaved wound are One and the Same.

Gwar! wrote:You did bother to read my post?
Failing a Save and suffering an Unsaved wound are One and the Same.

No they're not; they're utterly different. In one scenario you have taken a saving throw and failed it; in the other no saving throw has been taken, thus nothing has been failed, and you've been wounded automatically. It doesn't magically start being true just because you keep saying it.

Frank Fugger wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You did bother to read my post?
Failing a Save and suffering an Unsaved wound are One and the Same.

No they're not; they're utterly different. In one scenario you have taken a saving throw and failed it; in the other no saving throw has been taken, thus nothing has been failed, and you've been wounded automatically. It doesn't magically start being true just because you keep saying it.

Look, I posted the damn rule:

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

Therefore, Failing a save = Unsaved wound

"Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP."

Again, It includes wounds that allow no armour save.

Gwar! wrote:Look, I posted the damn rule:
"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
Therefore, Failing a save = Unsaved wound
"Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP."
Again, It includes wounds that allow no armour save.

Well done to you. Here's the BA Armoury description of the item:

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.

May ignore a failed save. Not an unsaved wound; a failed save. There's the difference; "unsaved wound" can include whatever it wants to, but if you didn't take a saving throw then the Exsanguinator isn't working for you. No save was attempted, ergo there was nothing to be failed, your model is dead, TY'n'HAND.

Well you didn't say it had a clause saying it doesn't work against attacks that ignore the Armour save did you?

Next time, post the whole rule.

What that quote proves is that all failed saves are unsaved wounds, but it does not prove that all unsaved wounds are failed saves. It would be like saying all wounds that are double your toughness cause ID, therefore all wounds that cause ID are double your toughness.

So the debate is
a. when you are not allowed to take a save, it is an automatic failure.
or
b. when you're not allowed to take a save, there is no save at all.

As far as I've seen, there really isn't a rule basis for going one way or the other. But I do enjoy learning things, so I encourage you to find why I'm wrong.

Gwar! wrote:Well you didn't say it had a clause saying it doesn't work against attacks that ignore the Armour save did you?

Next time, post the whole rule.

The BA Codex is on the GW website. Checking the material before you start arguing about it will prevent further instances of cockitude on your part.

Frank Fugger wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well you didn't say it had a clause saying it doesn't work against attacks that ignore the Armour save did you?

Next time, post the whole rule.

The BA Codex is on the GW website. Checking the material before you start arguing about it will prevent further instances of cockitude on your part.

Yeah, because I have to waste my HDD space on crap.

c'mon guys, let's settle down.

Gwar! wrote:Yeah, because I have to waste my HDD space on crap.

Or you could just open it in the browser like everyone else.

The salient point is not knowing what you're pontificating about leads to cockitude, which is a lesson pertinent to all of life, not just the bit where we're arguing about Blood Angels wargear.

Mort, I will apologize now if English isn't your first language, and you're having some translation issues.

You HAVE to get your questions straight.

You asked:

Morticon wrote:Can you clarify how you came to that conclusion at all?

How do we get that no save = unsaved ?

I answered:

Lordhat wrote:
You quoted the rule itself......

Morticon wrote:

Page 24 BBB: " "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP."

I did you the favor of emboldening the relevant part.

How can a wound that wasn't saved (regardless of whether or not you get to attempt a save) be anything but unsaved? It's literally the definition of the word.

You then tried to apply this answer to a DIFFERENT question which is:

"Are ALL unsaved wounds the result of failed saves?" Which I didn't address at all.

I can see the argument that a failed save is not the same thing as an unsaved wound. The problem I have with that position is the second part of the exsanguinator rule that states it cannot be used against instant death and wounds caused by close combat weapons that don't allow saves. If the exsanguinator can't be used against any wound that defeats the target model's armor, then specifically calling out close combat attacks in this manner is superfluous. Also, by specifying that it can't be used against ID and close combat attacks that ignore armor saves, it implies that it works on everything else. This is what I think drove the answer in the INAT FAQ.

Firstly Gwar - I posted the rule in my first post. So you didnt have to waste valuable HDD space on it

Secondly- please read below where I think your logic is going wrong (and help me out where i'm going wrong if you think its otherwise).


Lordhat-

Firstly to answer your question in the first post (which I didnt).

"How can a wound that wasn't saved (regardless of whether or not you get to attempt a save) be anything but unsaved? "

Simply because nowhere does it say that a failed wound is = to an unsaved wound.

Secondly,

You said i applied your answer to a different question or one that you "didnt address at all" - which is not true. You did address it.

The post you emboldened boils down to saying:

"Failed armour Saves = unsaved wounds
and No armour saves from AP weapons = unsaved wounds."

Its a fallacious leap to then assert that no armour saves from AP weapons = failed armour saves.

in phi 101 -

all dogs have four legs
all cats have four legs
therefore all dogs are cats.

I think you're falling into the same trap that I did- which is thinking that the 2nd quoted sentence from pg 24 is somehow saying that unsaved wounds= failed saved.
Its not.
Its saying that wounds from AP weapons are unsaved.


For the record, once again, I was in your camp before I was shown what seemed to be my mistake.

I'm not a stubborn person, so I'm happy to be convinced otherwise with better logic.

Thanks in advance.

ps: No need to apologise. English is my first language(I teach it actually), I just assumed it was yours too. Which is why I thought you knew the implications of the sentences you posted.

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 friend of mine uses one of these models and told me about this exact argument from another forum so i hope i can remember some of the conclusion from when he explained it to me.

first off there's a direct ruling from Adepticon, that i cannot find at the moment, where they said that " failed save == unsaved wound" but some people see that like GW FAQs in that they aren't hard rules.
After that there is the explicit wording in the last sentence. It won't work against instant death or close combat attacks that ignore armor saves. So by exclusion it is able to work on shooting attacks that ignore armor saves, such as high AP.

wizerdree 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 friend of mine uses one of these models and told me about this exact argument from another forum so i hope i can remember some of the conclusion from when he explained it to me.

first off there's a direct ruling from Adepticon, that i cannot find at the moment, where they said that " failed save == unsaved wound" but some people see that like GW FAQs in that they aren't hard rules.
After that there is the explicit wording in the last sentence. It won't work against instant death or close combat attacks that ignore armor saves. So by exclusion it is able to work on shooting attacks that ignore armor saves, such as high AP.

Did you read my first post? The INAT IS the Adepticon FAQ. And while that is one of the most succinct FAQs ive read and while I generally support it wholeheartedly, my question is still:

"So in a nutshell, how did you guys get to the conclusion that by RAW (as noted in the INAT) you could use the exsanguinator to ignore an AP1/AP2/AP3 shot? "

Or maybe I should have asked how did they arrive at the conclusion that failed = unsaved considering all that has been said above.

Still waiting for the counter lads.

Thanks in advance.