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.

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.

The Exsanguinator rule says nothing about armor saves...it just says "failed save". This could be an armor save, an I save, or a cover save (or something else entierly I suppose so long as it is called a save). In either case, so long as the hit doesn't cause instant death or ignore armor saves (power fist) then it seems like this is all good. In a bad way.

So how are we supposed to judge whether a hit causes Instant Death on a vehicle, or ignores that vehicle's armour save?

A vehicle is never affected by Instant Death, as it does not have a Toughness value. Thus, we judge that no hit will inflict Instant Death on a vehicle.

Also, technically, even a vehicle cannot use the Exsanguinator against Power-Fists, and such. These are close-combat attacks that ignore armour saves, which is a condition that disallows the use of the Exsanguinator.

nurglitch, so if a model is unable to be instantly killed its now a vehicle, and same with a model with no save?

things like this would mention if it has no effect on a vehicle.
they wouldnt leave a hole like this.

Though it is somewhat difficult to prove on his part, I strongly agree with Nurglitch. It sounds ridiculous to imply it can be used on daddy's favorite Land Raider or some such. I'm not digging into this debate, just offering my support to what is the obviously correct choice.

Smashotron wrote:Though it is somewhat difficult to prove on his part, I strongly agree with Nurglitch. It sounds ridiculous to imply it can be used on daddy's favorite Land Raider or some such. I'm not digging into this debate, just offering my support to what is the obviously correct choice.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you or that it shouldn't happy and I hope everyone plays the way it was obviously intended (I hope no-one is will to argue that the RAW was what was intended).

It seems many agree that by RAW the cover save is rerollable. People disagree with Nurglythingwhatyamacallit over his logic. He is saying because it cannot suffer ID that the rules don't apply. Others are saying that the ability of a model to suffer ID isn't a requirement to us an ensaguinator (spelling?) - which is what I agree with. Right by RAW, wrong by RAI.

That's pretty much the consensus.

It's just GW cutting out text when copy-pasting the rules for Narthecium/Reductor from Codex: Space Marines. A few little words have fallen by the wayside as the target of this equipment in the longer description is "a friendly non-vehicle model".

Nurglitch wrote:frgsinwntr:

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

I don't understand the meaning of that, can you make an analogy that would be commonly encountered in day to day living? I believe the intent of the rule is clear, but I do not understand that because two of the categories for exclusion from the rule do not apply to vehicles then the entire rule does not apply to vehicles.

Spetulhu:

Correct. Both Codex: Space Marines and Codex Black Templars use the redundant expression, while Codex: Dark Angels and Codex: Blood Angels use the shorter form.

Grignard:

I think you'd have to tell me what you consider 'day to day living' for me to give you any kind of analogy that you could relate to effectively enough to make this clear, but I'll give you one anyways.

Suppose you're stopping to gas up your car. Your owner's manual tells you not to put leaded fuel in your car, and to avoid a certain ethanol content (20%).

But the station only has a leaded gasoline, an unleaded gasoline with 20% ethanol, and diesel. Given that the manual simply said 'fuel' rather than specifying gasoline or diesel, do you go ahead and fill up your tank with diesel, since it is neither leaded nor cut with ethanol, or do you drive onto the next station because your manual is clearly talking about additives to gasoline?

Everyone agrees that the Exsanguinator should not be allowable on vehicles because there is no precedence and no reasonable interpretation of events that would allow a combat medic to somehow "heal" his tank.

Everyone also agrees, save Nurglitch, that going by the strict RAW, that combat medic can indeed put bandaids over lascannon holes.

Exsanguinator applies to 'models' and can remedy 'failed saves' as long as they did not inflict 'instant death' or were caused by an armor-ignoring attack.

1. Vehicles are models
2. Vehicles can fail saves (i.e. cover)
3. Vehicles cannot be affected by instant death
4. is determined by attacking model

Until somebody can prove that a vehicle is not a model, a vehicle cannot fail a save, or that a vehicle can be affected by instant death, this one is perfectly valid by RAW.

Nobody in their right mind, however, would actually allow it, and I doubt that tournament organizers/judges would be much put-upon if they decided it was not valid.

sourclams wrote:Nobody in their right mind, however, would actually allow it, and I doubt that tournament organizers/judges would be much put-upon if they decided it was not valid.

QFT. If anyone tried that with me, I just wouldn't play with them again. I'm sure everyone else he plays against would feel the same way, and that person wouldn't play again. Problem solved

Want some other ridiculous Blood Angel RAW argument?

Psychic Hood: Declare use after opponent uses a psychic power. Both players roll a D6 and add their model's Leadership to the score. If the Librarian scores higher, then the power may not be used.

Now I don't have a 5th ed rulebook nearby as well to check this, BUT, it says use a power, not make a psychic test/leadership test, etc. So, you want to use Synapse to stop instant death? I'll Hood that. Destructor from a Warlock? I'll Hood that. You want to use Warp Field on your Zoey to make a 2+ armor save? I'll Hood that.

it's kinda funny if you compare the various versions of the apothecary that will be legal once the 5th Ed C:SM is released - one affects models, one affects non-vehicle models, and one gives FNP.

being that the last one is so drastic from the others, can we assume that there is no clear intent to create conformity amongst the types of apothecaries - and since there is no clear attempt at conformity, can't way say that negating vehicle cover saves is perfectly legitimate?

IDK anything about the debate (fun just to read)

@ HarveyDent - not all Doctors work the same. I find it interesting that Apothecaries work differntly also (adds much needed 'spice' to the vanilla pudding called Space Marines)

Is it really all that far-fetched? This is 40k. The prayers to fix a vehicle and to fix a person might not be all that different!

Nurglitch wrote:Spetulhu:

Correct. Both Codex: Space Marines and Codex Black Templars use the redundant expression, while Codex: Dark Angels and Codex: Blood Angels use the shorter form.

Grignard:

I think you'd have to tell me what you consider 'day to day living' for me to give you any kind of analogy that you could relate to effectively enough to make this clear, but I'll give you one anyways.

Suppose you're stopping to gas up your car. Your owner's manual tells you not to put leaded fuel in your car, and to avoid a certain ethanol content (20%).

But the station only has a leaded gasoline, an unleaded gasoline with 20% ethanol, and diesel. Given that the manual simply said 'fuel' rather than specifying gasoline or diesel, do you go ahead and fill up your tank with diesel, since it is neither leaded nor cut with ethanol, or do you drive onto the next station because your manual is clearly talking about additives to gasoline?

Ok, I think I understand that it is a matter of relevance. I know that in that situation I would infer that "fuel" was refering to gasoline, because I put gasoline in my car and the exceptions refer to properties of gasoline. The fact that diesel is not mentioned does not make it ok to put diesel in the car because diesel fuel is not being discussed in the "rules" that are mentioned, rather it is types of gasoline.

Incidentally though, my vehicle ( real one, not hypothetical one) specifically says "premium unleaded gasoline" so it is more explicit.

Grignard:

Correct. Hence the specific reference to vehicles is redundant.

Perhaps that is why it was cut from the Blood Angel's Codex, because it could be cut and convey the same information, thereby allowing all of the wargear entries to fit on a single page.

Most vehicle owners' manuals are written by technical writers who understand that you can't sacrifice that sort of specificity in a manual, particularly where flammable liquids are at issue.

You cannot wound a vehicle as it has no wounds in its stats.

G

Edit: Retracted because I may have been reading the wrong rules version.

Green Blow Fly wrote:You cannot wound a vehicle as it has no wounds in its stats.

G

The wargear entry never mentions wounding anything.

This is totally the way the rule is written but completely against the intent. With all the hurt the BAs has suffered I think we deserve this!!

blood angel wrote:With all the hurt the BAs has suffered I think we deserve this!!

I agree. You see, unlike other space marines BA don't use "Mars Pattern" equipment. This means that their cyclone missile launchers don't fire as many missiles and their vehicles can be patched up by medics.

If you want the fluff reason, it's because their apothecaries train with the techmarines. BA apothecaries have to know more about the machines since they have more dreadnaughts, including ones with death company interred in them.

I'm totally making that up, but it sounds good!

It can only work for a cover save because that is all a vehicle gets in that regard.

G

It doesn't even work for cover saves that vehicles get, because of the aforementioned fact that vehicles don't have armour saving throws to ignore and can't suffer Instant Death.

Ol' Nurgly, you still haven't proven that the Exanguinator requires a model to have an armor save, and be subject to instant death.

Grignard: Before you get too used to believing Nurglitch because he likes to use big words, bear in mind that some vehicles have engines that can use both diesel and gasoline (among other things). So in that case, his day to day example would not apply, just as his proposal here of how to read the rule does not apply.

Personally, I love the fact he had such a hard time coming up with a day to day example we could all understand! How strange and wonderfully disconnected from reality his life must be!

Nurglitch wrote:It doesn't even work for cover saves that vehicles get, because of the aforementioned fact that vehicles don't have armour saving throws to ignore and can't suffer Instant Death.

The exsanguinator doesn't specify armor saves. It says 'failed save'. Vehicles can take a cover save.

Not being able to suffer instant death is precisely what allows them to take a reroll from the exsanguinator.

Only a TOTAL douche would be:

* desperate enough to try this

* even think about doing it

G