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.

You can get a 1+ if you combine... nah, just kidding.

I remember a debate a while back on whether or not you must use the best possible save available in a situation where you have both a cover/armour/invulnerable save. Pg.24 BRB mentions that a model would have "the advantage of always using the best possible save" when describing this type of scenario.

1) Do we take this to mean that you are forced to take the best possible save available to you, even if it might be tactically suitable to avoid taking the better save?
2) Do you have to take a save at all or can you opt out of it entirely?
3) If 1 is true, how do you determine the "best possible save" in unique circumstances where you must reroll particular saves. Such as in the following:

ex) A group of Guardsmen (with a 5+ armour save) in 4+ cover are wounded by lasguns while under the effects of the order "Fire on My Target!" Successful 4+ saves must be re-rolled but the 5+ save is unaffected. Must you take the 4+ re-roll (since it is 'better' than the 5+) or do you have to break out your calculator to figure out which is statistically more likely to fail?

I have my own opinions, but I'd like to get some wiser, unbiased views. As always, apologies if this has been discussed to death.

DoW

I would go with having to pick the best available save, statistically. So the 5+ armor save, unless you want to go to ground and reroll a 3+, which would be better. Give you a chance to practice your maths skills as well.

1) You MUST use the best save available, you have no choice
2) You MUST take the best save available to you, you have no choice
3) you determine the best possible save, and take that one.

Determining your chance to save in this instance isn't that hard either.

(N/6)^2 where N is your chance to make the save.

(3/6)^2 = 1/4 So you have a 1 in 4 chance to make your cover save while you have a 1 in 3 (2/6) chance to make a 5+ save. 5+ is better.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) You MUST use the best save available, you have no choice
2) You MUST take the best save available to you, you have no choice
3) you determine the best possible save, and take that one.

Best = most likely to result in successful save?

or

Best = lowest numerical save regardless of other factors?

Axyl wrote:Determining your chance to save in this instance isn't that hard either.

(N/6)^2 where N is your chance to make the save.

(3/6)^2 = 1/4 So you have a 1 in 4 chance to make your cover save while you have a 1 in 3 (2/6) chance to make a 5+ save. 5+ is better.

Fair enough, but I doubt too many players would have known how to accomplish this (or be bothered, quite frankly). Granted, it's not a common circumstance, but if the rules are actually requiring you to determine the statistical likelihood of passing multiple saves I would think that's a wee bit excessive.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) You MUST use the best save available, you have no choice
2) You MUST take the best save available to you, you have no choice
3) you determine the best possible save, and take that one.

Best = most likely to result in successful save?

or

Best = lowest numerical save regardless of other factors?

Saves are defined in the book simply as the numerical characteristic, iirc.

Gorkamorka wrote:

DogOfWar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) You MUST use the best save available, you have no choice
2) You MUST take the best save available to you, you have no choice
3) you determine the best possible save, and take that one.

Best = most likely to result in successful save?

or

Best = lowest numerical save regardless of other factors?

Saves are defined in the book simply as the numerical characteristic, iirc.

The issue is that the book does not define which save is best. If you go by the number only, you are clearly not taking the best possible save in some cases.

thebetter1 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

DogOfWar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) You MUST use the best save available, you have no choice
2) You MUST take the best save available to you, you have no choice
3) you determine the best possible save, and take that one.

Best = most likely to result in successful save?

or

Best = lowest numerical save regardless of other factors?

Saves are defined in the book simply as the numerical characteristic, iirc.

The issue is that the book does not define which save is best. If you go by the number only, you are clearly not taking the best possible save in some cases.

There's no issue if a 'save' is defined as the simple numerical characteristic. You simply take the better one numerically, in this case the 4+, as the actual likelyhood of survival in a given situation never comes into play.

Gorkamorka wrote:There's no issue if a 'save' is defined as the simple numerical characteristic. You simply take the better one numerically, in this case the 4+, as the actual likelyhood of survival in a given situation never comes into play.

Okay, then where in the rulebook does it say that a 4+ save is better than a 5+ with re-rolls?

It does not need to define the phrase "best save" - the english language does that for you.

What are you trying to do when you "save" a wound? You are trying to prevent that wound. The "best save" is something that is best at preventing that wound.

thebetter1 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:There's no issue if a 'save' is defined as the simple numerical characteristic. You simply take the better one numerically, in this case the 4+, as the actual likelyhood of survival in a given situation never comes into play.

Okay, then where in the rulebook does it say that a 4+ save is better than a 5+ with re-rolls?

Where in the rulebook does it say that 3 is lower than 4 for determining armour saves?

It doesn't go into re-rolls of saves that are inferior to other saves, it just looks at saves. I would think 'best save' is simply your lowest valid save, rather than whatever save ultimately leads to better chances overall of saving a wound through re-rolls and such. A save is a save. A re-roll would be the same inferior save just taken again.

Without any clarification on what best is, there is no reason to think that re-rolls cannot be taken into account.

The ability to re-roll doesn't change what your save is, a 5+ save.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Without any clarification on what best is, there is no reason to think that re-rolls cannot be taken into account.

If saves are simply the numerical chracteristic, then comparing saves to one another never takes rerolls or any other outside factor into account.
A 'save' isn't the calculated chance that the unit will survive given all appropriate factors, it's simply an integer predetermined by the model/wargear/cover/whatever.

The 'best' save is indeed debatable, but I'm of the mind that it is simply comparing the saves themselves and not the effects or probable results of the given attack.

It's a 5+ save with a reroll.

Let's say, in an absurdly hypothetical situation, you're an I6 WS2 S3 T3 A2 low Ld model with 2 wounds left on profile. You're in a multiple combat with an I3 WS6 S6 T6 A4 Ld9 monstrous creature and a basic I2 A1 infantry model.

Your attacks do nothing to the monstrous creature and infantry model, who just charged you that turn. By the grace of god, not one of the monstrous creatures attacks made it through both the to hit and to wound rolls. The infantry model then manages to wound you and you have the "choice" of a 2+ armour save or a 6+ invulnerable save.

You figure you'll fail your Ld if you take a wound, but you'll more than likely win the sweeping advance roll to successfully fall back. Plus you have a model waiting in your fallback path with an AoE "use my super high Ld" thing that will make your regrouping a safe bet. But to take your 2+ save the combat will likely be drawn and next assault phase you're surely dead from at least one of these ID inflicting monstrous attacks.

You would have to work that stuff out to see which save would give you the "best chance of survival"?

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) You MUST use the best save available, you have no choice
2) You MUST take the best save available to you, you have no choice
3) you determine the best possible save, and take that one.

Problem is, it never says that.

"has the advantage of always using the best available save." That can be read as optional.

The only time it talks about determining the best save and using it is when a unit is in two different types of cover. Other than that, there is no such statement as "must use best possible save".

I don't see how that can be read as optional, unless you're suggesting 'advantage' implies choice.

Could "has the disadvantage of always taking the worst available save" also be read to imply it's completely optional?

"has the advantage". Just because you have an advantage does not mean you MUST use it.

Ridcully wrote:

Could "has the disadvantage of always taking the worst available save" also be read to imply it's completely optional?

Yes, it could, unless there was a statement elsewhere that you are required to take the worst save. That sounds silly, but, frankly, no sillier than a lot of things that are determined on this forum. . .

Ridcully wrote:You would have to work that stuff out to see which save would give you the "best chance of survival"?

Save is not the chance of survival.

don_mondo wrote:
"has the advantage of always using the best available save." That can be read as optional.

I think the word you need to listen to is " always ". ALWAYS use best save. period. how you work out wich save is best is up to the players but always is always...

no option...just always.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Ridcully wrote:You would have to work that stuff out to see which save would give you the "best chance of survival"?

Save is not the chance of survival.

I said save. Save for the best chance of survival, which is from the BRB. I'm not making things up here

VoXX wrote:

don_mondo wrote:
"has the advantage of always using the best available save." That can be read as optional.

I think the word you need to listen to is " always ". ALWAYS use best save. period. how you work out wich save is best is up to the players but always is always...

no option...just always.

I have the advantage of always filling up my car at the station closest to my house. Does that mean I MUST fill up at the gas station closest to my house? No, it doesn't, it means I always have that option. The word always in that sentence means that the option is always available, it does not mean you must always use it.

That would be "i always have the advantage of...", not "my advantage is that i always..."

Ridcully is correct.

Don_Mondo your statement "I have the advantage of always filling up my car" implies that you always fill up your car.

I can't see how using the "best" save would make sense if it minimized your chances of survival. It's counter productive to say the least. You're always supposed to maximize your chances of survival by using your best save. That much is clear. But when your best save doesn't give you the best chance of survival, the rule breaks down in my opinion. Otherwise they might as well have written that you're free to pick and choose what save to use, no matter what, so that you can choose when you want to survive and when you don't want to.

As long as nobody tries to decide which way to use depending on the situation. This is what will happen though, unless you sit down and discuss it before the game, it's hard to stay unbiased in the middle of a fight. Personally, if my opponent wanted to take his rerollable 5+ armor save, instead of his single roll 4+ cover save, just to maximize chances of survival, I would allow him. Intentionally trying to lose figures by rolling the cover save, just so he could roll a morale test and fall back from my approaching units would be a nono in my opinion. But as with any disagreement, if it crops up in game, roll off or roll a 4+ ruling.

Luckily I play with sensible people who aren't strict about RAW.

They talk about different saves and save modifiers to improve your save. That's about it. A 2+ can't be improved upon etc. I say go by what rules we have, without assuming the 2 small paragraphs are getting into anything more complex than they make out to be.

If it isn't clear that a 5+ (with the knowledge that a re-roll could follow) can be taken instead of a 4+, then take the 4+.

It mentions best save, not the best odds.