A Bloodthirster had rolled the greater reward that allows him to re-roll invulnerable throws. Normally he has a 5++, but on this turn i had rolled +1 to all invulns on the warpstorm, so it was now a 4++.
He was flying in front of a tau gunline trying to get the charge next turn. Now he came under a lot of fire, and i wanted to take his 4+ invuln re-rolling because i knew it was better odds than his 3+ armour. (1/4 chance of failure versus 1/3 chance).
But my opponent said that i could only use the best available save, which meant his 3+ armour, but i thought that "best available save" had different meaning.
Anyone have any idea on what to do in that situation?
Page 19 of the BRB just says to "always using the best available save". The example below that rule doesn't consider that a 'higher numerical save' could be better than a 'lower numerical save', it's just a simple way of showing the model doesn't get to use all the saves one-after-the-other.
I'm probably going to get shouted down on this one though (this has come up before and some people are quite vocal about it), but the BRB doesn't define how you work out which save is the "best available", it just assumes you can work it out yourself.
Going by the rulebook its hard to tell, but as its written in there I think you may actually have to use the best available save, this being the lowest value save. In this instance, your 3+.
That being said, Id interpret 'best save' as the one that is best in that situation, not necessarily the lowest number save. In this case, that would be your 4++ re-roll.
"a model... Has the advantage of always using the best available save." p. 19.
There are no specific guidelines on how to calculate this. Obviously, Math is the only way to determine it. 4++ with a reroll gives your model the best chance of scoring a save.
It seems to me that your opponent knew exactly which save was best and pushed you to take the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quanar wrote: Ah, Nos is right (as per normal), page 19 doesn't define what's better, but page 2 does (should really have thought to look at that).
I disagree, page 2 says "the lower theaarmor save is, the better." we aren't comparing 2 Armour saves, this sentence just clarifies that you want a lower number when comparing Armour stats.
I can't find any rules spelling out how to determine which is the best save, (the page 2 example reads like an explanatory throwaway line, and only applies to armour saves) so I'd say what constitutes the "best save" is pretty much at your discretion.
When youre told you take Invulnerable saves in the same way as armour saves, and that they use the same scale of "best", your comment doesnt pass the sniff test.
nosferatu1001 wrote: When youre told you take Invulnerable saves in the same way as armour saves, and that they use the same scale of "best", your comment doesnt pass the sniff test.
I do see what you're saying, but the thing says "best save possible". That's obviously the re-rollable 4++.
*shrug*
I have no skin in the game, and as a player or TO, I'd allow a roll off on this.
nosferatu1001 wrote: When youre told you take Invulnerable saves in the same way as armour saves, and that they use the same scale of "best", your comment doesnt pass the sniff test.
Your interpretation is a stretch. "best save" seems to me to be logically equivalent to "the save with the best chance of happening." in the OPs example, the opponent is obviously trying to force him to take the 3+ save because it has a higher chance of failure.
Exactly. I think we can all agree that the lower an armor save is, the better it is. I think we can also all agree that the best save, in the colloquial sense of the word, is the one that has the best odds of passing. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
To my mind there is zero ambiguity. Of course the best save is the 4++ re-rollable one, and that is what you have to use.
tgjensen wrote: Exactly. I think we can all agree that the lower an armor save is, the better it is. I think we can also all agree that the best save, in the colloquial sense of the word, is the one that has the best odds of passing. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
To my mind there is zero ambiguity. Of course the best save is the 4++ re-rollable one, and that is what you have to use.
If your opponent tried to make you play otherwise, it's obviously for their own best interest.
These kinds of rules discussions seem bizarre to me. The spirit of the rule is really indicating that only one save is made when multiple saves are available. Let the person making the save decide what they think the "best available" is. Seems like there are a lot of these kind of discussions where rules lawyers show up and discuss the merits of some exact twisted interpretation of the wording of some rule. Shouldn't common sense rule the day when it comes to things like this?
I started a thread a couple of weeks ago about fire points on a Rhino and it went on for 3 or more pages after the rule was clarified in the 2nd response.
OK, if you ignore the rule book determining what th ebest save is (the lowest valued save youre allowed to use) then the colloquial "best" varies too much to be of use
For example in CC i may want to use a 6+ armour instead of a 4+ invulnerable in order to g'tee being wiped, so I can shoot your unit instead on my turn. Therefore my "best" save is the option whereby I die.
So no, dont do that. Instead, follow what the rulebook tells you is best - which is the lowest numbered save you can take.
nosferatu1001 wrote: OK, if you ignore the rule book determining what th ebest save is (the lowest valued save youre allowed to use) then the colloquial "best" varies too much to be of use
For example in CC i may want to use a 6+ armour instead of a 4+ invulnerable in order to g'tee being wiped, so I can shoot your unit instead on my turn. Therefore my "best" save is the option whereby I die.
So no, dont do that. Instead, follow what the rulebook tells you is best - which is the lowest numbered save you can take.
Straw man argument. No one is saying the best save is what the player determines the best outcome to be. The best save is the one with the highest (best?) probability of happening. To argue otherwise is intentionally obfuscating the issue, page 2 doesn't give a definitive answer. Basic logic and math gives us a very clear answer. Why make this more difficult than it has to be?
No, it is not a straw man. It is saying that once you avoid using the rules which define "best", your idea of "best" will differ from someone elses.
Because page 2 DOES give you the answer. The best save is the save with the lower number, because a 6+ is better than -, and 5+ is better than 4+. So a 4+ save, if you also have a 5+ and 6+, is the best save of the 3.
This isnt complicatiing things, and is unlike your method even easier, as it requires no calculations during the game.
Acrimonious wrote: The best save is the one with the highest (best?) probability of happening.
Page 2 wrote:Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better.
Meaning for Armor saves, a 3+ is "better" than a 4+ re-rollable. Unarguable fact. Page 16 re-iterates this with:
Page 16 wrote:If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound. This means that, unlike other characteristics, an Armour Save is better if it is a lower number.
[quote=Page 19 In these cases,a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.
We've defined better as being lower, which means best must mean lowest.
Page 17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.
And here we have the only defined difference in the rules between an Invul Save and an Armor save.
To argue otherwise is intentionally obfuscating the issue, page 2 doesn't give a definitive answer. Basic logic and math gives us a very clear answer. Why make this more difficult than it has to be?
No - to argue otherwise is using the actual rules and not making up what we want them to be.
Acrimonious wrote: When is the best available save not the best available save? When youre playing these guys. ^^^
The OP has all the needed info to make an informed decision /argument so I'll back out now and hope I don't run into you at the FLGS.
This is a RAW forum. We're trying to figure out what exactly the rules say regarding this potentially confusing issue. The OP did not specify that he wanted a HIWPI answer, and YMDC defaults to a RAW answer. Thus, a discussion of what "best" means in the 40kBRB.
If you don't want to contribute to the discussion, then don't feel pressured to post.
Acrimonious wrote: When is the best available save not the best available save? When youre playing these guys. ^^^
The OP has all the needed info to make an informed decision /argument so I'll back out now and hope I don't run into you at the FLGS.
This is a RAW forum. We're trying to figure out what exactly the rules say regarding this potentially confusing issue. The OP did not specify that he wanted a HIWPI answer, and YMDC defaults to a RAW answer. Thus, a discussion of what "best" means in the 40kBRB.
If you don't want to contribute to the discussion, then don't feel pressured to post.
Just when you think you're out...
I prefer the best rules interpretation with the info available. The p. 19 sentence in question states best save as well as saying the model gets the advantage. If you take the "lower is better in all cases" definition, this sentence contradicts itself because it tells you to take a save that doesn't give the model the advantage.
From the previous few responses it seems i hit a nerve lol. Honest question though: what do RAW people do when the rules contradict themselves?
Acrimonious wrote: When is the best available save not the best available save? When youre playing these guys. ^^^
The OP has all the needed info to make an informed decision /argument so I'll back out now and hope I don't run into you at the FLGS.
This is a RAW forum. We're trying to figure out what exactly the rules say regarding this potentially confusing issue. The OP did not specify that he wanted a HIWPI answer, and YMDC defaults to a RAW answer. Thus, a discussion of what "best" means in the 40kBRB.
If you don't want to contribute to the discussion, then don't feel pressured to post.
Just when you think you're out...
I prefer the best rules interpretation with the info available. The p. 19 sentence in question states best save as well as saying the model gets the advantage. If you take the "lower is better in all cases" definition, this sentence contradicts itself because it tells you to take a save that doesn't give the model the advantage.
From the previous few responses it seems i hit a nerve lol. Honest question though: what do RAW people do when the rules contradict themselves?
It's rarely an actual contradiction, but in many cases I 4+ it at the table, or just dgaf and go with whatever.
I'm really easygoing to play with. I just enjoy debating what the rules actually say - and in this case it's absolutely clear.
Yeah, RAW seems pretty clear. If "best" means "has the best chance to succeed", then page 2 disallows gaining any benefit from casting Fortune on a 2+ (or 3+) save - you can never have better than a 2+. Not that I would play it this way.
Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.
Next, people will be arguing about 'best' when they want to kill off your own model. IE, your model has a 2+/5++ save and is your last model in a unit, and you want him to die in assault so you can shoot at the enemy unit next turn. In this case, the 5++ would give you the 'best' chance at that happening instead of your 2+.
3+ is obviously better than 4++ if you have the option to take either.
deviantduck wrote: Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.
Now who is inferring?
Best is whatever has best odds of succeeding. Page 2 only talks about better saves, which is true in and of itself. But it never talks about best. We know this, because the 4+ re-rollable is clearly better than the 3+.
Acri - it isnt debateable though, and there is no contradiction. The best save is defined as the lowest number. This isnt, actually, arguable in rules.
Please read the tenets, and make it clear when you are proposing houserules, as it helps people avoid trying to argue with you
deviantduck wrote: Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.
Now who is inferring?
Best is whatever has best odds of succeeding. Page 2 only talks about better saves, which is true in and of itself. But it never talks about best. We know this, because the 4+ re-rollable is clearly better than the 3+.
We know you cannot improve a save beyond a 2+.
Does that mean you can't Fortune a 2+ unit? What about a 2++ save - is that different?
Or perhaps - just maybe - the maths don't even come in to play and best is the numerically lower save. You know - the way the rules actually play out.
Nem wrote: The second paragraph under 'Models with more than one savin throw' takes into account more than just the numeric value of the save.
Niether of these saves are affected by the AP of the weapon, so the captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving
Bad example - the cover save is better than the invul save in that example.
I would also like to point out
but has the advantage of always using the best avaliable save
This is not written as a requirement, You may have muliple saves, but have the advantage of always using the best avaliable save, this is a choice.
It's written as an absolute - meaning you must use the best available save. If you don't you did not use that advantage.
If we always HAD to use the numerically best save avaliable you would have 2+ armor models having to use that save, even when against AP2 weapons, as 2+ is the numeric better, even if the AP value is enough to negate the save.
If you're shot with an AP weapon and your AS <= AP you don't have an Armor Save available.
If we always HAD to use the numerically best save avaliable you would have 2+ armor models having to use that save, even when against AP2 weapons, as 2+ is the numeric better, even if the AP value is enough to negate the save.
If you're shot with an AP weapon and your AS <= AP you don't have an Armor Save available.
Bottom line:
We know the rules say you cannot improve a 2+ save.
Advocates of the OP taking his 4++ rerollable:
Can you cast Fortune on a unit of 2+ save models? By your definition that's improving a 2+ save. Please address this illegality.
Nem wrote: The second paragraph under 'Models with more than one savin throw' takes into account more than just the numeric value of the save.
Niether of these saves are affected by the AP of the weapon, so the captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving
Bad example - the cover save is better than the invul save in that example.
Regardless of whether the cover save was better or not, that sentence gives another definition of what the "best save" is; the one that gives him "the best chance of surviving". Normally that would be the lower numerical value, but not in this case.
Nem wrote: The second paragraph under 'Models with more than one savin throw' takes into account more than just the numeric value of the save.
Niether of these saves are affected by the AP of the weapon, so the captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving
Bad example - the cover save is better than the invul save in that example.
Regardless of whether the cover save was better or not, that sentence gives another definition of what the "best save" is; the one that gives him "the best chance of surviving". Normally that would be the lower numerical value, but not in this case.
rigeld2 wrote:Bottom line:
We know the rules say you cannot improve a 2+ save.
Advocates of the OP taking his 4++ rerollable:
Can you cast Fortune on a unit of 2+ save models? By your definition that's improving a 2+ save. Please address this illegality.
Please address my next post - the actual rules go on to prove your assumption incorrect.
The rule does not take into account any SRs. Only standard saves without rerolls or anything else special about them. A statement saying A > B cannot be used to prove A > C. In other words the armor save value rule given has no bearing on a 4++ with a reroll as no value is yet assigned to it.
Shandara wrote:If lower is better, lowest is best.
This is demonstrably not always true and therefore an unsound argument. Some peoples blood pressure for example.
Loborocket wrote: Shouldn't common sense rule the day when it comes to things like this?.
Abandon wrote: The rule does not take into account any SRs. Only standard saves without rerolls or anything else special about them. A statement saying A > B cannot be used to prove A > C. In other words the armor save value rule given has no bearing on a 4++ with a reroll as no value is yet assigned to it.
Shandara wrote:If lower is better, lowest is best.
This is demonstrably not always true and therefore an unsound argument. Some peoples blood pressure for example.
Except for the bit where it says that where Armour Saves are concerned, lower is better? We are given a very clear guideline how to determine which save is better, hence we have a guideline how to determine which is the best.
nosferatu1001 wrote: When youre told you take Invulnerable saves in the same way as armour saves, and that they use the same scale of "best", your comment doesnt pass the sniff test.
Your interpretation is a stretch. "best save" seems to me to be logically equivalent to "the save with the best chance of happening." in the OPs example, the opponent is obviously trying to force him to take the 3+ save because it has a higher chance of failure.
Logically yes.
RAW? I'd lean towards what Nosferatu said. The only example in the rules is x+ versus y+ with a lower stat being better. Hence I agree RAW 3+ is better than the re-rellable 4+, and so the 3+ must be used.
HIWPI? Take the 4++R. I do not believe GW intended one tyo take the 3+ when a 4++R is available. But that is just my interpretation. A strict reading of the rules means the 3+.
deviantduck wrote: Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.
Now who is inferring?
Best is whatever has best odds of succeeding. Page 2 only talks about better saves, which is true in and of itself. But it never talks about best. We know this, because the 4+ re-rollable is clearly better than the 3+.
Please tell me where the rulebook states that. Rigeld already pointed out the places in the rulebook where it always says the lower number is the better save. There's nothing else the rules tell you to check.
RAW the best save is hence the 3+. Nowhere in the BRB does it state that being re-rollable makes a 4++R better than a 3+.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and, as a side-note. Someone said a page back he'd not like to play certain people that dwell on this forum? I'm a bit baffled. If I could pick someone to play against from Dakka, it would probably be on of the usual YMDC regulars, such as Nos or Rigeld or DR or Happyjew etc. At least I'd know I'm playing against who really knows and understands the rules. It can only make for a smoother game imho.
deviantduck wrote: Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.
Next, people will be arguing about 'best' when they want to kill off your own model. IE, your model has a 2+/5++ save and is your last model in a unit, and you want him to die in assault so you can shoot at the enemy unit next turn. In this case, the 5++ would give you the 'best' chance at that happening instead of your 2+.
3+ is obviously better than 4++ if you have the option to take either.
Except 4++ is clearly better if it can be rerolled. The citations above saying that the lower number is the better are HARDLY clear grammar. It *implies* it at best. That said, I'd have to agree that it implies it better than the more logical best save being the one that gives you the best chance to save, so RAW I'd have to go with the 3+ being the proper save.
That said, my gaming group doesn't play it that way, and it seems an insane rules lawyering to claim it should be. Not getting to take advantage of your reroll-gift just because you have a better armour save? WOW.
We play it as you can choose one save, whichever save you want. If you wanna kill your guys off, yeah, you can choose the worse one. CLearly THAT is against RAW, but it streamlines the game. your save, your choice.
The way it's written, a unit with stealth and shrouded with a 4+ armour save sitting in a 5+ cover could arguably be forced to take the armour save because the statline compared is 4 vs 5. The others are modifiers, sort of in the same vein as the reroll.
It's like the argument we had before the FAQ on models with I1 weapons having to pile in at their statline initiative. It was silly and made the game less fun. This does too, when someone across the table goes "no, you have to use your gakky save because it's *better*" Just wow.
Purifier, Stealth and Shrouded modify the Cover Save. In your example it's a choice between a 4+ armor save and a 2+ Cover save.
Th Cover Save is better.
While not a direct comparison, the Necron FAQ specifies that you can not choose to use a Lychguard's invuln save so you can bounce the shot if they can still use their armor save.
From my understanding of the rules, the definition of "better" in the rule book is only how low the save is. Even if would be better for the survival of the unit to bounce a shot back, or have it reroll the worse save, it would still not be a lowest save or the "best" save.
It is folly to assume that Gamesworkshop thinks mathematically when making their rules. Mathammer is something we do in our head. the rules do not make use of mathammer.
rigeld2 wrote: Bottom line:
We know the rules say you cannot improve a 2+ save.
Advocates of the OP taking his 4++ rerollable:
Can you cast Fortune on a unit of 2+ save models? By your definition that's improving a 2+ save. Please address this illegality.
Anyone who disagrees with me should answer this. No one has yet.
rigeld2 wrote: Bottom line:
We know the rules say you cannot improve a 2+ save.
Advocates of the OP taking his 4++ rerollable:
Can you cast Fortune on a unit of 2+ save models? By your definition that's improving a 2+ save. Please address this illegality.
Anyone who disagrees with me should answer this. No one has yet.
thisisnotpancho wrote: i wanted to take his 4+ invuln re-rolling because i knew it was better odds than his 3+ armour. (1/4 chance of failure versus 1/3 chance).
I'm trying to get my head around this statement, dice have no memories, you've still only got a 1/2 chance of passing, just that you have two chances at it. That doesn't make it a 75% sucess rate.
thisisnotpancho wrote: i wanted to take his 4+ invuln re-rolling because i knew it was better odds than his 3+ armour. (1/4 chance of failure versus 1/3 chance).
I'm trying to get my head around this statement, dice have no memories, you've still only got a 1/2 chance of passing, just that you have two chances at it. That doesn't make it a 75% sucess rate.
Cheers
Andrew
4++ with reroll: You roll 4 dice. statistically, 50% succeed. You reroll the failed die (2 of them) statistically 50% succeed. Total, 3/4 succeeded that's 75%.
AndrewC wrote: Thats bad maths. Statistically, you still rolled 6 dice, for a 50% chance of acheiving the aim.
No, your math is bad.
Statistically it has a 75% chance of succeeding.
If you've rolled the first and failed, NOW you have a 50% chance of succeeding again.
But if you have 100 rolls to roll ONE 4+, you cannot in all seriousness think it good math to say there is a 50% chance of succeeding that? Because if you do, I'd like to see you bet me 1:1 that I'll succeed. Hell, I'll give you 10:1 odds. It's 50%, right? Money in the bank for you.
It's 75%. 1/2 chance of passing, half chance of a re-roll. The re-roll is again 1/2 chance of passing. So 1/2 + 1/2 of 1/2 is 3/4.
Otherwise, the odds and probabilities don't really work when talking about related events. Yes it's 50% per dice roll but that doesn't equate to it is always 50% probability of getting the result you want.
liturgies of blood wrote: It's 75%. 1/2 chance of passing, half chance of a re-roll. The re-roll is again 1/2 chance of passing. So 1/2 + 1/2 of 1/2 is 3/4.
This is right, although I would notate it as
.5+(.5*.5)=.75 or 1/2+(1/2*1/2)=3/4
It gets significantly harder when you're trying to calculate the odds of one 4+ in a batch of dice, or figure out (as my Psyfleman likes to do) the chance of a pen on a Flyer. Four TL Str8 shots, no Skyfire, AV12. I need 6's to hit, then I need 5+ to pen, he might Evade. Easy enough with one die...confusing with four.
I find it easier to demonstrate this in terms of coinfliips:
A 4+ save is (in theory) equivalent to a tossing a coin and getting a heads; both have a 50% chance of success.
Now, saying "you take a wound if the first save fails, you re-roll, and the second save fails" is equivalent to "you take a wound if you roll twice, and both fail" - if you're unclear on that, just imagine that having rolled them, the one nearer to you is automatically the "first" roll.
So a 4+ rerollable save is equivalent to tossing two coins, and only dying if both are tails. So look at the possibilities:
HH - Survives!
HT - Survives!
TH - Survives on the reroll!
TT - Dies...
Three times out of four you survive, so a 4+ rerollable has a 75% chance of success.
If you're still uncertain of this, please let me know which part of the reasoning you don't get and I'll be happy to clarify.
liturgies of blood wrote: It's 75%. 1/2 chance of passing, half chance of a re-roll. The re-roll is again 1/2 chance of passing. So 1/2 + 1/2 of 1/2 is 3/4.
This is right, although I would notate it as
.5+(.5*.5)=.75 or 1/2+(1/2*1/2)=3/4
It gets significantly harder when you're trying to calculate the odds of one 4+ in a batch of dice, or figure out (as my Psyfleman likes to do) the chance of a pen on a Flyer. Four TL Str8 shots, no Skyfire, AV12. I need 6's to hit, then I need 5+ to pen, he might Evade. Easy enough with one die...confusing with four.
In the future calculate your 1 die result and realize you have the chance 4 times. Obviously they can take into unrealistic territory like say 110% chance to succeed. but this will give you relative odds. The thing people tend to forget when calculating odds in this game is each die roll is an independent trial and previous die rolls do not impact future die rolls. Many people will say that rolling a 6 followed by a 6 is a 1 in 36 chance. But if you have already rolled the first six you are no more or less likely to get a 6 on the second roll meaning you have a 1 in 6 chance to get that second 6 once the first is rolled.
I'm running an Autarch with Harlequin's Mantle (or was it the wings that gave cover re-roll?) across open ground and he's then shot at by a group of tactical marines.
What prevents me from rolling 3+ armour save on the first save and 4+ cover save on the re-roll in case the first save failed?
The problem with that particular naivety, of course, is when a Farseer with a Warlock's armour strengthening suffers wounds from a vehicle explosion while under the effect of Null Zone and then rolls a 6 on the first save roll - an armour save would have succeeded but the invulnerable must be re-rolled.
* I might get some names wrong, I've got the rulebooks tucked away in my gaming bags and/or iPad. You get the gist of it.
The vast majority that I just flicked through all state you can re-roll failed X saves. In order to have failed a roll, you need to make it in the first place. If you roll a different type of save then the one being listed under X, and fail that save, you still have not met the requirements to be allowed to re-roll. Any special rule that is a re-roll on all type of saving throws are worded in such a way that you would still be re-rolling the save you failed, as that would still be the best available save.
To enter the situation you are describing the rule would have to be worded along the lines of, 'if you fail your saving throw you may take an additional saving throw using the best available cover save.'
In the future calculate your 1 die result and realize you have the chance 4 times. Obviously they can take into unrealistic territory like say 110% chance to succeed. but this will give you relative odds. The thing people tend to forget when calculating odds in this game is each die roll is an independent trial and previous die rolls do not impact future die rolls. Many people will say that rolling a 6 followed by a 6 is a 1 in 36 chance. But if you have already rolled the first six you are no more or less likely to get a 6 on the second roll meaning you have a 1 in 6 chance to get that second 6 once the first is rolled.
This is terrible math. I realise that rolling one 6 on a single die is 1/6. But the chance of one 6 showing up on four dice rolls is not 1/6, it's much higher.
Someone else above brought up a similar problem. What's the chance of one 4+ showing up when I roll 100 dice? It's greater than 50%, that's for sure!
liturgies of blood wrote: It's 75%. 1/2 chance of passing, half chance of a re-roll. The re-roll is again 1/2 chance of passing. So 1/2 + 1/2 of 1/2 is 3/4.
This is right, although I would notate it as
.5+(.5*.5)=.75 or 1/2+(1/2*1/2)=3/4
It gets significantly harder when you're trying to calculate the odds of one 4+ in a batch of dice, or figure out (as my Psyfleman likes to do) the chance of a pen on a Flyer. Four TL Str8 shots, no Skyfire, AV12. I need 6's to hit, then I need 5+ to pen, he might Evade. Easy enough with one die...confusing with four.
In the future calculate your 1 die result and realize you have the chance 4 times. Obviously they can take into unrealistic territory like say 110% chance to succeed. but this will give you relative odds. The thing people tend to forget when calculating odds in this game is each die roll is an independent trial and previous die rolls do not impact future die rolls. Many people will say that rolling a 6 followed by a 6 is a 1 in 36 chance. But if you have already rolled the first six you are no more or less likely to get a 6 on the second roll meaning you have a 1 in 6 chance to get that second 6 once the first is rolled.
You really don't understand statistics, and I would submit you should stop advising others on how they work. While every die roll is indeed independent, you can make statistical analysis of multiple die rolls. You can never get over 100% chance. Ever. The fact that you said you can just shows you don't have a firm grasp of this area of study.
I don't mean this as an attack, but rather a plea. There are many resources that teach how statistics work and can be calculated.
For instance - lets say you roll two dice and want at least one result of 2 or better. So we know that you have a 5/6 chance of getting either die to roll a 2+. However, if you want to know your chance of getting at least one success between the two dice, you figure out the odds of failing both, and subtract from one.
So in this example, you on two dice you get non-snake eyes 1 - (1/6 * 1/6) = 97%. Your average number of successes is different, giving you 10/6 or 1.66667 successes on average with 2 successes being you mean result.
Statistics can, will and should be used for these purposes.
Happyjew wrote: Let me ask you this then - which is the better save (not best, just better), 4++ with re-roll or 3+?
Best is a term when you compare two (or more) things.
The one that is better than any other is considered the best.
Seeing as 4++ has a reroll, it is the best.
Except the rules define lower as better - therefore a 3+ is better than a 4++ as the 3+ is lower. In this case, since we are comparing two things, the better (or lower) is the best.
Happyjew wrote: Except the rules define lower as better - therefore a 3+ is better than a 4++ as the 3+ is lower. In this case, since we are comparing two things, the better (or lower) is the best.
No, it doesn't. I have the rule right in front of me.
It says that a lower ARMOUR save is better.
So 3+ is better than 4+.
But 3+ is not better than 4++ with a reroll.
I've read that argument and I'm actually amazed that nobody pointed out it spoke about ARMOUR saves and not all saves in general.
Happyjew wrote: Except the rules define lower as better - therefore a 3+ is better than a 4++ as the 3+ is lower. In this case, since we are comparing two things, the better (or lower) is the best.
No, it doesn't. I have the rule right in front of me.
It says that a lower ARMOUR save is better.
So 3+ is better than 4+.
But 3+ is not better than 4++ with a reroll.
I've read that argument and I'm actually amazed that nobody pointed out it spoke about ARMOUR saves and not all saves in general.
Invul saves only list one area they're different - the fact that you can always take them (ie you can't AP them away).
Which means that rules that apply to armor saves also apply to invul saves.
Also, this was covered. In this thread. I guarantee it.
Happyjew wrote: Actually if you read page 19, Models with More than One Save again points to lower save value being better.
It says that when you have multiple saves you use the best one.
It does not hint to the 'lower value being better'.
rigeld2 wrote: Invul saves only list one area they're different - the fact that you can always take them (ie you can't AP them away).
Which means that rules that apply to armor saves also apply to invul saves.
Also, this was covered. In this thread. I guarantee it.
Can you quote me the line that says invulnerable-saves should be treated as armour-saves?
My book doesn't have that line.
The 'lower is better' only applies to armour-saves, which is only a small part of all saving throws.
liturgies of blood wrote: It's 75%. 1/2 chance of passing, half chance of a re-roll. The re-roll is again 1/2 chance of passing. So 1/2 + 1/2 of 1/2 is 3/4.
This is right, although I would notate it as
.5+(.5*.5)=.75 or 1/2+(1/2*1/2)=3/4
It gets significantly harder when you're trying to calculate the odds of one 4+ in a batch of dice, or figure out (as my Psyfleman likes to do) the chance of a pen on a Flyer. Four TL Str8 shots, no Skyfire, AV12. I need 6's to hit, then I need 5+ to pen, he might Evade. Easy enough with one die...confusing with four.
The odds of one 4+ in a batch of dice is straight into your formula. It doesn't matter if you roll them one by one or all in a pile, it's the exact same thing. It's not like your odds of saving 6 wounds would change if you decided to roll them one by one after all Although I have a friend that would disagree with that on superstitious terms. He always rolls important saves one by one and keeps saving against all odds...
Calculating pens is mostly confusing because it goes through so many different rolls. Not like one set save.
1-(5/6)^2 will give you the odds of one twin linked shot landing, if it hits on 6es.
1-(1-(5/6)^2)^4 should then give you the probability of that happening in 4 such shots (which is to say it's a statistical probability, over 99%, that you'll get atleast one hit in.)
But it's more interesting at this point to instead say "How many hits will I statistically get.
so we say
(1-(5/6)^2)*4 which tells us you'll statistically get 1.22 hits. So that sounds reasonable.
So since there is a 1/3 chance those hits will pen, we can just go and divide it all by 3 to get the chance of getting that penetrating blow.
(1-(5/6)^2)*4/3
That leaves us at a 40.7% chance for a penetrating blow. (but a 61% chance of a pen OR a glancing.)
Of course, this guy was paranoid and decided to evade and gained a 5+ jink when you started showing interest.
So we have to remove 1/3 of the chances, since that's his odds of avoiding it.
(I am getting really tired, so I made a really ugly hack here. The math is fine, but it makes for really ugly equations, implying the rest hasn't been hacked together so far. and I've started adding parenthasis everywhere to keep it apart in my head. There's even one in here that I didn't use just above this.)
((((1-(5/6)^2)*4)/3)/3)*2)
Anyway, that gives us about a 27.1% chance for a penetrating blow. Of course, what we want is the tremendous fireball. That's on a 6, since we're psyflemen and have no frickin bonuses at all to our vehicular damage.
So let's bring in another frickin parenthasis for the hell of it. (Yeah, it's not needed.)
(((((1-(5/6)^2)*4)/3)/3)*2)/6
Well, so that brings us to a neat 4.527% chance of blowing his sh*t out of the skies.
... I don't think the psyfleman was made for aerial combat, to be honest.
rigeld2 wrote: Invul saves only list one area they're different - the fact that you can always take them (ie you can't AP them away).
Which means that rules that apply to armor saves also apply to invul saves.
Also, this was covered. In this thread. I guarantee it.
Can you quote me the line that says invulnerable-saves should be treated as armour-saves?
My book doesn't have that line.
The 'lower is better' only applies to armour-saves, which is only a small part of all saving throws.
Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound- the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.
Now this comprises pretty much all of the rules for invul saves. Meaning without referring to armor saves you have no idea how to use them.
Do you roll a d4, d6, d8, 2d4? Do you need to roll above or below? Is it a hex, decimal, or octal number?
Armor save rules answer all of these.
Happyjew wrote: Let me ask you this then - which is the better save (not best, just better), 4++ with re-roll or 3+?
Best is a term when you compare two (or more) things.
The one that is better than any other is considered the best.
Seeing as 4++ has a reroll, it is the best.
Except the rules define lower as better - therefore a 3+ is better than a 4++ as the 3+ is lower. In this case, since we are comparing two things, the better (or lower) is the best.
Stating a single aspect of something is better does not make the one with the most of that aspect the best. If more is better than the most is the best is a leap of logic (though quite a natural one) when dealing with a subject that has several aspects to it. While the number is noted as being better if it is lower that does not account for any special rules as they are not mentioned. Either including or disregarding them is in this case not expressly permitted and it is left undefined as to what the 'best' is.
They say the lower number is better. That does not equal the lowest number is best. That would be akin to saying the fastest car is the best car when there is more to it than just top speed. Sure the higher the top speed the better but that does not mean the highest top speed will be best.
You ask if a lower number is better? I say yes.
I ask, is a re-roll option better than a single roll?... you say? No? Does the book really need to spell that out for you?
Obviously a save with a re-roll is better than a save without one.
Happyjew wrote: Except the rules define lower as better - therefore a 3+ is better than a 4++ as the 3+ is lower. In this case, since we are comparing two things, the better (or lower) is the best.
No, it doesn't. I have the rule right in front of me.
It says that a lower ARMOUR save is better.
So 3+ is better than 4+.
But 3+ is not better than 4++ with a reroll.
I've read that argument and I'm actually amazed that nobody pointed out it spoke about ARMOUR saves and not all saves in general.
Invul saves only list one area they're different - the fact that you can always take them (ie you can't AP them away).
Which means that rules that apply to armor saves also apply to invul saves.
Also, this was covered. In this thread. I guarantee it.
Technically invulnerable saves are in fact different and they only compare armor saves. Strictly speaking the rule says nothing about them or cover saves for that matter but I will run on the same assumptions you are and agree on this point as it's the only way anything will make sense here.
Sadly the distinction between a 4++ save and a 4++ save and a re-roll vs a 3+ isn't made in the BRB. All the math-hammering behind a 4++ re-roll is metagaming, and while it will increase your odds of saving wounds, the book doesn't take that information into account for determining "best" save.
While mathematically the 4++ is the better save, book asks for you to use the model's "best" save, which it defines as the lowest save. You are not allowed to ignore your armor save if it is better. It is akin to a model suddenly losing its armor in the middle of a fight (failing all saves of a 3 instead of passing) and then have it reappear. While that may work for Chaos, it wouldn't work for any other army. If the Chaos Codex had a special rule allowing you to choose your save, I would have a different opinion.
As it stands, I would say using the 4++ re-roll when you can still use your 3+ save, would be either powergaming or fudging the rules to get an advantage. It is great vs high AP weapons, but useless against bolter fire.
This is getting heated
I would simply use math to decide which is BEST!
In every sense of the word.
BEST simply means the one with better probability of making the saving throw..
Abandon - they define lower as better. By definition the lowest of two is the best of those two.
Your car analogy is flawed - as you havent defined "better". If your determinant is "top speed" and you say higher is better, then two cars, one with a top peed of 100mph and one with a top speed of 150mph, based on the criteria given the 150mph car is the best car of the two.
They absolutely and precisely state where an invulnerable save is different to armour; it is unaffected by AP. As such you MUST use the lower of armour, cover, invulnerable, and are not allowed to use other criteria when detrmining your save
Permissive ruleset. You have no permission, NONE, to pick a reroll 4+ over a 3+.
The rules only tell you what is 'better' or 'best' when comparing Armour Saves to Armour Saves (pg 2.), or Cover Saves to Cover Saves (pg 19.).
When comparing different types of Saves, we are told that a model 'has the advantage of always using the best available save.' And the example says: '. . so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the BEST CHANCE OF SURVIVAL.'
A save that has a lower statistical chance of success is not the 'Best save available' nor does it give a model 'the best chance of survival.'
No, they don't.
That has be proven wrong as it only counts for armour saves.
They absolutely and precisely state where an invulnerable save is different to armour
"It's different because", does NOT imply that every other aspect is the same.
As such you MUST use the lower of armour, cover, invulnerable, and are not allowed to use other criteria when detrmining your save
You just made that up and you know it.
Permissive ruleset. You have no permission, NONE, to pick a reroll 4+ over a 3+.
Yes, you do. They give you permission the moment they say that you "pick the best save available".
rigeld2 wrote: Now this comprises pretty much all of the rules for invul saves. Meaning without referring to armor saves you have no idea how to use them.
Do you roll a d4, d6, d8, 2d4? Do you need to roll above or below? Is it a hex, decimal, or octal number?
Armor save rules answer all of these.
I don't give a gak.
You are saying it follows the rules for armour-saves, so you better quote the rule that says that or take your words back.
I firmly believe the wording of the characteristic descriptions on page 2, which are there to give beginners a feel for what characteristics they will come across and what they mean are being miss used to apply an absolute meaning to a rule which includes, but is not limited to that particular characteristic.
Page 2 goes over all the characteristics found in a model's profile, and gives a very high level view of how the characteristics work. 'SV' characteristic, 'Armour Save' is inclusive and it does state
Unlike other characteristics, the lower the armour save is, the better
which is of course correct, but does not confer an absolute meaning of 'Best' when working out different types of saves, and deciding which save to make, this does not go into modifiers, does not go into re re-rolls, this deals with 1 stat which as a base is better when lower.
Frankly, the interpretation that 'best' has a absolute meaning of 'lower value' contradicts the sentencing of the rule in question.
but has the advantage of always using the best available save
If I must use the lowest value save, I do not have the advantage of using the best available save, I am at the disadvantage of using the best[lowest value] save, for sure 3+ VS 4++ I am disadvantaged by using 3+.
If the page 2 definition does not include modifiers, re-rolls or everything else, then those things do not count for determining which save is better.
It does not offer a more subjective definition of 'better' or 'best'
Furthermore if Invulnerable Saves or Cover Saves do not offer a different mechanic of determining which save is better then we ONLY have the page 2 way of determining one.
You compare your saves, taking the lower each time, eventually leading to the 'lowest', which must be the 'better' out of all of them, hence 'best'' according to page 2.
You can't insert re-rolls, modifiers, special rules into the rule because they aren't there!
Oh, and before someone asks why you have to use the lowest number - this is because you are told invulnerable and cover operate in the same manner as Armour, but only with specific differences
If the method of choosing the better save (lower is better) isnt listed as an exception, you have no right to choose it.
And, of course we know this is NOT an exception for Invulnerable saves, as you are told, in the praetorian FAQ, that you CANNOT choose a 4++ save over a 3+, so it still adheres to the same rules.
So, you must choose the lower one. Anything else ignores the rules, or leaves you with no way to ever take an invulnerable save. Given those two options, following the rules makes sense
In the future calculate your 1 die result and realize you have the chance 4 times. Obviously they can take into unrealistic territory like say 110% chance to succeed. but this will give you relative odds. The thing people tend to forget when calculating odds in this game is each die roll is an independent trial and previous die rolls do not impact future die rolls. Many people will say that rolling a 6 followed by a 6 is a 1 in 36 chance. But if you have already rolled the first six you are no more or less likely to get a 6 on the second roll meaning you have a 1 in 6 chance to get that second 6 once the first is rolled.
This is terrible math. I realise that rolling one 6 on a single die is 1/6. But the chance of one 6 showing up on four dice rolls is not 1/6, it's much higher.
Someone else above brought up a similar problem. What's the chance of one 4+ showing up when I roll 100 dice? It's greater than 50%, that's for sure!
Yes it is quite terrible math but most people can't to exponential fractions in their head, I was offering a simplistic way estimating however it is inaccurate and gets more inaccurate the further from 1 you go, I am pretty sure I said it can give unrealistic results but when you have to make a quick table side calc its better than nothing, how much better I guess is in the eye of the beholder. I have never had anyone bust out a calculator and work out odds of success in a game, we usually dumb it down and just try to get close for speed of play.
Youre also working out a fairly pointless stat - the average. Expectation is a much better calcualtion (my odds of getting at least X result) but harder for a layman to calc....
This statement seems to address ap values, but I thought I might point out that on page 17 of the BRB it states that an invulnerable save may be taken against any wound.
Not convinced this means much though given the necron FAQ
HiiC wrote: This statement seems to address ap values, but I thought I might point out that on page 17 of the BRB it states that an invulnerable save may be taken against any wound.
Not convinced this means much though given the necron FAQ
Yes, it may be taken against any wound that ignores the armor save. The invulnerable is only available if there is no armor save, or if it is numerically better than the armor save (i.e, Lilith's 4+ invul in CC)
Also, it does not state that an invulnerable save may be taken against any wound.
This is what it says:
"Invulnerable saves are different to armor saves because they may always be taken whenever a model suffers a wound - the Armor Piercing value of the weapon has no effect"
It does not say "any wound," it says "may always be taken whenever a model suffers a wound," the difference is subtle, but it's there.
grrrfranky wrote: RAW it seems fairly clear that the 3+ should be used as the rulebook defines the lower number as better.
If the rulebook said that you had a 33% chance of rolling a 6 on a D6 some of you would be doing your mathhammer with that statistic on this forum. The fact is, a lower save is not always better when you factor in re-rolls. If the rulebook says that the "best" save is always the lower value, then it is arguing with the laws of probability and is scientifically wrong. "Best" gives you the best chance of survival, because that is the purpose of a save.
If you want a RAW argument, I would maybe throw the general vs. specific conflict out there but I don't think that will accomplish much.
deviantduck wrote: Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.
Next, people will be arguing about 'best' when they want to kill off your own model. IE, your model has a 2+/5++ save and is your last model in a unit, and you want him to die in assault so you can shoot at the enemy unit next turn. In this case, the 5++ would give you the 'best' chance at that happening instead of your 2+.
3+ is obviously better than 4++ if you have the option to take either.
This reads like a strawman argument. The scenario you're positing has nothing to do with the opposing viewpoint, which equates the best save with the save most likely to ensure the survival of the model. You're describing a scenario in which the player makes a tactical decision to deliberately take a worse save. These two things are not the same.
deviantduck wrote: Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.
Next, people will be arguing about 'best' when they want to kill off your own model. IE, your model has a 2+/5++ save and is your last model in a unit, and you want him to die in assault so you can shoot at the enemy unit next turn. In this case, the 5++ would give you the 'best' chance at that happening instead of your 2+.
3+ is obviously better than 4++ if you have the option to take either.
This reads like a strawman argument. The scenario you're positing has nothing to do with the opposing viewpoint, which equates the best save with the save most likely to ensure the survival of the model. You're describing a scenario in which the player makes a tactical decision to deliberately take a worse save. These two things are not the same.
-Yad
Although I want to agree that the 3+ argument is strawman, the problem is that the permissive rulebook has no mention of what the best save is. The only thing close to it is their strawman of what is "better." So although it's not quite describing the situation at hand, nothing else is describing it better. The strawman, in this case, is the argument. I hate the rulebook sometimes. Most times. If it had never described what is "better" we could have gone by the dictionary definition of "best," no arguments. But it had to go and say a lower score is better.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: They do not account for rerolls when they say best save available. You use the 3+.
says what? what page is that on exactly?
Pg19.
Under "Models with more than one save." The bold part.
"a model gets to make on saving throw, but it has the ADVANTAGE if always using the best available save."
on this SAME PAGE that you noted... there is also a snippet below with the words "uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving"
Even your example page implies that "best" here is defined as highest chance of survival.
Also
-------- page 4 of the BRB
The Most Important Rule
In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer 40,000, there are bound to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules, or you can't seem to find the right page. Even if you know the rule, sometimes it is just a really close call, and players don't agree on the precise outcome.
Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves (in a manner befitting the better class of Imperial Citizen, of course). If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the game - on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides. Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.
----------
I'd say do this every game until they FAQ it on a "per person that disagrees" basis.
rigeld2 wrote: If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?
That doesn't rule out that there is a third option that is best.
Given what criteria? We can only consider what the rules allow us to consider.
You have option A that is good.
You have option B that is better than option A.
You must take the best option.
Why would you consider A (the worse option, since worse is the opposite of better) when the given criteria show you clearly that B is the best?
I"m still a bit lost here. so let me recap (very broadly) what the two sides to the argument are.
Side A - you must take the 4+ re-rollable because it has a better chance of succeeding
Reasons for - the book says you must take the best save, and since 4++ re-rollable is better than 3+, the 4++ re-rollable must be "the best"
Reasons against - misinterpretation of the word "best" since the book also says you may never have better than a 2+ save, which would make re-rolling a 2+ or 3+ save illegal.
Side B - You must take the 3+ save because you do not factor in re-rolls.
Reasons for - Permissive ruleset. The rulebook does not permit you to factor in re-rolls so you do not. 3+ is better than 4++, and is therefor "the best".
Reasons against - since the game does not define "best" you must use the dictionary definition, which supports taking re-rolls into consideration.
It seems both sides have valid points for and against, and it will be up to the players to decide in each of their games which to use. Personally, I would probably side with side B.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Oh, and before someone asks why you have to use the lowest number - this is because you are told invulnerable and cover operate in the same manner as Armour, but only with specific differences
Page? It's okay if you want to play it like that, but it are just house-rules. The BRB does not say that inv-saves work the same as armour saves.
If the method of choosing the better save (lower is better) isnt listed as an exception, you have no right to choose it.
If you were right, the text would say that the lower save is the better save. In reality it says that the lower armour-save is the better save, so it does not apply to this case.
And, of course we know this is NOT an exception for Invulnerable saves, as you are told, in the praetorian FAQ, that you CANNOT choose a 4++ save over a 3+, so it still adheres to the same rules.
That's because a 3+ is better than a 4++. The FAQ tells us that "Note that you must always use the best save available, and so cannot choose to use the dispersion shield's invulnerable save in place of your armour save if the model’s armour save is better and available."
That is not a verdict on 3+ vs 4++ with rerolls.
So, you must choose the lower one. Anything else ignores the rules, or leaves you with no way to ever take an invulnerable save. Given those two options, following the rules makes sense
We do not ignore a single rule. The rules say that we take the best save available: A 4++ with rerolls is better than a 3+. The only rules that could 'counter' this only apply to 4++ without rerolls and to armour saves.
rigeld2 wrote: If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?
The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.
rigeld2 wrote: If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?
That doesn't rule out that there is a third option that is best.
Given what criteria? We can only consider what the rules allow us to consider.
You have option A that is good.
You have option B that is better than option A.
You must take the best option.
Why would you consider A (the worse option, since worse is the opposite of better) when the given criteria show you clearly that B is the best?
Option B is better than option A, but if the BRB defines "best" diffrently than the dictionary, you may not be able to choose either. Sometimes you must use a third options if that's the case.
On the note of "best" saves an "improving" a save.
Maximum Save: ...no save... can ever be improved beyond 2+.
The way the book defines a "best" or Maximum save on page 19 excludes any mention of re-rolls, saying it end at 2+. We know a save can be mathimaticly improved beyond that with a re-rolls, but the book ignores that. We can not use mathhammering to determine a "best" save if the rules do not include one of the variables in the equation.
rigeld2 wrote: If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?
The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.
So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.
Ok, I'll bite, since you've been trying so hard for so long and everyone has been ignoring you. You clearly really really want to develop on this but you need someone to go "ok, what is it then?". It's like seeing that guy go "Hey, ask me what I'm doing 8D"
This argument makes no sense. A 2+ that can be rerolled is better than a 2+ according to his argument.
Cool story bro.
rigeld2 wrote: If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?
The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.
So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.
Ok, I'll bite, since you've been trying so hard for so long and everyone has been ignoring you. You clearly really really want to develop on this but you need someone to go "ok, what is it then?". It's like seeing that guy go "Hey, ask me what I'm doing 8D"
This argument makes no sense. A 2+ that can be rerolled is better than a 2+ according to his argument.
Cool story bro.
Except the rules explicitly forbid you from ever improving a 2+ save.
If you've made it better, you've improved it. That's against the actual rules.
rigeld2 wrote: If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?
The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.
So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.
Ok, I'll bite, since you've been trying so hard for so long and everyone has been ignoring you. You clearly really really want to develop on this but you need someone to go "ok, what is it then?". It's like seeing that guy go "Hey, ask me what I'm doing 8D"
This argument makes no sense. A 2+ that can be rerolled is better than a 2+ according to his argument.
Cool story bro.
Except the rules explicitly forbid you from ever improving a 2+ save.
If you've made it better, you've improved it. That's against the actual rules.
You're taking this particular concept out of context.
Maximum Save
Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may INCREASE ANY OF THEIR SAVES by +1 or +2 or even more. However no save(armour,cover, or invuln) can ever be improved BEYOND 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails.
-------------
The implication here is that a model can not have 1+ saves to make it invincible, by that it can not IMPROVE its save. (Improve here meaning a lowering of the numbered roll)
This is using YOUR definition of better. Meaning if rerolls do NOT count towards "better" or "best" that would mean that I can in fact reroll 2+ no matter which side of this argument I am on.
rigeld2 wrote: If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?
The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.
So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.
Ok, I'll bite, since you've been trying so hard for so long and everyone has been ignoring you. You clearly really really want to develop on this but you need someone to go "ok, what is it then?". It's like seeing that guy go "Hey, ask me what I'm doing 8D"
This argument makes no sense. A 2+ that can be rerolled is better than a 2+ according to his argument.
Cool story bro.
Except the rules explicitly forbid you from ever improving a 2+ save.
If you've made it better, you've improved it. That's against the actual rules.
The context CLEARLY states that it applies to decreasing the number to 1. The line explaining the rule says "Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails."
Here's the thing. You're applying the way YOU read the rules to how HE reads the rules. You're too stuck in your own bubble for this to be a meaningful argument.
YOU think he's trying to read it as 4++ and a reroll being A ROLL that is somehow a 2.8++ or whatever it ends at.
HE is saying that, yes, it is 2 rolls, but the end result is clearly preferable and therefore by definition better.
Therefore it's ony by YOUR reading that the discrepancy happens.
By HIS reading, he is not "improving one roll beyond 2+" as the rule states you can't. His reading is that it is STILL a 2+. It's just better than the other 2+ since it can be rerolled. This is a distinction you are unable to make.
I've already said this before in this thread, but I'll say it again: This is the kind of backwards, game destroying, rules lawyering thinking that is in YMDC. But it is what YMDC is. What Rigeld is saying is the kind of thinking that belongs here.
It's a completely unbending oncompromising reading of everything, even where it is clearly bananas, but when two people can't agree on something, that's the sort of reading that has to win.
Rigeld is right about his original reading, for YMDC. (but this follow up argument was just lazy, man. This is you applying your reading to what he was saying.)
But I would never, in a million years, play it like the reading is, because it is completely crystal clear to me that it is either an unintended complication, or a huge fail to make the game more complicated than it has to be. Best save should mean the actual best save, not a definition of best that doesn't conform with the English language because it has become a type of legal term.
The 40k rulebook does not delve into the realm of mathematics or statistics. It also doesn't go into concepts of syntax, logic, vocabulary, etc.
For this to be a truly "permissive ruleset" to the extreme that math deniers are taking this, we need much more definition on a number of subjects.
Proponents of the 4++ save are simply pointing out that it is the best available save. Statistically, mathematically provable. To deny your opponent that save is to jimmy the rules to make them take something that is not the best available.
nosferatu1001 wrote: So I can define for myself what is the best save, ignoring the rulebook definition?
The rulebook says a lot of things, you've read it your way, making "best" a term that means something very specific instead of actually resulting in what's best for the model. I think it's fair to say that in this case it can interpreted differently while both parties still follow the rulebook. But you know... There's another book with this problem, and people have been fighting about what that one says for 1500 years. I don't see this thread getting a quicker resolution.
rigeld2 wrote: If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?
The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.
So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.
Ok, I'll bite, since you've been trying so hard for so long and everyone has been ignoring you. You clearly really really want to develop on this but you need someone to go "ok, what is it then?". It's like seeing that guy go "Hey, ask me what I'm doing 8D"
This argument makes no sense. A 2+ that can be rerolled is better than a 2+ according to his argument.
Cool story bro.
Except the rules explicitly forbid you from ever improving a 2+ save.
If you've made it better, you've improved it. That's against the actual rules.
You're taking this particular concept out of context.
Maximum Save
Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may INCREASE ANY OF THEIR SAVES by +1 or +2 or even more. However no save(armour,cover, or invuln) can ever be improved BEYOND 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails.
-------------
The implication here is that a model can not have 1+ saves to make it invincible, by that it can not IMPROVE its save. (Improve here meaning a lowering of the numbered roll)
This is using YOUR definition of better. Meaning if rerolls do NOT count towards "better" or "best" that would mean that I can in fact reroll 2+ no matter which side of this argument I am on.
And if rerolls do not count for better or best, and the only rule we have that does is based on the number...
Gee, it's like it's exactly what I've been saying! Thanks for agreeing with me!
nosferatu1001 wrote: So I can define for myself what is the best save, ignoring the rulebook definition?
If there is no rulebook definition than you can define it by the actual meaning of the English words: The best save is thus the one that has the least chance of failing.
Hey, look at this: We have no BRB-definition!
rigeld2 wrote: So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.
I'll bite too, since this is getting pathetic.
Yes, the correct solution to THIS problem causes issues with ANOTHER rule.
So your proposal is to ignore the correct ruling on THIS problem.
And you can't see how that is stupid?
launcelot7891 wrote: BRB p.17 "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound..."
That pretty much clears that up, doesn't it? It doesn't matter which is lower, because you can ALWAYS take the invulnerable save.
Yea, you forgot the important bit of that sentence That being... "the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect."
The whole rule is this:
"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect." (17)
The context is that AP values do not bypass Invuln saves.
launcelot7891 wrote: BRB p.17 "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound..."
That pretty much clears that up, doesn't it? It doesn't matter which is lower, because you can ALWAYS take the invulnerable save.
You may not always take an invulnerable save.
Necron FAQ 1.4 April 2013
Note that you must always use the best save available, and so cannot choose to use the dispersion shield's invulnerable save in pace of your armour save if the model's armour save if better and available."
In other words, you cannot choose to use your invulnerable save whenever you want.
Purifier - so you can find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls? Because so far you haven't provided jack when it comes to permission to calculate rerolls to determine what is the best save.
you are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Purifier - so you can find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls? Because so far you haven't provided jack when it comes to permission to calculate rerolls to determine what is the best save.
you are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.
By definition the best save is the one that helps you survive. That's not really that difficult. Your referential rule saying that best is a legal term meaning lowest is really weak and only supported by the lack of a clear definition of what best means.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Purifier - so you can find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls? Because so far you haven't provided jack when it comes to permission to calculate rerolls to determine what is the best save.
you are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.
By definition the best save is the one that helps you survive. That's not really that difficult. Your referential rule saying that best is a legal term meaning lowest is really weak and only supported by the lack of a clear definition of what best means.
No, they have defined "better" as "lower". They do not define it as best chance of surviving - even thte oft misquoted mixed save rule doesnt say any different.
"Best" is therefore "lowest", by definition.
Find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls intheir definition of "better". Page and para, or concede you are making up a houserule. That is fine, however please dont pretend the actual *rule* is anything other than clear.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Purifier - so you can find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls? Because so far you haven't provided jack when it comes to permission to calculate rerolls to determine what is the best save.
you are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.
By definition the best save is the one that helps you survive. That's not really that difficult. Your referential rule saying that best is a legal term meaning lowest is really weak and only supported by the lack of a clear definition of what best means.
No, they have defined "better" as "lower". They do not define it as best chance of surviving - even thte oft misquoted mixed save rule doesnt say any different.
"Best" is therefore "lowest", by definition.
Find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls intheir definition of "better". Page and para, or concede you are making up a houserule. That is fine, however please dont pretend the actual *rule* is anything other than clear.
Or you know, you could read one of my several posts where I *did* pretty much say it was a house rule.
What I am saying though, is that I feel this is so extreme rules lawyering, that I would consider anyone demanding this rule to be TFG. This is over the top. This is completely into douche territory.
The rule that you guys are referring to is not clear. It's vague at best and referential more than stating something. It is however the best there is, unless you use a dictionary and/or logic instead and read the sentence saying to use the "best" save using the English language rather than referring to a different paragraph that sort of talks about something along the lines of what saves are and tells you that a certain modification makes it better.
They have defined better as lower. But some damned common sense tells you that bigger chance of survival is EVEN BETTER! But I know, you follow the letter religiously. That's why I made the reference to the bible. There are a lot of discussions there if some things should be read by the letter or as an example to follow the spirit of it. You're an extremist, and that's fine. It just gets scary when every 14 year old learns from you and starts demanding these douche moves to try and win more.
You are, in short saying:
"You can't take your best save because you have to take your Best save."
And you think that's in spirit with the game.
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
It's hardly douche behavior to use the definition provided by the rulebook, which is completely clear. It is also the ONLY way provided to determine which save is better than
"Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better". Page 2, last paragraph
It's 100% clear, I'd like to hear how that single sentence is vague?
As soon as you know which save is better (according to the method provided) than the rest you have the 'best' save, no?
House-ruling it to include all sorts of subjective notions of what is best or better is all fine, but you can't claim adherence to the actual rule then.
Shandara wrote: It's hardly douche behavior to use the definition provided by the rulebook, which is completely clear. It is also the ONLY way provided to determine which save is better than
"Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better". Page 2, last paragraph
It's 100% clear, I'd like to hear how that single sentence is vague?
As soon as you know which save is better (according to the method provided) than the rest you have the 'best' save, no?
House-ruling it to include all sorts of subjective notions of what is best or better is all fine, but you can't claim adherence to the actual rule then.
I disagree. I think it's VERY vague. The definition you are touting is a general rule explained to differentiate it from all the other stats, and that's how it's presented. Not as the end-all definition of the word "better" and by relation "best" in the book.
and since you're defining "Better" as a lawyering term here, it isn't actually true that it then follows that best is related to it. In fact, "best" has no definition. That's as much a dictionary definition as what my camp is claiming. In English Best follows better. But the rulebook doesn't define that distinction. It only says that being lower makes it better. Not best.
And that's why this whole discussion is getting out of hand. We're not allowed to use dictionary terms, and I can see where that rule comes from, because it's not always applicable in the rulebook. I think it is here, because "best" is not defined, but the opposite camp thinks I should be burnt for using a dictionary and then procedes to do it themselves to define that their better is logically followed by best.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Purifier - so you can find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls? Because so far you haven't provided jack when it comes to permission to calculate rerolls to determine what is the best save.
you are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.
By definition the best save is the one that helps you survive. That's not really that difficult. Your referential rule saying that best is a legal term meaning lowest is really weak and only supported by the lack of a clear definition of what best means.
No, they have defined "better" as "lower". They do not define it as best chance of surviving - even thte oft misquoted mixed save rule doesnt say any different.
"Best" is therefore "lowest", by definition.
Find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls intheir definition of "better". Page and para, or concede you are making up a houserule. That is fine, however please dont pretend the actual *rule* is anything other than clear.
Or you know, you could read one of my several posts where I *did* pretty much say it was a house rule.
What I am saying though, is that I feel this is so extreme rules lawyering, that I would consider anyone demanding this rule to be TFG. This is over the top. This is completely into douche territory.
The rule that you guys are referring to is not clear. It's vague at best and referential more than stating something. It is however the best there is, unless you use a dictionary and/or logic instead and read the sentence saying to use the "best" save using the English language rather than referring to a different paragraph that sort of talks about something along the lines of what saves are and tells you that a certain modification makes it better.
They have defined better as lower. But some damned common sense tells you that bigger chance of survival is EVEN BETTER! But I know, you follow the letter religiously. That's why I made the reference to the bible. There are a lot of discussions there if some things should be read by the letter or as an example to follow the spirit of it. You're an extremist, and that's fine. It just gets scary when every 14 year old learns from you and starts demanding these douche moves to try and win more.
You are, in short saying:
"You can't take your best save because you have to take your Best save."
And you think that's in spirit with the game
.
I understand your problem with the people that are promoting the strict RAW here. But keep in mind that their RAW interpretation might not even be how they would play it. People on the YMDC Forum in my opinion often make the mistake to want a HIWPI answer but ask for a RAW interpretation. These are completely different things.
I personally dont post much in YMDC threads that arent clear i tend to answer questions that are easy to answer and only read in threads like this one. But what i learn from those debates is where the critical rules questions occur so i am prepared to discuss my point of view on it with my opponent. Most of the time when RAW stands against RAI or HIWPI its really helpful to explain the RAW argument to your opponent and than decide based on that how we would play it. If there wasnt the RAW crew people wouldnt be aware of how important it is to actually talk to your opponent about certain rules interpretations when/before they occur.
On Topic:
HIWPI - I would let my opponent chose which save he thinks is the best.
RAW - Through the definition given on page 2 i think the "lower" save without rerolls would be the best.
I do a lot of devil advocate type of stuff myself, and would never play the game with over half of the interpretations I have discussed on this board. In fact, if you want to even wave away rules that are defined based on a simple narrative reason I am likely going to let you do so. This is because it is a game foremost and the enjoyment of the players should be embraced. If you can find a good narrative argument that will make the game different, and therefore more interesting, I would simply be too curious to simply deny you because the 'rules as written' say otherwise.
The reason I do a lot of rules as written arguments, that I would not otherwise follow, comes from the fact the rules as written are often pretty messed up. Sometimes you need to debate over something in order to simply understand it yourself, at other times you do it because it just leads to hilarious conclusions as the rules fall apart. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, trying to fit an argument into a very restrictive scope is a mental exercise that I find to be quite fun and it has greatly expanded my view on not just Warhammer rules, but how rules are written in general.
In this case, though I have not thrown my hat into the ring, I would personally allow the best save to be whatever you think is going to net you the best return. If I was to ask to come up with an answer based purely on raw I would very likely have the opposite conclusion because the rules try to establish that low is better. This is because rules as written are created in a 'vacuum' which do not account for every different combination of the rule, and in this case the whole possibility of re-rolling is not even addressed so we can not interpret the rules to include them.
Hell, my favorite outcome thanks to one of these threads: Thanks to rules as written, via FAQ's, tanks can climb ladders in the 40th millennium.
nosferatu1001 wrote: So I can define for myself what is the best save, ignoring the rulebook definition?
If there is no rulebook definition than you can define it by the actual meaning of the English words: The best save is thus the one that has the least chance of failing.
Hey, look at this: We have no BRB-definition!
Except, of course, there is a rule book definition - you just refuse to apply it.
rigeld2 wrote: So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.
I'll bite too, since this is getting pathetic.
Yes, the correct solution to THIS problem causes issues with ANOTHER rule.
So your proposal is to ignore the correct ruling on THIS problem.
And you can't see how that is stupid?
Pathetic and stupid? Do you have to stoop that low?
It's neither, however. You also can't make a 3+ rerollable because that's better than a 2+.
Or maybe, just maybe, the actual rules tell you that improving a save is solely based on lowering the number, and therefore the best save must be the lowest number.
Although a re-rollable save is better in terms of odds of surviving the BRB state that the value of a save exists between - and 2+, not - , 6+ , 6+ re-roll, 5+ ... 2+ and 2+ re-roll. Because a re-rollable save is not an actual save the best must be determined by the values given in the BRB, thus making the lower the save the better.
nosferatu1001 wrote: So I can define for myself what is the best save, ignoring the rulebook definition?
If there is no rulebook definition than you can define it by the actual meaning of the English words: The best save is thus the one that has the least chance of failing.
Hey, look at this: We have no BRB-definition!
Except, of course, there is a rule book definition - you just refuse to apply it.
rigeld2 wrote: So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.
I'll bite too, since this is getting pathetic.
Yes, the correct solution to THIS problem causes issues with ANOTHER rule.
So your proposal is to ignore the correct ruling on THIS problem.
And you can't see how that is stupid?
Pathetic and stupid? Do you have to stoop that low?
It's neither, however. You also can't make a 3+ rerollable because that's better than a 2+.
Or maybe, just maybe, the actual rules tell you that improving a save is solely based on lowering the number, and therefore the best save must be the lowest number.
No need to call names, I'll agree with that, but let's face it, rigeld, you're pretty good at pushing people's buttons with your rampant mean sarcasm. or "maybe, just maybe," you could be a little more civil yourself too instead of always just skirting the limit of where implications of others stupidity crosses to open insulting?
It actually DOESN'T tell you that it's "solely based on lowering the number" it just gives that as a way to tell it's better. And that's why I think your strict reading is, even RAW, questionable. I think the word "best" might be used in the rulebook as a term to describe the best for the situation, rather than a reference to the one instance where they tell you that a save with a lower number is better than one with a higher, which is only a reference to how that one stat works opposite to the rest which are better if they are higher in the context.
I actually truthfully believe both readings to be RAW. I have explained several times how, and it doesn't sit with a lot of people, and their exclusivism based on a sentence that clearly wasn't made to define the word "better" isn't gonna sit with me. So at that, I leave you to argue amongst yourselves, as I'm sure you will. I'm sort of curious how this conversation would have gone if GW had had a problem with the spelling, and typed out "betetr" instead of "better." How would that RAW discussion have gone?
Rigeld didnt call anyone names - Kangodo did (which is one of the reasons I have them on ignore, a seeming inability to argue without resorting to insults fairly quickly in)
When you are told the lower save is the better save, how is that NOT dictating the 40k defnition of "better"? Do you also think "target" lacks a 40k specific meaning?
A single sentence that bdefines "better" does, indeed, define better. You have explained why you dont like that definition, but have yet to come up with any RAW stating otherwise.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Rigeld didnt call anyone names - Kangodo did (which is one of the reasons I have them on ignore, a seeming inability to argue without resorting to insults fairly quickly in)
When you are told the lower save is the better save, how is that NOT dictating the 40k defnition of "better"? Do you also think "target" lacks a 40k specific meaning?
A single sentence that bdefines "better" does, indeed, define better. You have explained why you dont like that definition, but have yet to come up with any RAW stating otherwise.
If it helps this is the same definition as in 5th
It doesn't, however, define "best." I think if you're gonna argue semantics down to the letter, you don't get to in the next breath argue that one word is almost the same as another.
You have yet to show me where in the rules it defines what a "best" save is.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Rigeld didnt call anyone names - Kangodo did (which is one of the reasons I have them on ignore, a seeming inability to argue without resorting to insults fairly quickly in)
When you are told the lower save is the better save, how is that NOT dictating the 40k defnition of "better"? Do you also think "target" lacks a 40k specific meaning?
A single sentence that bdefines "better" does, indeed, define better. You have explained why you dont like that definition, but have yet to come up with any RAW stating otherwise.
If it helps this is the same definition as in 5th
It doesn't, however, define "best." I think if you're gonna argue semantics down to the letter, you don't get to in the next breath argue that one word is almost the same as another.
You have yet to show me where in the rules it defines what a "best" save is.
The best is defined by nothing being better. The rulebook defines that the lower the better. It also says it cant get better than 2+. Theres your best save.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Rigeld didnt call anyone names - Kangodo did (which is one of the reasons I have them on ignore, a seeming inability to argue without resorting to insults fairly quickly in)
When you are told the lower save is the better save, how is that NOT dictating the 40k defnition of "better"? Do you also think "target" lacks a 40k specific meaning?
A single sentence that bdefines "better" does, indeed, define better. You have explained why you dont like that definition, but have yet to come up with any RAW stating otherwise.
If it helps this is the same definition as in 5th
It doesn't, however, define "best." I think if you're gonna argue semantics down to the letter, you don't get to in the next breath argue that one word is almost the same as another.
You have yet to show me where in the rules it defines what a "best" save is.
The best is defined by nothing being better. The rulebook defines that the lower the better. It also says it cant get better than 2+. Theres your best save.
1) It is my opinion that something that has more special rules to increase survivability is by definition better than what is described in the section that describes a lower number on the statline as being better than a higher number on the statline.
2) That is, as has been said a million times, taken out of context by your side. That is to explain it cannot be 1+. Not to explain it cannot be improved upon by special rules.
Purifier - it doesnt need to explicitly define the "best" save, as it does so by:
1) DEFINING that lower number is better when it comes to saves. There is no RAW argument against this definition
2) DEFINING the lowest save as a 2+
WHen you take the two together the 40k definition of "best" can be determined - it is the lowest number
There isnt any RAW argument against this. None.
1) Just went through this for the other guy
2) and this.
Skills are better when improved by special rules. Best is not just a lower number. Your argument falls on the fact that you need "best" spelled out and defined. it is not. Your wringing out "betters" is just barely falling short of it.
I don't know why I'm still doing this. You're not going to convince me. The quotations you make need to be so grossly taken out of context in order to work with your logic that I cannot take them seriously.
And I'm not going to convince you, because you have taken a deathgrip on your opinion and wouldn't let go ever.
Depending on how you read it. they're both RAW. I don't know why you think RAW would always mean one reading. It doesn't have to.
Shandara wrote: And we have stated that properties such as re-rollability or other extraneous advantages have no bearing on determining which save is 'better'.
And I've stated I disagree with that as it clearly, by virtue of logic, makes them better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Purifier - fine, then find a RAW allowance to include these other special rules
Givenn you have stated this is permitted, you must have a page and para yes?
Or, as you have consistently shown - despite NOT marking your posts as a houserule, you are just arguing a houserule
RAW says you have to use the best save. Well, the special rules makes the save better. So, by RAW, you have to use the special rule.
The special rule clearly doesn't make the save worse, and it doesn't leave the save unaffected. It clearly makes it better.
Purifier wrote: No need to call names, I'll agree with that, but let's face it, rigeld, you're pretty good at pushing people's buttons with your rampant mean sarcasm. or "maybe, just maybe," you could be a little more civil yourself too instead of always just skirting the limit of where implications of others stupidity crosses to open insulting?
Feel free to report me if you think I'm being mean. Tone doesn't cross the internet very well - you'd do better not to read a mean tone into anything I type.
It actually DOESN'T tell you that it's "solely based on lowering the number" it just gives that as a way to tell it's better. And that's why I think your strict reading is, even RAW, questionable. I think the word "best" might be used in the rulebook as a term to describe the best for the situation, rather than a reference to the one instance where they tell you that a save with a lower number is better than one with a higher, which is only a reference to how that one stat works opposite to the rest which are better if they are higher in the context.
Really?
page 2 wrote:Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better.
example on page 15 wrote:The forest grants a cover save of 5+(see page 18), but their Armour Save of 3+is better. Therefore, they all use their Armour Saves and roll all of them together.
page 19 wrote:a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.
page 19 wrote:However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+.
page 26 wrote:An invulnerable save can be made, if it is the best save available.
One instance? Over and over again they refer to a lower save being better. And a definition of "best" that is not "the most better" is a strange one indeed.
I actually truthfully believe both readings to be RAW. I have explained several times how, and it doesn't sit with a lot of people, and their exclusivism based on a sentence that clearly wasn't made to define the word "better" isn't gonna sit with me. So at that, I leave you to argue amongst yourselves, as I'm sure you will. I'm sort of curious how this conversation would have gone if GW had had a problem with the spelling, and typed out "betetr" instead of "better." How would that RAW discussion have gone?
... Wasn't made to define better? Seriously? They literally said that - multiple times. And the way to improve an armor save, according to page 19, is to lower it - not to add special rules to it.
And a misspelling wouldn't matter - if it's an obvious typo (like Relentless Smash) then it gets ignored.
Shandara wrote: And we have stated that properties such as re-rollability or other extraneous advantages have no bearing on determining which save is 'better'.
And I've stated I disagree with that as it clearly, by virtue of logic, makes them better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Purifier - fine, then find a RAW allowance to include these other special rules
Givenn you have stated this is permitted, you must have a page and para yes?
Or, as you have consistently shown - despite NOT marking your posts as a houserule, you are just arguing a houserule
RAW says you have to use the best save. Well, the special rules makes the save better. So, by RAW, you have to use the special rule.
The special rule clearly doesn't make the save worse, and it doesn't leave the save unaffected. It clearly makes it better.
The rules dont define if a save that is rerollable is better than a non rerollable. The only thing they define is that a lower numbered save is better than a higher numbered.
You are told to use the best available save. The rulebook did clearly define what is better than the other. You just cant argue that at all.
I totally see your point and thats HIWPI but you have to admit that you dont have any rules backing when you say you are able to take rerolls in consideration of what is the actual best save.
Purifier wrote: No need to call names, I'll agree with that, but let's face it, rigeld, you're pretty good at pushing people's buttons with your rampant mean sarcasm. or "maybe, just maybe," you could be a little more civil yourself too instead of always just skirting the limit of where implications of others stupidity crosses to open insulting?
Feel free to report me if you think I'm being mean. Tone doesn't cross the internet very well - you'd do better not to read a mean tone into anything I type.
It actually DOESN'T tell you that it's "solely based on lowering the number" it just gives that as a way to tell it's better. And that's why I think your strict reading is, even RAW, questionable. I think the word "best" might be used in the rulebook as a term to describe the best for the situation, rather than a reference to the one instance where they tell you that a save with a lower number is better than one with a higher, which is only a reference to how that one stat works opposite to the rest which are better if they are higher in the context.
Really?
page 2 wrote:Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better.
example on page 15 wrote:The forest grants a cover save of 5+(see page 18), but their Armour Save of 3+is better. Therefore, they all use their Armour Saves and roll all of them together.
page 19 wrote:a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.
page 19 wrote:However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+.
page 26 wrote:An invulnerable save can be made, if it is the best save available.
One instance? Over and over again they refer to a lower save being better. And a definition of "best" that is not "the most better" is a strange one indeed.
I actually truthfully believe both readings to be RAW. I have explained several times how, and it doesn't sit with a lot of people, and their exclusivism based on a sentence that clearly wasn't made to define the word "better" isn't gonna sit with me. So at that, I leave you to argue amongst yourselves, as I'm sure you will. I'm sort of curious how this conversation would have gone if GW had had a problem with the spelling, and typed out "betetr" instead of "better." How would that RAW discussion have gone?
... Wasn't made to define better? Seriously? They literally said that - multiple times. And the way to improve an armor save, according to page 19, is to lower it - not to add special rules to it.
And a misspelling wouldn't matter - if it's an obvious typo (like Relentless Smash) then it gets ignored.
half of those rules quotes only prove my point. The rest are inconclusive.
Do you use the same logic talking about everything else?
Would you say that if your troop choice was given ATSKNF, Fearless and Relentless they would not be better? They'd be totally the same as they are now? No. Their statline would be the same, but they would clearly be better.
Purifier wrote: Do you use the same logic talking about everything else?
Would you say that if your troop choice was given ATSKNF, Fearless and Relentless they would not be better? They'd be totally the same as they are now? No. Their statline would be the same, but they would clearly be better.
Is there a definition of "better" in the rules that ignores special rules when it comes to troops?
No?
Oh. Okay then - yes, they are better when given new special rules.
Yes, rules absolutely matter in how I talk about things. If I need a hammer, the screwdriver that costs twice as much isn't "better" than a hammer.
Purifier wrote: Do you use the same logic talking about everything else?
Would you say that if your troop choice was given ATSKNF, Fearless and Relentless they would not be better? They'd be totally the same as they are now? No. Their statline would be the same, but they would clearly be better.
Is there a definition of "better" in the rules that ignores special rules when it comes to troops?
No?
Oh. Okay then - yes, they are better when given new special rules.
Yes, rules absolutely matter in how I talk about things. If I need a hammer, the screwdriver that costs twice as much isn't "better" than a hammer.
I read the word "best" as something that MUST include everything. Otherwise it's only gonna get better... never best. Nowhere does it state that a 2+ is the BEST save in the game. It states it cannot be improved to a 1+, but that's not the same thing.
Purifier wrote: Do you use the same logic talking about everything else?
Would you say that if your troop choice was given ATSKNF, Fearless and Relentless they would not be better? They'd be totally the same as they are now? No. Their statline would be the same, but they would clearly be better.
Is there a definition of "better" in the rules that ignores special rules when it comes to troops?
No?
Oh. Okay then - yes, they are better when given new special rules.
Yes, rules absolutely matter in how I talk about things. If I need a hammer, the screwdriver that costs twice as much isn't "better" than a hammer.
I read the word "best" as something that MUST include everything. Otherwise it's only gonna get better... never best. Nowhere does it state that a 2+ is the BEST save in the game. It states it cannot be improved to a 1+, but that's not the same thing.
So you'd rather have the expensive screwdriver instead of the hammer?
Or, reversing the example - cheap screwdriver expensive hammer. Both tools do the job, one is significantly cheaper.
The better tool for the job is the hammer, but taking all factors into account that screwdriver is awful tempting...
Purifier wrote: Do you use the same logic talking about everything else?
Would you say that if your troop choice was given ATSKNF, Fearless and Relentless they would not be better? They'd be totally the same as they are now? No. Their statline would be the same, but they would clearly be better.
Is there a definition of "better" in the rules that ignores special rules when it comes to troops?
No?
Oh. Okay then - yes, they are better when given new special rules.
Yes, rules absolutely matter in how I talk about things. If I need a hammer, the screwdriver that costs twice as much isn't "better" than a hammer.
I read the word "best" as something that MUST include everything. Otherwise it's only gonna get better... never best. Nowhere does it state that a 2+ is the BEST save in the game. It states it cannot be improved to a 1+, but that's not the same thing.
So you'd rather have the expensive screwdriver instead of the hammer?
Or, reversing the example - cheap screwdriver expensive hammer. Both tools do the job, one is significantly cheaper.
The better tool for the job is the hammer, but taking all factors into account that screwdriver is awful tempting...
No. Your metaphor made no sense the first time, and your clarification didn't do anything.
There are other special rules you don't ignore for choosing which is your best save.
Ignores Cover, for example. So if you have a 2+ cover save, and a 3+ armour save, and you're hit with a weapon that Ignores Cover, by your definition of only the number being relevant, you still have to choose the 2+ cover, which you can't take so you get no save at all. Only a save that is countered.
Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
It's not available because it has a special rule that says it isn't. But according to you, only the number matters. I don't agree with this, clearly. I'm saying that you are picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't.
When I said your troops are better because they have special rules, you said there was a rule in the rulebook that disregarded special rules from what save is to be taken.
Clearly, there isn't.
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
It's not available because it has a special rule that says it isn't. But according to you, only the number matters. I don't agree with this, clearly. I'm saying that you are picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't.
When I said your troops are better because they have special rules, you said there was a rule in the rulebook that disregarded special rules from what save is to be taken.
Clearly, there isn't.
If your save is ignored its not available. I dont think the way you are trying to argue here is supporting your point at all.
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
It's not available because it has a special rule that says it isn't. But according to you, only the number matters. I don't agree with this, clearly. I'm saying that you are picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't.
When I said your troops are better because they have special rules, you said there was a rule in the rulebook that disregarded special rules from what save is to be taken.
Clearly, there isn't.
If your save is ignored its not available. I dont think the way you are trying to argue here is supporting your point at all.
Ignores Cover shows that a special rule decides whether or not a save is the best or not. It's not "ignored" either. That's just the name of the skill. it "cannot be taken." which makes it very much not the best save.
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
It's not available because it has a special rule that says it isn't. But according to you, only the number matters. I don't agree with this, clearly. I'm saying that you are picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't.
When I said your troops are better because they have special rules, you said there was a rule in the rulebook that disregarded special rules from what save is to be taken.
Clearly, there isn't.
You take the best available save.
The cover save isn't available.
You are not allowed to select a save that isn't available as the best available save.
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
It's not available because it has a special rule that says it isn't. But according to you, only the number matters. I don't agree with this, clearly. I'm saying that you are picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't.
When I said your troops are better because they have special rules, you said there was a rule in the rulebook that disregarded special rules from what save is to be taken.
Clearly, there isn't.
If your save is ignored its not available. I dont think the way you are trying to argue here is supporting your point at all.
Ignores Cover shows that a special rule decides whether or not a save is the best or not.
It decides if the save is available. Not if its the better one. Of course its the better one. But not available.
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
It's not available because it has a special rule that says it isn't. But according to you, only the number matters. I don't agree with this, clearly. I'm saying that you are picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't.
When I said your troops are better because they have special rules, you said there was a rule in the rulebook that disregarded special rules from what save is to be taken.
Clearly, there isn't.
If your save is ignored its not available. I dont think the way you are trying to argue here is supporting your point at all.
Ignores Cover shows that a special rule decides whether or not a save is the best or not.
It decides if the save is available. Not if its the better one.
Well, that's where I feel like I'm rules lawyering at the same level as the people saying a save cannot be better just because it's better.
Since it doesn't state that it makes it unavailable, but only that it cannot be taken, you have to then say that those things are interchangable (which, if you weren't rules laywering, they of course are)
But since we are, I'd say it doesn't state anywhere that it becomes unavailable. Only that you can't take the save. So you have to choose it and THEN you can't take it.
Purifier wrote: Well, that's where I feel like I'm rules lawyering at the same level as the people saying a save cannot be better just because it's better.
Since it doesn't state that it makes it unavailable, but only that it cannot be taken, you have to then say that those things are interchangable (which, if you weren't rules laywering, they of course are)
But since we are, I'd say it doesn't state anywhere that it becomes unavailable. Only that you can't take the save. So you have to choose it and THEN you can't take it.
Page 17 wrote: the target gets no armour save at all.The armour is ineffective against the shot.
Page 26 wrote:As in the Shooting phase, if the Wound is caused by a weapon with an AP that ignores the wounded model's Armour Save, then the save cannot be taken (seepage 17).
Evidence that "cannot be taken" is the same as "ineffective" meaning unavailable.
You're incorrect RAW.
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
It's not available because it has a special rule that says it isn't. But according to you, only the number matters. I don't agree with this, clearly. I'm saying that you are picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't.
When I said your troops are better because they have special rules, you said there was a rule in the rulebook that disregarded special rules from what save is to be taken.
Clearly, there isn't.
If your save is ignored its not available. I dont think the way you are trying to argue here is supporting your point at all.
Ignores Cover shows that a special rule decides whether or not a save is the best or not.
It decides if the save is available. Not if its the better one.
Well, that's where I feel like I'm rules lawyering at the same level as the people saying a save cannot be better just because it's better.
Since it doesn't state that it makes it unavailable, but only that it cannot be taken, you have to then say that those things are interchangable (which, if you weren't rules laywering, they of course are)
But since we are, I'd say it doesn't state anywhere that it becomes unavailable. Only that you can't take the save. So you have to choose it and THEN you can't take it
.
Ignore cover clearly states the cover saves cannot be taken. Its therefor not available. I dont really think that this argument is the same as the "which save is better" argument. If you cant take a save you dont have it. It really is the same with ap value punching your armor.
We're not saying a 4++ re-rollable isn't better in a subjective non-rules context.
We're saying that the rulebook only defines what is 'better' (and thus best) in the context of the -->number<-- your save characteristic has and if you don't follow that you are breaking the rule.
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
It's not available because it has a special rule that says it isn't. But according to you, only the number matters. I don't agree with this, clearly. I'm saying that you are picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't.
When I said your troops are better because they have special rules, you said there was a rule in the rulebook that disregarded special rules from what save is to be taken.
Clearly, there isn't.
If your save is ignored its not available. I dont think the way you are trying to argue here is supporting your point at all.
Ignores Cover shows that a special rule decides whether or not a save is the best or not.
It decides if the save is available. Not if its the better one.
Well, that's where I feel like I'm rules lawyering at the same level as the people saying a save cannot be better just because it's better.
Since it doesn't state that it makes it unavailable, but only that it cannot be taken, you have to then say that those things are interchangable (which, if you weren't rules laywering, they of course are)
But since we are, I'd say it doesn't state anywhere that it becomes unavailable. Only that you can't take the save. So you have to choose it and THEN you can't take it.
Ignore cover clearly states the cover saves cannot be taken. Its therefor not available. I dont really think that this argument is the same as the "which save is better" argument. If you cant take a save you dont have it. It really is the same with ap value punching your armor.
You do have it, you just can't take it.
And ineffective doesn't mean inavailable.
I understand you find my examples silly. That's probably because I find yours ridiculous too.
Purifier wrote: You do have it, you just can't take it. And ineffective doesn't mean inavailable.
I understand you find my examples silly. That's probably because I find yours ridiculous too.
So, according to you, an AP shot ignores an Armor Save but you must still try and take that armor save if its lower than your invul?
According to me that's how it is according to you.
Fortunately the BRB proves you wrong.
page 19 wrote:For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The force field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapon, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.
If it's ignored it's not available. Ignored == cannot be taken. Ignores Cover means it cannot be taken. Your entire premise is wrong.
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
It's not available because it has a special rule that says it isn't. But according to you, only the number matters. I don't agree with this, clearly. I'm saying that you are picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't.
When I said your troops are better because they have special rules, you said there was a rule in the rulebook that disregarded special rules from what save is to be taken.
Clearly, there isn't.
If your save is ignored its not available. I dont think the way you are trying to argue here is supporting your point at all.
Ignores Cover shows that a special rule decides whether or not a save is the best or not.
It decides if the save is available. Not if its the better one.
Well, that's where I feel like I'm rules lawyering at the same level as the people saying a save cannot be better just because it's better.
Since it doesn't state that it makes it unavailable, but only that it cannot be taken, you have to then say that those things are interchangable (which, if you weren't rules laywering, they of course are)
But since we are, I'd say it doesn't state anywhere that it becomes unavailable. Only that you can't take the save. So you have to choose it and THEN you can't take it.
Ignore cover clearly states the cover saves cannot be taken. Its therefor not available. I dont really think that this argument is the same as the "which save is better" argument. If you cant take a save you dont have it. It really is the same with ap value punching your armor.
You do have it, you just can't take it.
And ineffective doesn't mean inavailable.
I understand you find my examples silly. That's probably because I find yours ridiculous too.
Theres no silly or ridiculous. We have differing opinions on the matter. I can accept that. I just dont think that your "you have the save you dont get it" holds any water. The rulebook clearly defines what happens if a save isnt available (which it is if it cannot be taken). Arguing a save that cannot be taken is still available simply doesnt support your point in my eyes nor does it weaken my point.
page 19 wrote:For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to
or lower than that of his armour save. The force field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapon, so the
Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.
I think the bolded part of the example in the book might support your point of taking what has the best chances to survive. At least thats the definition they give here. But even than you would have to follow page2 in my eyes. RAW
Purifier wrote: Is it "available"? Yes, I have a cover save. It can't be taken, but since special rules don't affect which is the best save, I still have to choose that from my saves, right?
No, it's not available. For the same reason that an AP2 weapon makes Armor Saves not available.
Rules - they matter.
It's not available because it has a special rule that says it isn't. But according to you, only the number matters. I don't agree with this, clearly. I'm saying that you are picking and choosing what matters and what doesn't.
When I said your troops are better because they have special rules, you said there was a rule in the rulebook that disregarded special rules from what save is to be taken.
Clearly, there isn't.
If your save is ignored its not available. I dont think the way you are trying to argue here is supporting your point at all.
Ignores Cover shows that a special rule decides whether or not a save is the best or not.
It decides if the save is available. Not if its the better one.
Well, that's where I feel like I'm rules lawyering at the same level as the people saying a save cannot be better just because it's better.
Since it doesn't state that it makes it unavailable, but only that it cannot be taken, you have to then say that those things are interchangable (which, if you weren't rules laywering, they of course are)
But since we are, I'd say it doesn't state anywhere that it becomes unavailable. Only that you can't take the save. So you have to choose it and THEN you can't take it.
Ignore cover clearly states the cover saves cannot be taken. Its therefor not available. I dont really think that this argument is the same as the "which save is better" argument. If you cant take a save you dont have it. It really is the same with ap value punching your armor.
You do have it, you just can't take it.
And ineffective doesn't mean inavailable.
I understand you find my examples silly. That's probably because I find yours ridiculous too.
Theres no silly or ridiculous. We have differing opinions on the matter. I can accept that. I just dont think that your "you have the save you dont get it" holds any water. The rulebook clearly defines what happens if a save isnt available (which it is if it cannot be taken). Arguing a save that cannot be taken is still available simply doesnt support your point in my eyes nor does it weaken my point.
page 19 wrote:For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to
or lower than that of his armour save. The force field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapon, so the
Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.
I think the bolded part of the example in the book might support your point of taking what has the best chances to survive. At least thats the definition they give here. But even than you would have to follow page2 in my eyes. RAW
The bolded part has been brought up before I believe.
Page 2 only matters, even RAW, depending on how you read the first rule.
If you read Best (that best is a term to be defined ONLY by other rules specifying Better, and that it is in fact a rule-term. Like you have to accumulate amounts of better and compare them) then page 2 must be considered.
If you read best (if someone asked you, "which one of these two saves would be best for my character to take?" you cannot in all seriousness say "oh, that'd be the one that has a bigger chance of killing you") then page 2 is only an example for a way to improve, but other things that actually DO MAKE THE SAVE BETTER also factor.
So. Again. I believe both readings are RAW. And I think I have proven this point time and time again.
Purifier wrote: If you read Best (that best is a term to be defined ONLY by other rules specifying Better, and that it is in fact a rule-term) then page 2 must be considered.
So you actually define "best" as something that is not "the most better"?
If you read best (if someone asked you, "which one of these two saves would be best for my character to take?" you cannot in all seriousness say "oh, that'd be the one that has a bigger chance of killing you") then page 2 is only an example for a way to improve, but other things that actually DO MAKE THE SAVE BETTER also factor.
You're told how to improve saves - page 19. I've cited it. Do the rules on page 19 include special rules in how to improve armor saves?
So. Again. I believe both readings are RAW. And I think I have proven this point time and time again.
Purifier wrote: If you read Best (that best is a term to be defined ONLY by other rules specifying Better, and that it is in fact a rule-term) then page 2 must be considered.
So you actually define "best" as something that is not "the most better"?
If you read best (if someone asked you, "which one of these two saves would be best for my character to take?" you cannot in all seriousness say "oh, that'd be the one that has a bigger chance of killing you") then page 2 is only an example for a way to improve, but other things that actually DO MAKE THE SAVE BETTER also factor.
You're told how to improve saves - page 19. I've cited it. Do the rules on page 19 include special rules in how to improve armor saves?
So. Again. I believe both readings are RAW. And I think I have proven this point time and time again.
No, you really haven't.
yeah, I really have. Your refusal doesn't make it any less so. The most better is in my favour actually, since I have more things to throw in than you do. And I'm told one way of comparing saves to eachother. That doesn't say that making a save better doesn't make it better. Common sense tells me that a better save is better.
I know we can't use dictionary definitions, but you do need to use English to read the book.
Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.
So here we have a definition of 'best' that conforms to common usage of the word. Why can't we go with this?
That's actually the only instances that uses the word "best," so by definition, it's law.
On P. 19 directly above the example it states in bolded letters:
"[...] a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save"
So not the only instance.
Errr... that's the exact phrase that we are talking about. That's the exact word that I am arguing people are reading differently. The other one is the only one referring to that word
And it isn't a red herring any more than page 2 is. It's easy to just dismiss anything that doesn't conform to your theories as red herring.
yeah, I really have. Your refusal doesn't make it any less so. The most better is in my favour actually, since I have more things to throw in than you do. And I'm told one way of comparing saves to eachother. That doesn't say that making a save better doesn't make it better. Common sense tells me that a better save is better.
I know we can't use dictionary definitions, but you do need to use English to read the book.
You're told one way to compare 2 things. You are not given permission to compare them any other way.
If the only way you're permitted to compare them shows that the 4++ is not better, how can it possibly ever be the most better?
That's actually the only instances that uses the word "best," so by definition, it's law.
And in that instance its - wait for it - best because it's the lower number.
yeah, I really have. Your refusal doesn't make it any less so. The most better is in my favour actually, since I have more things to throw in than you do. And I'm told one way of comparing saves to eachother. That doesn't say that making a save better doesn't make it better. Common sense tells me that a better save is better.
I know we can't use dictionary definitions, but you do need to use English to read the book.
You're told one way to compare 2 things. You are not given permission to compare them any other way.
If the only way you're permitted to compare them shows that the 4++ is not better, how can it possibly ever be the most better?
That's actually the only instances that uses the word "best," so by definition, it's law.
And in that instance its - wait for it - best because it's the lower number.
No, it's - wait for it - best because it gives the larges chance of survival!
It gives the largest chance of survival because it's the lowest number, but that's just one of the ways of gaining largest chance of survival.
And I'm NOT told to compare two things. I'm told to pick the best save. How I pick it is not in any way described. I have to use my common sense for that one. Your common sense told you that only numbers apply because numbers have been explicitly mentioned as something that is better than a different number.
My common sense tells me that if I have a higher chance of survival, that's a better way of choosing it.
yeah, I really have. Your refusal doesn't make it any less so. The most better is in my favour actually, since I have more things to throw in than you do. And I'm told one way of comparing saves to eachother. That doesn't say that making a save better doesn't make it better. Common sense tells me that a better save is better.
I know we can't use dictionary definitions, but you do need to use English to read the book.
You're told one way to compare 2 things. You are not given permission to compare them any other way.
If the only way you're permitted to compare them shows that the 4++ is not better, how can it possibly ever be the most better?
That's actually the only instances that uses the word "best," so by definition, it's law.
And in that instance its - wait for it - best because it's the lower number.
No by the wording its "best chance of surviving". At the moment im not really clear of my own interpretation and tend to agree with both sides in some points. Therefor i just stop arguing.
Purifier wrote: It gives the largest chance of survival because it's the lowest number, but that's just one of the ways of gaining largest chance of survival.
I've cited the definition of improve - lowering the number.
I've cited the only definition of "better" in the book - lower numbers are better.
Can you cite one thing - in the actual rulebook - that allows you to take special rules into account? You've failed to do so every time.
The one time you actually attacked my argument you failed miserably, by the way.
Purifier wrote: It gives the largest chance of survival because it's the lowest number, but that's just one of the ways of gaining largest chance of survival.
I've cited the definition of improve - lowering the number.
I've cited the only definition of "better" in the book - lower numbers are better.
Can you cite one thing - in the actual rulebook - that allows you to take special rules into account? You've failed to do so every time.
The one time you actually attacked my argument you failed miserably, by the way.
I disagree. I feel I completely dismantled it and shamed you. And I've told you about 15 times now that the original rule gives me all the RAW needed. It's right there. It gives me permission to choose the best one.
Way to remove context to seem like it proves your point!
Good job!
Could you be more deliberately misleading?
Could you? You have time and time again cut out the piece of your page 2 and 19 and not given the context and ignored it completely when I've brought the context in.
"The best save available" is most certainly the saving throw with the best chance of negating the wound allocated to the model.
The page 2 description of the 'lower the number the better' does not preclude other Special Rules from making a higher number better than a lower number option because of re-rolls increasing probability. This is a preliminary description without regard to other special rules in the BRB or individual Codices. Those special rule apply to the save in question making it the best save possible.
My other example would be taking a Toughness Characteristic Test on a Chaos Lord with a Bike. The Bike is Wargear, granting +1 to his Toughness Characteristic. But the printed profile in the book is at T4. So do we ignore the Bike for Toughness Tests? No. The addition of that piece of wargear gives him un-ignorable benefits, just like the Greater Reward for the Bloodthirster. If I think of more examples I'll post them.
Purifier wrote: It gives the largest chance of survival because it's the lowest number, but that's just one of the ways of gaining largest chance of survival.
I've cited the definition of improve - lowering the number. I've cited the only definition of "better" in the book - lower numbers are better.
Can you cite one thing - in the actual rulebook - that allows you to take special rules into account? You've failed to do so every time. The one time you actually attacked my argument you failed miserably, by the way.
I disagree. I feel I completely dismantled it and shamed you.
And I've told you about 15 times now that the original rule gives me all the RAW needed. It's right there. It gives me permission to choose the best one.
Now - define best. If it's not "the most better" or something similar I'd like to know why.
Way to remove context to seem like it proves your point! Good job! Could you be more deliberately misleading?
Could you? You have time and time again cut out the piece of your page 2 and 19 and not given the context and ignored it completely when I've brought the context in.
Please, cite the context I've cut out that changes the definitions of the rules. Here, I'll quote them in entirety for you.
Page 19 wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails.
Page 19 wrote:Sometimes, a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save - a good example is a Space Marine Captain who is protected by both power armour and a force field from his Iron Halo. As if this wasn't enough, the model might be in cover as well. In these cases,a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.
Page 2 wrote:Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+
nosferatu1001 wrote: Purifier - it doesnt need to explicitly define the "best" save, as it does so by:
1) DEFINING that lower number is better when it comes to saves. There is no RAW argument against this definition
2) DEFINING the lowest save as a 2+
WHen you take the two together the 40k definition of "best" can be determined - it is the lowest number
There isnt any RAW argument against this. None.
Than give the page number that defines the lower number as better!
Because page two does NOT give that definition, page two tells us that "the lower an armour save is, the better,".
Conclusion:
1. Page two only talks about armour saves.
2. Not a single page tells us to treat inv saves as armour saves.
3. The example on page 19 literally says that the Captain uses the 3+ save "to give him the best chance of survival".
4. A 4++ with reroll gives him the best chance of survival VS a 3+
Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.
rigeld2 wrote: quote=Page 14]Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+
Since the others prove MY point nicely, how about you add the next sentence after this aswell so we can see that the intention is not that it's stating a 2+ can't be improved by special rules, but that it can't be made into 1+?
It feels good being right. I don't know how it feels being you though.
rigeld2 wrote: quote=Page 14]Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+
Since the others prove MY point nicely, how about you add the next sentence after this aswell so we can see that the intention is not that it's stating a 2+ can't be improved by special rules, but that it can't be made into 1+?
It feels good being right. I don't know how it feels being you though.
There is no "next sentence after that". I mis-cited the page - that's the page 2 quote. Literally the last sentence on the page.
Could you explain how they prove your point? I asked you to do that when you accused me of only posting half the rule. Please do so or apologize.
rigeld2 wrote: quote=Page 14]Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+
Since the others prove MY point nicely, how about you add the next sentence after this aswell so we can see that the intention is not that it's stating a 2+ can't be improved by special rules, but that it can't be made into 1+?
It feels good being right. I don't know how it feels being you though.
There is no "next sentence after that". I mis-cited the page - that's the page 2 quote. Literally the last sentence on the page.
Could you explain how they prove your point? I asked you to do that when you accused me of only posting half the rule. Please do so or apologize.
Sorry, I quoted the wrong thing. You did post the full one, the one saying that 1+ can never happen.
You can't deny having cut that part out in every or almost every instance you have quoted it before though.
And I don't want to explain it again. It's all back there in many many posts. You can read througn that.
Kangodo wrote: Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.
Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.
Lord Krungharr wrote: "The best save available" is most certainly the saving throw with the best chance of negating the wound allocated to the model.
The page 2 description of the 'lower the number the better' does not preclude other Special Rules from making a higher number better than a lower number option because of re-rolls increasing probability. This is a preliminary description without regard to other special rules in the BRB or individual Codices. Those special rule apply to the save in question making it the best save possible.
(snipped)
I agree "highest probability of passing" is what i would call "best", but the rules never give us any guidance to that effect.
In fact, the only guidance we have suggests the opposite. It says best is lowest.
A special rule can make one save more likely to save a wound than another, sure, but it does not change the definition of "best" implied by the page 2 quotation.
I don't think the prose about lower saves being better is a particularly solid rule, but it's all we have on this topic.
So, the question comes down to, how do you want to play? would you rather play strictly according to the best available interpretation of RAW, or should we "do what makes sense". This looks like an example of where the two play styles diverge.
Kangodo wrote: Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.
Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.
How is what the lowest combined number of the total amount of rolls relevant to the survival of your character?
You're getting really incoherrent, but I think that's what you're trying to say?
Kangodo wrote: Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.
Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.
How is what the lowest combined number of the total amount of rolls relevant to the survival of your character?
You're getting really incoherrent, but I think that's what you're trying to say?
I'm saying that if you have no rules telling you that an invul save is like an armor save (and therefore similarly limited) like you're claiming,
then you have no rules that tell you how to take an invul save at all. What die do you roll? What is the target number? Is lower better? how many dice?
Answer those questions with actual rules please. I asked once before but I didn't see a response.
Even though Rigeld keeps ignoring it, "to give him the best chance of survival" is pretty clear indication what GW means by 'best.' Surprisingly enough, they mean what the word actually means.
I'm saying that if you have no rules telling you that an invul save is like an armor save (and therefore similarly limited) like you're claiming,
then you have no rules that tell you how to take an invul save at all. What die do you roll? What is the target number? Is lower better? how many dice?
Answer those questions with actual rules please. I asked once before but I didn't see a response.
What does it matter? You're the RAW-über-alles guy. The game is unplayable if you don't factor the intent, we all know that; this has never bothered you before.
Kangodo wrote: Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.
Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.
How is what the lowest combined number of the total amount of rolls relevant to the survival of your character?
You're getting really incoherrent, but I think that's what you're trying to say?
I'm saying that if you have no rules telling you that an invul save is like an armor save (and therefore similarly limited) like you're claiming,
then you have no rules that tell you how to take an invul save at all. What die do you roll? What is the target number? Is lower better? how many dice?
Answer those questions with actual rules please. I asked once before but I didn't see a response.
They are similarly limited. It's your limitations I don't agree with. now THIS is a red herring.
Crimson wrote: Even though Rigeld keeps ignoring it, "to give him the best chance of survival" is pretty clear indication what GW means by 'best.' Surprisingly enough, they mean what the word actually means.
I haven't ignored anything, please don't insult me.
I'm saying that if you have no rules telling you that an invul save is like an armor save (and therefore similarly limited) like you're claiming,
then you have no rules that tell you how to take an invul save at all. What die do you roll? What is the target number? Is lower better? how many dice?
Answer those questions with actual rules please. I asked once before but I didn't see a response.
What does it matter? You're the RAW-über-alles guy. The game is unplayable if you don't factor the intent, we all know that; this has never bothered you before.
Perhaps read that post in context, then you'd understand why I said what I said.
Kangodo wrote: Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.
Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.
How is what the lowest combined number of the total amount of rolls relevant to the survival of your character?
You're getting really incoherrent, but I think that's what you're trying to say?
I'm saying that if you have no rules telling you that an invul save is like an armor save (and therefore similarly limited) like you're claiming,
then you have no rules that tell you how to take an invul save at all. What die do you roll? What is the target number? Is lower better? how many dice?
Answer those questions with actual rules please. I asked once before but I didn't see a response.
They are similarly limited. It's your limitations I don't agree with. now THIS is a red herring.
Sorry, I mistook you for Kangodo. Wrong person - I apologize for the tangent. That post is meant for him to reply to.
I haven't ignored anything, please don't insult me.
So what you think "to give him the best chance of survival" actually means?
In the context of that paragraph, and the definitions in the book, the lowest save.
You cannot take a single sentence out of context and decide. That's what you're doing.
I very much disagree. The intent of the rule is clear. He is taking one of two saves and the choice is not because one is higher than the other. The choice is because it gives him the highest chance of survival even in context the reasoning of his choice is clear.
The reason why it gave a higher chance of survival happened to be because the number was lower, but the choice was made to survive. not to adhere to numbers.
So, people are quoting parts of an Example to count against an actual rule on page 2 now?
Which has more validity?
Also.. the captain in the example has a cover save (3++) and an invulnerable save (4++), and he takes the 3++ (which is lower) because it has the 'best' chance of survival.
What you're doing, Rigeld, is assuming that a general summary of stats, merely intended to remind that save works differently to than the other stats, applies directly to a situation where multiple special rules are involved. That text is at least as much out of context when applied to this situation as mine was.
Your interpretation to leads to unnatural situation where 'best' does not mean best. The other interpretation doesn't, thus it is better interpretation (when I say 'better', I mean better, not worse; just to be clear.)
Shandara wrote: So, people are quoting parts of an Example to count against an actual rule on page 2 now?
Which has more validity?
The example provides intent. Again you are misreading the situation. It's not counting against the rule, only your reading of it. Text in the rulebook or your opinion on how the rule should be. Which has more validity?
I am not saying the example proves the rule wrong. I'm saying the example proves the intent of the rule.
Examples containt more prosaic language and are merely to illustrate a point.
The rule is supposed to set down what exactly they want.
Also from my previous post the page before:
Also.. the captain in the example has a cover save (3++) and an invulnerable save (4++), and he takes the 3++ (which is lower) because it has the 'best' chance of survival.
Lower is better? Lowest is best?
The example fits the point above lower being better and thus lowest being best perfectly.
I haven't ignored anything, please don't insult me.
So what you think "to give him the best chance of survival" actually means?
In the context of that paragraph, and the definitions in the book, the lowest save.
You cannot take a single sentence out of context and decide. That's what you're doing.
I very much disagree. The intent of the rule is clear. He is taking one of two saves and the choice is not because one is higher than the other. The choice is because it gives him the highest chance of survival even in context the reasoning of his choice is clear.
The reason why it gave a higher chance of survival happened to be because the number was lower, but the choice was made to survive. not to adhere to numbers.
So you're making an argument for intent? Sure, whatever - I rarely get involved in those because 99% of the time I couldn't care less.
I haven't ignored anything, please don't insult me.
So what you think "to give him the best chance of survival" actually means?
In the context of that paragraph, and the definitions in the book, the lowest save.
You cannot take a single sentence out of context and decide. That's what you're doing.
I very much disagree. The intent of the rule is clear. He is taking one of two saves and the choice is not because one is higher than the other. The choice is because it gives him the highest chance of survival even in context the reasoning of his choice is clear.
The reason why it gave a higher chance of survival happened to be because the number was lower, but the choice was made to survive. not to adhere to numbers.
So you're making an argument for intent? Sure, whatever - I rarely get involved in those because 99% of the time I couldn't care less.
The intent of the rulebook is to use it to play 40k. But you can use it to smack children over the head with too. I think intent counts when it's spelled out as clear as it is here.
Shandara, the example is right. Lower is better. Lower AND better is even better though! the example takes two different things and puts them on scales. It could have been a pebble on the ground against a banana too. It doesn't matter what it compares. It matters that it is comparing them in order to find the one that gives the best chance of survival.
Crimson wrote: What you're doing, Rigeld, is assuming that a general summary of stats, merely intended to remind that save works differently to than the other stats, applies directly to a situation where multiple special rules are involved. That text is at least as much out of context when applied to this situation as mine was.
If that was the only place that lower is defined as better I might agree. It's not. The only way to improve a save is to lower it (page 19).
Your interpretation to leads to unnatural situation where 'best' does not mean best. The other interpretation doesn't, thus it is better interpretation (when I say 'better', I mean better, not worse; just to be clear.)
It does mean best. It means best using criteria set using the rules. Your definition of "best" uses criteria you've invented.
Which is best - a tape measure or a rolling pin? If you have to ask "Best at what?" then you're agreeing that "best" requires defining criteria. I've shown, in the rules, where criteria are defined. You have not.
So you're making an argument for intent? Sure, whatever - I rarely get involved in those because 99% of the time I couldn't care less.
I know; which is I found it hilarious how you complained earlier how other poster's interpretation broke the game. Strict-RAW is useless, most of the times it does not even exist except in the heads of certain individuals. The rules are written in casual manner instead of as logical syntax, you always need to interpret them. In a situation where rule is unclear you absolutely need to consider the intent.
Purifier wrote: The intent of the rulebook is to use it to play 40k. But you can use it to smack children over the head with too. I think intent counts when it's spelled out as clear as it is here.
Except it's not spelled out clearly at all - at least not in your favor.
"Best" must have criteria defined. Agreed?
We have defined criteria for a better save. Agreed?
We have a defined way to improve saves - that is, make them better. Agreed?
So you're making an argument for intent? Sure, whatever - I rarely get involved in those because 99% of the time I couldn't care less.
I know; which is I found it hilarious how you complained earlier how other poster's interpretation broke the game. Strict-RAW is useless, most of the times it does not even exist except in the heads of certain individuals. The rules are written in casual manner instead of as logical syntax, you always need to interpret them. In a situation where rule is unclear you absolutely need to consider the intent.
But only to a minimum. By trying to impose intent farther "up the stack" than required to make rules work, you're making a situation where you're making up rules.
To make the rules work, invul saves must have the same restrictions as armor saves. That's the only "intent" I'm applying. You're reaching much farther than that and ignoring rules to do so.
It does mean best. It means best using criteria set using the rules. Your definition of "best" uses criteria you've invented.
No, it is a criteria used in an actual example, written by the people who wrote the rules, and matches the common sense interpretation of the word. "to give him the best chance of survival"
It does mean best. It means best using criteria set using the rules. Your definition of "best" uses criteria you've invented.
No, it is a criteria used in an actual example, written by the people who wrote the rules, and matches the common sense interpretation of the word. "to give him the best chance of survival"
... an example that you've taken out of context of the rest of the rules in the book, and ignores the actual criteria set forth.
Hi. I'm not sure if this has been pointed out before in this thread but in the FaQ and Erreta of the rulebook on the Games workshop site it makes it seem clear to me that you can use both saves. Here is what it says
Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves
Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are
different to armour saves because they may always be taken
whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,
suffers a penetrating or glancing hit – the Armour Piercing
value of attacking weapons has no effect upon an Invulnerable
save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores
all armour saves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”.
Crimson wrote: What you're doing, Rigeld, is assuming that a general summary of stats, merely intended to remind that save works differently to than the other stats, applies directly to a situation where multiple special rules are involved. That text is at least as much out of context when applied to this situation as mine was.
If that was the only place that lower is defined as better I might agree. It's not. The only way to improve a save is to lower it (page 19).
Your interpretation to leads to unnatural situation where 'best' does not mean best. The other interpretation doesn't, thus it is better interpretation (when I say 'better', I mean better, not worse; just to be clear.)
It does mean best. It means best using criteria set using the rules. Your definition of "best" uses criteria you've invented.
Which is best - a tape measure or a rolling pin? If you have to ask "Best at what?" then you're agreeing that "best" requires defining criteria. I've shown, in the rules, where criteria are defined. You have not.
You're not good at metaphors. In your example you also need to be told that "it's for rolling dough." (we know that we're looking at what to use to save a wound. We know that. It's not shrouded in mystery.)
your metaphor would be more like "Which is best - a tape measure or a rolling pin at rolling dough?" And your response is "have we defined what best *means*?"
The metaphor is still bad, since it doesn't really clarify anything.
Crimson wrote: What you're doing, Rigeld, is assuming that a general summary of stats, merely intended to remind that save works differently to than the other stats, applies directly to a situation where multiple special rules are involved. That text is at least as much out of context when applied to this situation as mine was.
If that was the only place that lower is defined as better I might agree. It's not. The only way to improve a save is to lower it (page 19).
Your interpretation to leads to unnatural situation where 'best' does not mean best. The other interpretation doesn't, thus it is better interpretation (when I say 'better', I mean better, not worse; just to be clear.)
It does mean best. It means best using criteria set using the rules. Your definition of "best" uses criteria you've invented.
Which is best - a tape measure or a rolling pin? If you have to ask "Best at what?" then you're agreeing that "best" requires defining criteria. I've shown, in the rules, where criteria are defined. You have not.
You're not good at metaphors. In your example you also need to be told that "it's for rolling dough." (we know that we're looking at what to use to save a wound. We know that. It's not shrouded in mystery.)
your metaphor would be more like "Which is best - a tape measure or a rolling pin at rolling dough?" And your response is "have we defined what best *means*?"
The metaphor is still bad, since it doesn't really clarify anything.
"Best" must have criteria defined. Agreed?
We have defined criteria for a better save. Agreed?
We have a defined way to improve saves - that is, make them better. Agreed?
I'll quote the relevant example here in its entirety, to make a point (bold emphasis mine);
For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The Force Field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapons, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.
Note the bolded part. The 'best chance of surviving' pertains to that part of the sentence. Out of 2 saves he picks the lower because it 'gives him the best chance (of surviving)'. I can't infer anything about re-rolls or anything out of this.
The next paragraph is also an example but explains what to do when a model has more than 1 cover save:
If a model can benefit from different types of cover, for example, being behind a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save) and a barricade (4+, the model uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+).
So the best save is the lowest? Again, nothing about re-rolls or anything..
Shandara wrote: So, people are quoting parts of an Example to count against an actual rule on page 2 now?
Well, you're the one that is using the rules for armour saves for situations with inv saves with NO rule that allows you to do this.
Also.. the captain in the example has a cover save (3++) and an invulnerable save (4++), and he takes the 3++ (which is lower) because it has the 'best' chance of survival.
Yes. He takes the save that gives him the best chance of survival.
The example says that 3++ > 4++, nobody argues against that.
People argue that 4++ /w reroll > 3+
rigeld2 wrote: Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.
It's not my problem that they didn't decently define an inv save in the BRB.
But two wrongs don't make a right.
Just because they failed to decently define it, does not give you the right to treat it as a "super armour save".
Shandara wrote: I'll quote the relevant example here in its entirety, to make a point (bold emphasis mine);
For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The Force Field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapons, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.
Note the bolded part. The 'best chance of surviving' pertains to that part of the sentence. Out of 2 saves he picks the lower because it 'gives him the best chance (of surviving)'. I can't infer anything about re-rolls or anything out of this.
The next paragraph is also an example but explains what to do when a model has more than 1 cover save:
If a model can benefit from different types of cover, for example, being behind a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save) and a barricade (4+, the model uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+).
So the best save is the lowest? Again, nothing about re-rolls or anything..
That may be because it's a pretty damn specific and rare argument. A far sight more rare than the rule for shooting at an elevated angle with a vehicle, which happens in almost every game with a vehicle on one side and a flyer on the other, which GW notes in the BRB as "in extremely rare cases."
I'm certain it's not the only rare occasion they haven't explained out in excruciating detail. They are, after all, already covering it by saying to pick the best one.
rigeld2 wrote: Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.
It's not my problem that they didn't decently define an inv save in the BRB.
But two wrongs don't make a right.
Just because they failed to decently define it, does not give you the right to treat it as a "super armour save".
Great - you can take that save all you want. It's always available.
Unfortunately you have no rules telling you how to take that save and since you can only take one you're not allowed to roll at all.
Shandara wrote: I'll quote the relevant example here in its entirety, to make a point (bold emphasis mine);
For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The Force Field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapons, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.
Note the bolded part. The 'best chance of surviving' pertains to that part of the sentence. Out of 2 saves he picks the lower because it 'gives him the best chance (of surviving)'. I can't infer anything about re-rolls or anything out of this.
The next paragraph is also an example but explains what to do when a model has more than 1 cover save:
If a model can benefit from different types of cover, for example, being behind a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save) and a barricade (4+, the model uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+).
So the best save is the lowest? Again, nothing about re-rolls or anything..
That may be because it's a pretty damn specific and rare argument. A far sight more rare than the rule for shooting at an elevated angle with a vehicle, which happens in almost every game with a vehicle on one side and a flyer on the other, which GW notes in the BRB as "in extremely rare cases."
I'm certain it's not the only rare occasion they haven't explained out in excruciating detail. They are, after all, already covering it by saying to pick the best one.
I'm not sure where you get it that this is rare. I get units that have multiple cover saves many times over the course of a game. Any unit that shoots at another with 2 bits of terrain in between has to deal with this (regardless of whether they are 2 different types of terrain). Units with 2 saves themselves AND cover aren't rare either.
Page 19, 2nd column (where my quoted text comes from) does not contain the text 'in extremely rare cases'. It says 'Sometimes, ... "
I'm on the side here where "best" save is always the save that gives your model the "best" chance of surviving.
Typically that is the lowest Numerical save. However, this is not always the case.
If you can re-roll failed invunerable saves, there is a chance that your Lower numerical save gives you a better chance of survival.
If you are hit by Null zone, and your invunerable save is a lower numerical value than your armor save, it still might not have the best chance of your model surviving.
I understand the idea that the book tells you that a lower save is better. Typically this will be true, but the BrB does not cover every possible rules interaction that may occur.
Shandara wrote: I'll quote the relevant example here in its entirety, to make a point (bold emphasis mine);
For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The Force Field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapons, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.
Note the bolded part. The 'best chance of surviving' pertains to that part of the sentence. Out of 2 saves he picks the lower because it 'gives him the best chance (of surviving)'. I can't infer anything about re-rolls or anything out of this.
The next paragraph is also an example but explains what to do when a model has more than 1 cover save:
If a model can benefit from different types of cover, for example, being behind a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save) and a barricade (4+, the model uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+).
So the best save is the lowest? Again, nothing about re-rolls or anything..
That may be because it's a pretty damn specific and rare argument. A far sight more rare than the rule for shooting at an elevated angle with a vehicle, which happens in almost every game with a vehicle on one side and a flyer on the other, which GW notes in the BRB as "in extremely rare cases."
I'm certain it's not the only rare occasion they haven't explained out in excruciating detail. They are, after all, already covering it by saying to pick the best one.
I'm not sure where you get it that this is rare. I get units that have multiple cover saves many times over the course of a game. Any unit that shoots at another with 2 bits of terrain in between has to deal with this (regardless of whether they are 2 different types of terrain). Units with 2 saves themselves AND cover aren't rare either.
Page 19, 2nd column (where my quoted text comes from) does not contain the text 'in extremely rare cases'. It says 'Sometimes, ... "
Yeah, I was talking about a save being better while not being a lower numeric value... since that was what you were complaining wasn't detailed.
rigeld2 wrote: Great - you can take that save all you want. It's always available.
Unfortunately you have no rules telling you how to take that save and since you can only take one you're not allowed to roll at all.
Congratulations, I'm done arguing this with you.
You are free to start a thread claiming that you cannot take a inv save, because the BRB does not define it.
I will stay away as far as possible from that thread for those 10 minutes till it gets locked.
But that is not about this topic, and you cannot just make up definitions for inv saves.
rigeld2 wrote: Great - you can take that save all you want. It's always available.
Unfortunately you have no rules telling you how to take that save and since you can only take one you're not allowed to roll at all.
Congratulations, I'm done arguing this with you.
You are free to start a thread claiming that you cannot take a inv save, because the BRB does not define it.
I will stay away as far as possible from that thread for those 10 minutes till it gets locked.
But that is not about this topic, and you cannot just make up definitions for inv saves.
Well, that's what you just did. I'm not saying that - you've claimed it. Have fun with that discussion.
rigeld2 wrote: Well, that's what you just did. I'm not saying that - you've claimed it. Have fun with that discussion.
Hey, I'll let you in on a little secret: WH40k-rulings are inconsistent and contradict each other! Sometimes you have to pick between breaking rule A or breaking rule B.
This one is a painful subject. I voted for 3+ because the BRB does support a lower armor save equating to the best save to use versus an AP 4 or higher wound, and GW appears to have not taken into consideration that a re-rollable 4++ is statistically better than a regular 3+ save. While I agree that a 4++ w/ re-roll is technically better, its only usable versus AP 3 or lower wounds per the BRB. Even though its stupid, its still RAW.
Breng77 wrote: The rule only states best save, then gives examples (that don't include the rare case of a re-roll) explaining the basics of the rule.
RAW tells us how to determine the "best" save, even if its mathematically wrong. It is a common fallacy on this forum to assume GW understands or uses basic math in their rules.
jeffersonian000 wrote: RAW tells us how to determine the "best" save, even if its mathematically wrong. It is a common fallacy on this forum to assume GW understands or uses basic math in their rules.
Breng77 wrote: The rule only states best save, then gives examples (that don't include the rare case of a re-roll) explaining the basics of the rule.
RAW tells us how to determine the "best" save, even if its mathematically wrong. It is a common fallacy on this forum to assume GW understands or uses basic math in their rules.
SJ
I seem to missing where it tells us this.
I see an example where they use the best save in the multiple saves section. This does not invalidate anything that could create a better save situation.
I also see a section describing armor saves where it says the lower the armor save is the better. This simply states that in general a lower save is better than a higher one, it does not invalidate any scenario where a better save than that could exist. It is refering to the other stats where higher numbers are generally better, for armor saves the opposite is true.
Neither of these seem to tell me how to determine the best save. Arguing otherwise is akin to the following.
I have 2 games
in one I always win $100
in the second I win $75, but if I take that option I get an additional $75 at the end of the game.
Arguing well lower always equals best is the same as saying always take the first option because $100 is better than $75.
To me arguing otherwise is twisting RAW (which does not say you must always take the save with the lowest value, just the best save, which I would argue would be the save with the best chance of success, typically the save with the lower value.)
If this is not the case explain Khorne Daemons having a 6+ armor save. The only current instance where you would use this save is if you are not in cover, and under the influence of Null zone., but if I must take my 5++, then there is no circumstance in which the 6+ save has a function.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It is also a fallacy to assume that GW assumes basic rules writing, in order to take all scenarios into account.
Breng77 wrote: The rule only states best save, then gives examples (that don't include the rare case of a re-roll) explaining the basics of the rule.
RAW tells us how to determine the "best" save, even if its mathematically wrong. It is a common fallacy on this forum to assume GW understands or uses basic math in their rules.
SJ
I seem to missing where it tells us this.
I see an example where they use the best save in the multiple saves section. This does not invalidate anything that could create a better save situation.
I also see a section describing armor saves where it says the lower the armor save is the better. This simply states that in general a lower save is better than a higher one, it does not invalidate any scenario where a better save than that could exist. It is refering to the other stats where higher numbers are generally better, for armor saves the opposite is true.
Neither of these seem to tell me how to determine the best save. Arguing otherwise is akin to the following.
I have 2 games
in one I always win $100
in the second I win $75, but if I take that option I get an additional $75 at the end of the game.
Arguing well lower always equals best is the same as saying always take the first option because $100 is better than $75.
To me arguing otherwise is twisting RAW (which does not say you must always take the save with the lowest value, just the best save, which I would argue would be the save with the best chance of success, typically the save with the lower value.)
If this is not the case explain Khorne Daemons having a 6+ armor save. The only current instance where you would use this save is if you are not in cover, and under the influence of Null zone., but if I must take my 5++, then there is no circumstance in which the 6+ save has a function.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It is also a fallacy to assume that GW assumes basic rules writing, in order to take all scenarios into account.
I would say that a better version of your example is thus:
You have 2 Games-
In the first you win $100
In the second you win $75, however, after the game you can get another $75 from another person.
Now pick the game you win the most from.
While you will get more money overall from the second game, you are not getting all the money from the single game (roll).
If you look at the games before the other person gave you more money, you would say that the first game wins you more.
This would be the same as being paid to throw a game in boxing. If you win the game, you gave it your all and earned the top prize. However, if you throw the game, you get the runner up prize, but your benefactor will also pay you for the job.
Better in the boxing example because with the re-roll I know I am getting the money. I know I get the re-roll it is not something that I am not aware of when I make the choice.
A better example might be you have 2 games
Game A you win $100, but the Odds of winning are 60%
Game B You win $75, but win 90% of the time.
Which is the better game to play if you want to make the most money on average?
Breng77 wrote: Better in the boxing example because with the re-roll I know I am getting the money. I know I get the re-roll it is not something that I am not aware of when I make the choice.
A better example might be you have 2 games
Game A you win $100, but the Odds of winning are 60%
Game B You win $75, but win 90% of the time.
Which is the better game to play if you want to make the most money on average?
If that was the definition of better, game B.
The BRB doesn't define it that way though.
Breng77 wrote: Better in the boxing example because with the re-roll I know I am getting the money. I know I get the re-roll it is not something that I am not aware of when I make the choice.
A better example might be you have 2 games
Game A you win $100, but the Odds of winning are 60%
Game B You win $75, but win 90% of the time.
Which is the better game to play if you want to make the most money on average?
If that was the definition of better, game B.
The BRB doesn't define it that way though.
The BRB doesn't define it *any* way, though.
The closest it gets is "lower is better" or whatever is on page 2.
A few previous posters have said this blurb on page 2 can be overridden by a more specific rule, but there isn't one.
the BRB does not define best save at all. Nor does it need to. If you are given a situation and asked to choose the best tool for the job you don't need to know anything other than the job at hand.
All it says is that the lower the save value the better. Meaning that typically a lower save is better.
better =/= best.
Again
I read best save as the save giving me the best chance of not dying, if you want to read it otherwise it is up to you, but it is not supported by RAW any more than my reading.
Breng77 wrote: Better in the boxing example because with the re-roll I know I am getting the money. I know I get the re-roll it is not something that I am not aware of when I make the choice.
A better example might be you have 2 games
Game A you win $100, but the Odds of winning are 60%
Game B You win $75, but win 90% of the time.
Which is the better game to play if you want to make the most money on average?
If that was the definition of better, game B.
The BRB doesn't define it that way though.
The BRB doesn't define it *any* way, though.
The closest it gets is "lower is better" or whatever is on page 2.
A few previous posters have said this blurb on page 2 can be overridden by a more specific rule, but there isn't one.
So it defines it as lower is better, but it's not defined. And it's not overridden by a more specific rule because there isn't one, but it's still not defined.
How does that make sense?
You are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.
Yes, but making that conclusion requires using common sense, which is forbidden on this forum. If we were using common sense to begin with, we could also conclude that the best save is the one that gives you best odds making the save.
Just because a lower save is better than a higher one does not make the lowest save the best save.
That is like saying
Cats are better pets than fish
Thus the best Cat is the best pet.
Not at all a common sense leap
The most common sense reading of use the best save is the one where you actually use the mathematically best save.
Essentially I look at it this way. Reading it as Lower =better means lowest = best, serves no point other than trying to screw people out of their actual best save.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: Except the latter argument requires inventing rules
The former uses the actual rules in the book.
It's like the rules mean something.
Which rules, the ones that say Lower = better which in no way define best?
Or other rules that don't really exist either method requires making an assumption.
When doing so why not just use the one that best fits the english in the BRB and actually use the best save.
DeathReaper wrote: You are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.
Which, if we want to nitpick on RAW (which we do in this forum), only applies to Armour saves.
This conversation has been going on in the same circle for almost 5 pages:
A: According to page 2, lower is better!
B: But that only applies to armour saves, not to inv saves. It specifically mentions armour saves.
A: Inv saves work the same as armour saves.
B: And what rule says that?
A: Uhm.. uhm.. uhm.. According to page 2, lower is better!
etc, etc.
Just because a lower save is better than a higher one does not make the lowest save the best save.
So please - define "best" as something other than "the most better".
In every way we're allowed to compare the two, A is better than B.
Why is B the best option?
In your scenario A is better because it is better in every way.
However, if we are talking about a 3+ save and a 4+ re-rollable, the 4+ re-rollable is better in every way.
best
adjective superl. of good with better as compar.
1. of the highest quality, excellence, or standing: the best work; the best students.
2. most advantageous, suitable, or desirable: the best way.
3. largest; most: the best part of a day.
definition 2 seems like it fits, MOST ADVANTAGEOUS. which it tells us we have the ADVANTAGE of always using the best save.
If I have a 3+ save and a re-rollable 4++ it is Most Advantageous to use the 4++ re-roll.
Just because a lower save is better than a higher one does not make the lowest save the best save.
So please - define "best" as something other than "the most better".
In every way we're allowed to compare the two, A is better than B.
Why is B the best option?
In your scenario A is better because it is better in every way.
However, if we are talking about a 3+ save and a 4+ re-rollable, the 4+ re-rollable is better in every way.
best
adjective superl. of good with better as compar.
1. of the highest quality, excellence, or standing: the best work; the best students.
2. most advantageous, suitable, or desirable: the best way.
3. largest; most: the best part of a day.
definition 2 seems like it fits, MOST ADVANTAGEOUS. which it tells us we have the ADVANTAGE of always using the best save.
If I have a 3+ save and a re-rollable 4++ it is Most Advantageous to use the 4++ re-roll.
So what rule are you using to compare something other than the number? I'm sure you can cite one.
DeathReaper wrote: You are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.
Which, if we want to nitpick on RAW (which we do in this forum), only applies to Armour saves.
This conversation has been going on in the same circle for almost 5 pages:
A: According to page 2, lower is better!
B: But that only applies to armour saves, not to inv saves. It specifically mentions armour saves.
A: Inv saves work the same as armour saves.
B: And what rule says that?
A: Uhm.. uhm.. uhm.. According to page 2, lower is better!
etc, etc.
Could you drop your irrelevant tangent? Seriously - that way lays a literal broken game. No one is willing to discuss that with you.
DeathReaper wrote: You are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.
Which, if we want to nitpick on RAW (which we do in this forum), only applies to Armour saves.
This conversation has been going on in the same circle for almost 5 pages:
A: According to page 2, lower is better!
B: But that only applies to armour saves, not to inv saves. It specifically mentions armour saves.
A: Inv saves work the same as armour saves.
B: And what rule says that?
A: Uhm.. uhm.. uhm.. According to page 2, lower is better!
etc, etc.
Oh look, Maximum Save tells us that no save (armour, cover or invulnerabe) can ever be improved beyond 2+. So my question is, since the rules only cover how to take armour saves and the only thing it has to say about Invulnerable saves is that they can be used regardless of AP value, how do you take an invulnerable save (without referencing the armour save rules)?
And what compels me to use the number as the only means of comparison? Where does it tell me "When determining best save only the save value is relevant?" This is a rule you are inventing.
I ma using the english definition of "Best available Save" and actually using the "best avalaible save"
Your method allows the rules to be gamed for various reasons far too much.
I pin you in terrian all the sudden you lose your 4++ re-rollable because you have a 3+ cover save.
I go to ground to get a 3+ save in hopes my models die faster.
DeathReaper wrote: You are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.
Which, if we want to nitpick on RAW (which we do in this forum), only applies to Armour saves.
This conversation has been going on in the same circle for almost 5 pages:
A: According to page 2, lower is better!
B: But that only applies to armour saves, not to inv saves. It specifically mentions armour saves.
A: Inv saves work the same as armour saves.
B: And what rule says that?
A: Uhm.. uhm.. uhm.. According to page 2, lower is better!
etc, etc.
It was my understanding that saves are defined with the armour save and extrapolated in other alternate saves. If that wasn't the case, could you not have a 1+ invulnerable save?
Nilok wrote: It was my understanding that saves are defined with the armour save and extrapolated in other alternate saves. If that wasn't the case, could you not have a 1+ invulnerable save?
Everyone understands it like that But some guy started to attack others on not strictly using RAW, so now I have to ruin whatever argument he had since he's not strictly following RAW himself.
Happyjew wrote: Oh look, Maximum Save tells us that no save (armour, cover or invulnerabe) can ever be improved beyond 2+. So my question is, since the rules only cover how to take armour saves and the only thing it has to say about Invulnerable saves is that they can be used regardless of AP value, how do you take an invulnerable save (without referencing the armour save rules)?
Irrelevant! This is what the rules as written say.
It's the most logical thing to assume that inv saves work the same way as armour saves.
Problem being: We're talking RAW, we aren't allowed to assume things.
Nilok wrote: It was my understanding that saves are defined with the armour save and extrapolated in other alternate saves. If that wasn't the case, could you not have a 1+ invulnerable save?
Everyone understands it like that But some guy started to attack others on not strictly using RAW, so now I have to ruin whatever argument he had since he's not strictly following RAW himself.
And I've pointed out that fallacy. Continuing to do so is trolling. Reported.
DeathReaper wrote: Types of Saving throws Page 16+ Show us the different types of saving throws. They all work off of the same game mechanic.
"All these forms of protection are represented by saving throws (sometimes called saves), as we'Il now discuss." (16)
And you are only explained how armour saves work.
Inv and cover saves do not have a line explaining that they work like armour saves.
So yeah, conclusion: wh40k-RAW suck.
Next discussion please -_-'
It's not my fault that the only RAW-explanation breaks the entire game in other situations, blame that on GW.
But that is no excuse to ignore the rules whenever you want.
Seriously - it's clear that the only permitted comparison is on the numerical value. Anything else is arguing for intent and has little footing (if any) in actual rules.
Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is often correct, and in this case, the simplest is that the lower result is better, regardless of any special circumstance that may pop up.
Would you have preferred whole pages stating every single little exception that may or may not happen in the game?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is often correct, and in this case, the simplest is that the lower result is better, regardless of any special circumstance that may pop up.
Would you have preferred whole pages stating every single little exception that may or may not happen in the game?
I've always preferred the simplest, workable, accurate theory wins. It adds a few extra words but simplest is not always the best.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is often correct, and in this case, the simplest is that the lower result is better, regardless of any special circumstance that may pop up.
Would you have preferred whole pages stating every single little exception that may or may not happen in the game?
I think ideally they should let you choose. A good errata would be: "In case a model has multiple types of saves availalbe the controlling player decides which one he will use." Leave it up to the player which one is best.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is often correct, and in this case, the simplest is that the lower result is better, regardless of any special circumstance that may pop up.
Would you have preferred whole pages stating every single little exception that may or may not happen in the game?
I've always preferred the simplest, workable, accurate theory wins. It adds a few extra words but simplest is not always the best.
Yes, that is a much better way of putting it. In this case, whipping out a calculator to calculate the most favorable statistical outcome is not workable.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is often correct, and in this case, the simplest is that the lower result is better, regardless of any special circumstance that may pop up.
Would you have preferred whole pages stating every single little exception that may or may not happen in the game?
I think ideally they should let you choose. A good errata would be: "In case a model has multiple types of saves availalbe the controlling player decides which one he will use." Leave it up to the player which one is best.
I agree, that would simplify things a lot. Sadly, that is not the case :/
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is often correct, and in this case, the simplest is that the lower result is better, regardless of any special circumstance that may pop up.
Would you have preferred whole pages stating every single little exception that may or may not happen in the game?
Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that best means best. Not that I have to attempt to find in what way best is defined by the rulebook in rules that are vague at best, not really defining best but defining one way of getting better and then extrapolate best from that.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is often correct, and in this case, the simplest is that the lower result is better, regardless of any special circumstance that may pop up.
Would you have preferred whole pages stating every single little exception that may or may not happen in the game?
I think ideally they should let you choose. A good errata would be: "In case a model has multiple types of saves availalbe the controlling player decides which one he will use." Leave it up to the player which one is best.
At the moment, that flies in the face of all of the things GW has errataed so far. Every time they spoke on that subject, they have stated you cannot choose a worse save and must use the best available save.
The most recent I have read is in the Necron 1.4 FAQ stating you can not choose to use a Lychguard's 4++ invulnerable save to make use of their special rule, if you can still use their 3+ armour.
And I will disagree that you method is clear raw. I prefer the method of rules that are the least able to be gamed.
For instance take a wraith getting null zoned, which save is better the 3+ or the 3++
Or can I choose the obviously worse 3++ because they are the same numerical value?
Really the math is not hard, estimate and you will get it pretty easily
A with the exception of a 6+ re-roll vs a 5+ the re-roll is always slightly better than the save that is one lower, but never better than a save that is 2 lower.
If re-rolling successes, your save is always worse than the next higher save except if you have a 2+
Re-rolling 1s is never better than a numerically better save.
Could you drop your irrelevant tangent? Seriously - that way lays a literal broken game. No one is willing to discuss that with you.
So? That is the inevitable result of strict RAW interpretation in this game. You are on who tends to deride others for bringing intent or common sense interpretations to these discussions. And yet, without those the game cannot actually be played.
Breng77 wrote: And I will disagree that you method is clear raw. I prefer the method of rules that are the least able to be gamed.
For instance take a wraith getting null zoned, which save is better the 3+ or the 3++
Or can I choose the obviously worse 3++ because they are the same numerical value?
Really the math is not hard, estimate and you will get it pretty easily
A with the exception of a 6+ re-roll vs a 5+ the re-roll is always slightly better than the save that is one lower, but never better than a save that is 2 lower.
If re-rolling successes, your save is always worse than the next higher save except if you have a 2+
Re-rolling 1s is never better than a numerically better save.
All your math in 3 easy statements.
Could it be possible with some form of re-roll that you could arrive at the same statistical probability of success? If that ever happened, which roll would you use?
Could it be possible with some form of re-roll that you could arrive at the same statistical probability of success? If that ever happened, which roll would you use?
Not unless some crazy re-roll that does not exist comes into play, none of the math is equivalent. But I could say that now what do you do when 2 saves are the same. Necron wraiths have a 3+ armor and a 3+ invul. Which do you use. Rules say the better one, which one is better?
Could you drop your irrelevant tangent? Seriously - that way lays a literal broken game. No one is willing to discuss that with you.
So? That is the inevitable result of strict RAW interpretation in this game. You are on who tends to deride others for bringing intent or common sense interpretations to these discussions. And yet, without those the game cannot actually be played.
I already addressed this. In this thread. I think even to you.
To a certain extent that's true - LoS is traced from the eyes, models without eyes for example.
That does *not* mean that you look at everything with intent in mind. Only the minimum to make the game workable.
The minimum to make the game workable is to treat armor and invul saves the same.
Assuming intent all the way up to "I can pick whatever save I want!" isn't correct. There's just no basis for it - there is a basis for invul saves to work.
Could you drop your irrelevant tangent? Seriously - that way lays a literal broken game. No one is willing to discuss that with you.
So? That is the inevitable result of strict RAW interpretation in this game. You are on who tends to deride others for bringing intent or common sense interpretations to these discussions. And yet, without those the game cannot actually be played.
I already addressed this. In this thread. I think even to you.
To a certain extent that's true - LoS is traced from the eyes, models without eyes for example.
That does *not* mean that you look at everything with intent in mind. Only the minimum to make the game workable.
The minimum to make the game workable is to treat armor and invul saves the same.
Assuming intent all the way up to "I can pick whatever save I want!" isn't correct. There's just no basis for it - there is a basis for invul saves to work.
I already addressed this. In this thread. I think even to you.
To a certain extent that's true - LoS is traced from the eyes, models without eyes for example.
That does *not* mean that you look at everything with intent in mind. Only the minimum to make the game workable.
The minimum to make the game workable is to treat armor and invul saves the same.
Assuming intent all the way up to "I can pick whatever save I want!" isn't correct. There's just no basis for it - there is a basis for invul saves to work.
But the degree in which you decide to apply intent is purely arbitrary. Your strict RAW interpretation gives disadvantage to certain units forcing them to use non-optimal save. Why is that acceptable disadvantage but Wraithguard not being able to shoot isn't? What is so big disadvantage that we are allowed to consider intent? Who decides this and based on what?
Could you drop your irrelevant tangent? Seriously - that way lays a literal broken game. No one is willing to discuss that with you.
So? That is the inevitable result of strict RAW interpretation in this game. You are on who tends to deride others for bringing intent or common sense interpretations to these discussions. And yet, without those the game cannot actually be played.
I already addressed this. In this thread. I think even to you.
To a certain extent that's true - LoS is traced from the eyes, models without eyes for example.
That does *not* mean that you look at everything with intent in mind. Only the minimum to make the game workable.
The minimum to make the game workable is to treat armor and invul saves the same.
Assuming intent all the way up to "I can pick whatever save I want!" isn't correct. There's just no basis for it - there is a basis for invul saves to work.
Breng77 wrote: Not unless some crazy re-roll that does not exist comes into play, none of the math is equivalent. But I could say that now what do you do when 2 saves are the same. Necron wraiths have a 3+ armor and a 3+ invul. Which do you use. Rules say the better one, which one is better?
I already addressed this. In this thread. I think even to you.
To a certain extent that's true - LoS is traced from the eyes, models without eyes for example.
That does *not* mean that you look at everything with intent in mind. Only the minimum to make the game workable.
The minimum to make the game workable is to treat armor and invul saves the same.
Assuming intent all the way up to "I can pick whatever save I want!" isn't correct. There's just no basis for it - there is a basis for invul saves to work.
But the degree in which you decide to apply intent is purely arbitrary. Your strict RAW interpretation gives disadvantage to certain units forcing them to use non-optimal save. Why is that acceptable disadvantage but Wraithguard not being able to shoot isn't? What is so big disadvantage that we are allowed to consider intent? Who decides this and based on what?
It's not that it's a "disadvantage".
It's that a unit that has an ability is denied its use - therefore it's clear that the rules should allow its use.
The rules should allow invuls to work - otherwise their existence is pointless.
And they do work - unless the armor save is numerically better.
We have demonstration of that intent from GW when they ruled in the Necron FAQ that Praetorians (I think) can't take their invul unless it's an AP3 or better shot (which they'd want to so they can bounce the shot back).
Breng77 wrote: Not unless some crazy re-roll that does not exist comes into play, none of the math is equivalent. But I could say that now what do you do when 2 saves are the same. Necron wraiths have a 3+ armor and a 3+ invul. Which do you use. Rules say the better one, which one is better?
Does it matter? They are both the same value.
Well, to us it doesn't matter, since we allow intent. But you do not. By your logic, this becomes an infinite loop.
1) is A better than B? no. Go to 2.
2) is B better than A? no. Go to 1.
Your reading NEEDS one of them to be best and because of that it breaks. We allow for intent.
rigeld2 wrote: We have demonstration of that intent from GW when they ruled in the Necron FAQ that Praetorians (I think) can't take their invul unless it's an AP3 or better shot (which they'd want to so they can bounce the shot back).
That's actually the only reasonable thing you've said in this thread, and it does give a precedence. It's not exactly the same, and I still can't accept it (as the ability to deflect shots doesn't increase your survivability so it is clearly not the save that has the largest chance to save the wound just because it can deflect) but the faq still does touch on the subject.
How does it break logic? They are both the same value. If Ap >3 then use armor save. If Ap < 4 then use invulnerable save. I fail to see how logic is broken.
Breng77 wrote: Not unless some crazy re-roll that does not exist comes into play, none of the math is equivalent. But I could say that now what do you do when 2 saves are the same. Necron wraiths have a 3+ armor and a 3+ invul. Which do you use. Rules say the better one, which one is better?
Does it matter? They are both the same value.
It doesn't until your wraiths get hit with null zone and your armor save is "better" than your invul save.
Automatically Appended Next Post: At which point you are picking one of the 2. But unless you decide to allow re-rolling to matter you have an option to not use your best available save.
Breng77 wrote: Not unless some crazy re-roll that does not exist comes into play, none of the math is equivalent. But I could say that now what do you do when 2 saves are the same. Necron wraiths have a 3+ armor and a 3+ invul. Which do you use. Rules say the better one, which one is better?
Does it matter? They are both the same value.
It doesn't until your wraiths get hit with null zone and your armor save is "better" than your invul save.
Automatically Appended Next Post: At which point you are picking one of the 2. But unless you decide to allow re-rolling to matter you have an option to not use your best available save.
I don't even know what null zone is. It's not something I've run into.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: How does it break logic? They are both the same value. If Ap >3 then use armor save. If Ap < 4 then use invulnerable save. I fail to see how logic is broken.
So you're saying that an armour save is inherently better than an invulnerable save. How do you figure that, with only numerical values determining which is better?
It's not that it's a "disadvantage".
It's that a unit that has an ability is denied its use - therefore it's clear that the rules should allow its use.
The rules should allow invuls to work - otherwise their existence is pointless.
Like Eldar Jetbikes having battle focus? Like word 'different' in those psychic power rules?
Admit it, it is subjective, if you think the strict-RAW is too stupid, you ignore it. Like does anyone who actually plays this game. But with that judgement subjectivity is introduced, and the we can no longer deem on interpretation better than other.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: How does it break logic? They are both the same value. If Ap >3 then use armor save. If Ap < 4 then use invulnerable save. I fail to see how logic is broken.
So you're saying that an armour save is inherently better than an invulnerable save. How do you figure that, with only numerical values determining which is better?
By using the numerical values to determine which is better? Per the BRB, the save with the lower value is inherently better.
It's not that it's a "disadvantage".
It's that a unit that has an ability is denied its use - therefore it's clear that the rules should allow its use.
The rules should allow invuls to work - otherwise their existence is pointless.
Like Eldar Jetbikes having battle focus? Like word 'different' in those psychic power rules?
Admit it, it is subjective, if you think the strict-RAW is too stupid, you ignore it. Like does anyone who actually plays this game. But with that judgement subjectivity is introduced, and the we can no longer deem on interpretation better than other.
... Of course it's subjective - but you use the minimum to not break the game.
Making invul saves work - obvious intent.
Making "best" mean "lol whichever save you want even though GW has ruled otherwise" - not obvious, not going to convince me otherwise, and I'd refuse to play that way.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: How does it break logic? They are both the same value. If Ap >3 then use armor save. If Ap < 4 then use invulnerable save. I fail to see how logic is broken.
So you're saying that an armour save is inherently better than an invulnerable save. How do you figure that, with only numerical values determining which is better?
By using the numerical values to determine which is better? Per the BRB, the save with the lower value is inherently better.
SJ
Eeeexactly. And we're talking about a 3+ armour save and 3+ invuln save. Numerically, which is best?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: How does it break logic? They are both the same value. If Ap >3 then use armor save. If Ap < 4 then use invulnerable save. I fail to see how logic is broken.
So you're saying that an armour save is inherently better than an invulnerable save. How do you figure that, with only numerical values determining which is better?
No, I did not say that it is inherently better. Read my post carefully.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: How does it break logic? They are both the same value. If Ap >3 then use armor save. If Ap < 4 then use invulnerable save. I fail to see how logic is broken.
So you're saying that an armour save is inherently better than an invulnerable save. How do you figure that, with only numerical values determining which is better?
By using the numerical values to determine which is better? Per the BRB, the save with the lower value is inherently better.
SJ
Eeeexactly. And we're talking about a 3+ armour save and 3+ invuln save. Numerically, which is best?
