Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/26 12:46:33
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.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
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.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
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...
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
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.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/26 13:27:39
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/26 13:34:12
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.
I'm not sure how this is difficult.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/26 13:35:22
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/26 13:40:58
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.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/26 13:47:37
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.
Cratfworld Alaitoc (Gallery)
Order of the Red Mantle (Gallery)
Grand (little) Army of Chaos, now painting! (Blog)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/26 13:55:24
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
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
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/26 13:58:46
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/26 14:06:46
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.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Cratfworld Alaitoc (
Order of the Red Mantle (
Grand (little) Army of Chaos, now painting! (
