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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the BRB defines best as lowest.

Proven wrong many times in this thread.
Next?

You are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.

jcress410 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

 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.

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.

Except the latter argument requires inventing rules
The former uses the actual rules in the book.

It's like the rules mean something.

better =/= best

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.

Say a model has a 5+ save and a 3+ save.

The 3+ is better than the 5+.

Which of the two is the best save?

Breng77 wrote:
better =/= best

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?

Given no additional information the 3+

Now say a model has 3+ save and a 4+ re-rollable save

Which is the best save?

Reading it the way where lowest is always best leave too many opportunities to game the rules.

 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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
better =/= best

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.

Breng77 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
better =/= best

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

 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.

Kangodo wrote:

 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)?

Breng77 wrote:
Given no additional information the 3+

Now say a model has 3+ save and a 4+ re-rollable save

Which is the best save?

Reading it the way where lowest is always best leave too many opportunities to game the rules.

Given the actual rules we have at hand, the 3+. Because the only thing we're allowed to compare is the number.

Breng77 wrote:
Given no additional information the 3+

Now say a model has 3+ save and a 4+ re-rollable save

Which is the best save?

Reading it the way where lowest is always best leave too many opportunities to game the rules.

Bu the only rules we have to go on tell us the lower a save is the better the save is.

The 3+ is better than a 4+ re-rollable save, as the rules only make mention of lower being better, so RAW 3+ is better than a 4+ re-rollable save.

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.

Kangodo wrote:

 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?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Given no additional information the 3+

Now say a model has 3+ save and a 4+ re-rollable save

Which is the best save?

Reading it the way where lowest is always best leave too many opportunities to game the rules.

Bu the only rules we have to go on tell us the lower a save is the better the save is.

The 3+ is better than a 4+ re-rollable save, as the rules only make mention of lower being better, so RAW 3+ is better than a 4+ re-rollable save.

You do realize that those rules also only re-fer to the statline on which only the number appears?

Maybe they only were clarifying what that number meant?

There is no rule declaring what "best available save".

Breng77 wrote:
And what comples me to use the number as the only means of comparison?

We established that better=lower number, yes?
So where's your definition of "best" that is not the most better? Have you found one yet?

Where does it tell me "When determining best save only the save value is relevant?" This is a rule you are inventing.

Page 2 and 19 disagree.

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.

And?

 Nilok wrote:
If that wasn't the case, could you not have a 1+ invulnerable save?

Page 19 Maximum Save, covers this (fortunately for us).

 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.

The rules equate armor, cover, and invuln saves.

Kangodo wrote:

 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:
The rules equate armor, cover, and invuln saves.

Okaay, for the gazillionth time: Can you quote the part that says so?

I would always play it where they are the same.
But when people want to go hardcore-RAW, we go deep

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)