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.

One small query I have is this: if something has a better Inv save than its armor save and is hit by a weapon that would not require it to take an Inv save can it use its Inv save instead? e.g: A tau ethereal has a shield drone which has a 5+ Sv and a 4+ Inv and is wounded by a bolter can it use its 4+ inv instead of its regular 5+ Sv? (this has confused me when fighting chaos daemons having no regular save but a 4+ inv save.)

You may always choose the save you take, be it armor, inv., or cover unless the weapon or attack indicates otherwise. Each has it's merits and drawbacks so choose wisely.

Yes, you can (must?) always use your best save, regardless of type.

Oh ok thanks

don_mondo wrote:Yes, you can (must?) always use your best save, regardless of type.

Correct. You always use your best save and may only ever take 1 save.

Gavin Thorne wrote:You may always choose the save you take, be it armor, inv., or cover unless the weapon or attack indicates otherwise. Each has it's merits and drawbacks so choose wisely.

Actually, no, no they don't.

And you don't even have to chose. As has already been said before, you MUST use the best save you have available to you. For example, if you have some terminators suffer three wounds from lasguns, and for whatever reason you want your unit of terminators to die, you cannot decide to use the 5+ inv and hope you fail your rolls. You have to use the 2+.

i can think of a darn good reason you'd want to take a 5+ instead of a 2+ save with terminators... 5 hammer terminators are 6" in front of 30 orks. orks shoot at you with bolters..you take the 5 ups hoping to fail 2 saves, so that you can choose to fall back with combat tactics.

Except you cannot do so, so its a moot point....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you cannot do so, so its a moot point....

It is not debatable.

Models use the best save available, page 24 - main rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you cannot do so, so its a moot point....

Where's kirsanth when ya need him!

But yeah, you must always use the best save.

What ISN'T clear is how "best save" is determined. Yes, it normally means the "lowest" save (2+ > 3+ etc), but what happens when it gets funky with re-rolls and such? Sometimes it might be better (as in, better odds of survivng) to take a worse save with a re-roll than a one off better save.

kirsanth needs to do some math, he's good at this

It explains (with examples!) that the "best" is the easiest to keep the model alive.

Third paragraph under "Models with more than one save".

kirsanth wrote:It explains (with examples!) that the "best" is the easiest to keep the model alive.

Third paragraph under "Models with more than one save".

Exactly, so how does one determine that? Do you factor in re-rolls?

For example, a model has a 5+ armour but a 4+ cover, and is hit by that IG order that makes you re-roll passed cover saves. Is the 5+ better in this instance or not?

kirsanth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you cannot do so, so its a moot point....

It is not debatable.

Models use the best save available, page 24 - main rules.

True, it is not debatable.

However, this specific question/discussion is of little or no value or otherwise irrelevant. This is also a valid usage of the term "moot" in this case.

Idioms & Phrases

moot point

A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance. For example, Whether Shakespeare actually wrote the poem remains a moot point among critics, or It's a moot point whether the chicken or the egg came first. This term originated in British law where it described a point for discussion in a moot, or assembly, of law students. By the early 1700s it was being used more loosely in the present sense.

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It explains (with examples!) that the "best" is the easiest to keep the model alive.

Exactly, so how does one determine that? Do you factor in re-rolls?

Not according to what it says - rerolls do not make a save better, they make it more likely.

Just use the best save, not the best odds.

shrug


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:moot point

A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance. For example, Whether Shakespeare actually wrote the poem remains a moot point among critics, or It's a moot point whether the chicken or the egg came first. This term originated in British law where it described a point for discussion in a moot, or assembly, of law students. By the early 1700s it was being used more loosely in the present sense.

And here I was using English, not American.
American allows the word to contradict itself, and so become totally worthless - not Moot. (Worth discussing or not worth discussion)

See: OED or AskOxford.

Or hilariously here is the Synonyms from an American dictionary:
Synonyms: 1. disputable, disputed, unsettled. 4. debate, dispute, discuss.
Can you rectify that with your usage?

kirsanth wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It explains (with examples!) that the "best" is the easiest to keep the model alive.

Exactly, so how does one determine that? Do you factor in re-rolls?

Not according to what it says - rerolls do not make a save better, they make it more likely.

Just use the best save, not the best odds.

shrug

Yeah but now we get into semantics, and IMO "Better" is synonymous to "Best odds of survival".

Gwar! wrote:Yeah but now we get into semantics, and IMO "Better" is synonymous to "Best odds of survival".

Without the examples and continual usage of the word "improve", "better", and other such descriptors of lowering the number of the save value, I would agree.

kirsanth wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It explains (with examples!) that the "best" is the easiest to keep the model alive.

Exactly, so how does one determine that? Do you factor in re-rolls?

Not according to what it says - rerolls do not make a save better, they make it more likely.

Just use the best save, not the best odds.

shrug


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:moot point

A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance. For example, Whether Shakespeare actually wrote the poem remains a moot point among critics, or It's a moot point whether the chicken or the egg came first. This term originated in British law where it described a point for discussion in a moot, or assembly, of law students. By the early 1700s it was being used more loosely in the present sense.

And here I was using English, not American.
American allows the word to contradict itself, and so become totally worthless - not Moot. (Worth discussing or not worth discussion)

See: OED or AskOxford.

Oh, pardon me, I didn't realize I was discussing language with a British English elitist.

However, that being said, when words are put together into a phrase, the meaning is often different than the individual meanings of the words; hence the term "idiom." The idiomatic term of a "moot point" being a meaningless debate stems from the origins of the word "moot." Originally, a "moot" referred to a meeting of people discussing legal or community issues. As you can see from the reference below, the idea that a "moot point" referred to a meaningless discussion is one that first appears in the written record almost 500 years ago; I think it's a safe bet that this interpretation of the word is quite British (rather than American) seeing as how America (per se) didn't exist at that time.

Moot:

1154, from O.E. gemot "meeting" (especially of freemen, to discuss community affairs or mete justice), from P.Gmc. *ga-motan (cf. Old Low Frankish muot "encounter," M.Du. moet, M.H.G. muoz), from collective prefix *ga- + *motan (see meet (v.)). The adj. senses of "debatable" and "not worth considering" arose from moot case, earlier simply moot (n.) "discussion of a hypothetical law case" (1531), in law student jargon, in ref. to students gathering to test their skills in mock cases.

(Disclaimer: I hold the unenviable status of having a degree in English Literature with a specialization in medieval English Literature and history of the English language from the University of Georgia, class of 1995.)

I am American.

I understand its etymology.

I find it worthwhile to point out the absurdity of it to anyone using the "not worth discussing" derivation simply because modern (generally American) usage of the word is based on being unwilling or unable to discuss something that may require debate.
Additionally, the word, in the way you used it - idiomatically - is easily misunderstood by a large amount of the populace - as it contradicts the general (and specific) usage.
As for using jargon in discussions with the general populace, I daresay you understand the problem with that?

Here, 40k jargon is admittedly acceptable, other types are often questioned.

Heh, kirsanth just got pwned lol.

Saldiven wrote:(Disclaimer: I hold the unenviable status of having a degree in English Literature with a specialization in medieval English Literature and history of the English language from the University of Georgia, class of 1995.)

And I am the Queen of Denmark and also a Master of Ninjutsu.

kill dem stunties wrote:Heh, kirsanth just got pwned lol.

I missed that.

I saw someone defending a valid but self-contradictory definition.
The self-contradiction is what I find annoying and worth pointing out.

kirsanth wrote:And here I was using English, not American.

You desire to debate the usage of 'moot' but you use 'American' to describe the United States dialect of English? Should you also, perhaps, then quickly clarify that you wish to use Modern English for the definition?

Lol I love it when a simple question turns into an argument over something like a "moot point"!!!

It might be worth noting that the first dictionaries that defined words (as opposed to giving translations in other languages) for English appear to have been made around the late 1500's. If that is the case, it might well be that the first prescriptive dictionaries included BOTH senses of "moot".

Oddly, I have only ever heard or read it used in the "moot point = irrelevant" sense myself.

Still I can understand popping a vein over it. I want to kill kittens every time someone uses ironic to mean coincidental. Even more so now that some dictionaries list that as acceptable. Descriptive heresy!

It's what we do best here.

Well, that and discuss how no one in GW's marketing/sales department(s) understands economics.

Thor665 wrote:Should you also, perhaps, then quickly clarify that you wish to use Modern English for the definition?

True enough. I tend to just react when that comes up - although Gwar! is definitely getting me inured to it.

Wehrkind wrote:Still I can understand popping a vein over it. I want to kill kittens every time someone uses ironic to mean coincidental. Even more so now that some dictionaries list that as acceptable. Descriptive heresy!

Exactly.

kirsanth wrote:

Thor665 wrote:Should you also, perhaps, then quickly clarify that you wish to use Modern English for the definition?

True enough. I tend to just react when that comes up - although Gwar! is definitely getting me inured to it.

I would assume it is a moot point because the Books are all written in British English and so you should always use British English when talking about them

Thor665 wrote:It's what we do best here.

Well, that and discuss how no one in GW's marketing/sales department(s) understands economics.

Quite so. I am currently in the running for "Ultimate Dakkite" due to my pedantry reguarding the English language as well as my economic studies. However, I lack in encyclopaedic knowledge of rules from previous editions, and I can't get up a proper wail about new codexes. Not for lack of trying, sadly. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But Gwar, obviously he means Modern English when he says it, and should be referencing "I Melt With You" for clarifications.

Right?

Wehrkind wrote:Quite so. I am currently in the running for "Ultimate Dakkite" due to my pedantry reguarding the English language as well as my economic studies. However, I lack in encyclopaedic knowledge of rules from previous editions, and I can't get up a proper wail about new codexes. Not for lack of trying, sadly. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But Gwar, obviously he means Modern English when he says it, and should be referencing "I Melt With You" for clarifications.

Right?

LOL

Sorry for the tangent.


Is there a "Pedantic Dakkite"?

hehe it probably needs to be a DCM title...

Honestly, this is probably the best thread I read all week