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.

 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.

 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.

This. And anything more complicated / convoluted than this doesnt have a bearing in the book.

Are you going to math out "best" every time you have to decide which to take?

4++ re-rolling is better than 3+, but what if its 4++ rerolling vs 2+ ?

(The 2+ is better, but you might not know that unless you had a calculator handy to do 5/6 = .83333 > 3/6 + (3/6) * (3/6) = .75 )

What if it's a 4++ rerolling 1s vs a 3+?

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.

 Happyjew wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

powerfamiliar wrote:

 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.

powerfamiliar wrote:

 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.

All your math in 3 easy statements.

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

 Nilok wrote:

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?

Why would it matter which you used?

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?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

you just owned your own face.

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

Acrimonious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

you just owned your own face.

... Explain please.

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.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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).

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

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:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

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?

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

 Purifier wrote:

 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

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 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?

 Purifier wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 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?

Can you take both saves at the same time?