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.

And has an example where the character picks the save that gives him the best chance to survive.

kirsanth is right, 'Save' in game terms is a stat associated with a model. In this case you have two saves a 4+ and a 5+. 4+ is the best Save stat you have so you use it as per the BRB.

The confusing situation I get into sometimes is playing daemons. I land my Horrors in some cover so they have a 4+ cover save and a 4+ invulnerable save. My opponent has null zone meaning I have to reroll my invulnerable saves. Now theres no way of really choosing your save in the book, just use your best. Both stats are the same except I know my invurn is just worse than my cover save. We've always play it that I can choose in the case of a tie.

Aramoro

Yes. It says in the BRB that you must take the best possible save.

No, your "best" save, using the standard usage in the English language, MUST be the one that gives you the best chance of avoiding the wound.

A save which is LESS likely to prevent the wound cannot be considered to be the best.

Nope, your 'Save' is a stat, lower is better. Your probability of dying is not your save. Otherwise you have the example given earlier on where it might be better to take a worse save to make sure you get wounded to you fail your leadership test and flee from combat thus that is the best save for keeping you alive.

Aramoro

BEST save requires that you use the English language to determine what "best" means.

If you havea greater chance of dying you cannot be taking the "best" save

You can only use one save. So if you had 2+ armour save and a 5+ inv save you would use the 2+ save unless you were hit by AP2, power weapon etc. you would use inv.

IIRC you dont HAVE to use the best save, but obviously you would, except rerhaps in the case of lone wolves.

You do have to use the best save Eldar Own, we've mentioned it a few times....

nosferatu1001 wrote:You do have to use the best save Eldar Own, we've mentioned it a few times....

Most people seem to agree with this, at least, and also that you cannot simply elect to not take a save at all.

Problem is figuring out what the BRB means by 'best' and subsequently how you are required to react.

Two summary questions to consider:

1) Can you take a re-rollable 5+ save over a 4+ save?
2) Do you have to take a "successful saves must be rerolled" 4+ save over a 5+ save?

DoW

The best save is the one most likely to save the wound - by definition of the words "best" and "save" in this context.

A save exists to prevent a wound. The best save is one with the greatest chance to do this - again, you will not find a definition of "best" in the book, as they do assume some knowledge of the english language....

nosferatu1001 wrote:The best save is the one most likely to save the wound - by definition of the words "best" and "save" in this context.

A save exists to prevent a wound. The best save is one with the greatest chance to do this - again, you will not find a definition of "best" in the book, as they do assume some knowledge of the english language....

Fair enough. Imagine this rule:

Pink Knights Aegis: You may only fire one type of weapon per unit at Pink Knights. You have the advantage of always using your best weapon.

You have a squad of IG Veterans with 6 shotguns, 2 meltaguns, 1 flamer and the sergeant has a plasma pistol. No model in the unit is more than 6" away from the Pink Knight squad. Pink Knights are T4 and have a 3+ save. The Pink Knight squad all receives a 4+ cover save from being in area terrain.

Since 'best' has such an obvious definition, according to you, which type of weapon do you choose to fire?

DoW

Personally, given the way the rule is written I think the expectation is that you will always use your best save. It can be read as optional, but doing so makes it rather oddly written.

DogOfWar, your Pink Knights example would be just a strange bit of rules writing. But I would read that as meaning that they have to use their best weapon, and wonder why they were given an option in the preceding sentence. It's awkward phrasing.


I think we can safely leave off the discussion of the meaning of 'best'... if 2 pages of restating personal opinions hasn't convinced someone, another 5 pages of it isnt going to help any more. I think that one's well and truly into the realm of 'sort it out with your opponent'...

Page 24 actually has examples of "best save".
DoW, the example is interesting and all, but given that saves are done per (like) model it does not work so well in this instance, unless I am really misreading it.
Best cover save = lower number.
There is some theoretical debate about whether rerolls are counted in this, but the save itself is "better/best" if the number is lower, from every example and rule listed.

They never refer to the superiority of a save being based on anything other than low number. Basing your own extra rules on the English language is silly. A 5+ with a re-roll is still just a 5+. If we allowed re-rolls into the mix, then why not allow anything? It's odd that you stop at the best save only being used to save a wound, when the example features a multiple wound model and the line "best chance of survival".

I must have been confusing.

My point was to make an ability that a unit (Pink Knights) would have that forces you to choose the 'best' weapon to use against them (apparently regardless of situation) and attempting to draw a parallel between the ambiguity of requiring you to use the 'best' save regardless of any subsequent modifiers.

The Pink Knight example is interesting because you have lots of choices of weapons to shoot, and the 'best' is not clear:

Shotguns - 12 shots, Hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, Pink Knights get 3+ armour save
Meltaguns - 2 shots, hitting on 3s, wounding on 2s, Pink Knights get 4+ cover save
Flamer - 1 shot (have to guess the number you could cover as you can't pre-place the template), autohit, wounding on 4s, Pink Knights get 3+ armour save
Plasma Pistol - 1 shot, hitting on 3s, wounding on 2s, Pink Knights get 4+ cover save

Do you shoot the shotguns because you have the potential to do the most wounds?
Do you shoot the flamer because you automatically hit?
Do you shoot the meltas because you're wounding on 2s and denying their 3+ armour save?

Does 'best' in this situation mean the statistical likelihood of killing Pink Knights? The strength of the weapon? The AP of the weapon? The number of shots? Are other factors taken into account (auto-hit, FNP, etc?)

Basically trying to show a similar rule wording and prove that it's hard to argue a clear cut definition of 'best' in these situations. Sorry if it was confusing!

DoW

It's not really compatible though. You have your varying (AP, S, and shots) factors included in the weapon, whereas saves are just saves. A re-roll doesn't modify the save, it's just you taking the save again. Casting fortune on a squad doesn't make their save any better, it just lets you re-roll any failed saves.

Except it wasn't a comparable situation - as "best" in that case is a much wider thing than making saves.

You also cannot remove the English Language from this - positivist RAW is, frankly, crap (if you're unsure ask Meriwether on 'seer about his opinions on such ) and therfore you HAVE to consider how English treats the phrase "Best save" in the context of what you are trying to do.

Given that the rulebook never considers rerolled saves you have to - and clearly a better save is one where you are more likely to survive, as the entire point of saves, and being forced to take the best one, is to prevent an unsaved wound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, your "best" save, using the standard usage in the English language, MUST be the one that gives you the best chance of avoiding the wound.

A save which is LESS likely to prevent the wound cannot be considered to be the best.

This - the "best" save is the one most likely to prevent the wound.

Your 'Save' is a numerical Stat on your stat line of the model, I cannot really re-iterate this any more than I have. Cover saves lets you use something else instead of your save stat, replacing it with a different stat. When choosing your best Save you're selecting the best numerical stat available not the one with highest probability of saving.

Aramoro

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it wasn't a comparable situation - as "best" in that case is a much wider thing than making saves.

You also cannot remove the English Language from this - positivist RAW is, frankly, crap (if you're unsure ask Meriwether on 'seer about his opinions on such ) and therfore you HAVE to consider how English treats the phrase "Best save" in the context of what you are trying to do.

Given that the rulebook never considers rerolled saves you have to - and clearly a better save is one where you are more likely to survive, as the entire point of saves, and being forced to take the best one, is to prevent an unsaved wound.

What you're saying is that in my previous hypothetical situation involving a monstrous creature, you would in fact do all that calculation do find out which is the "best" save. Rather than simply apply the lowest, as in the examples.

The best save is the one with the highest chance of surviving the wound, not the one that would be the best tactically. You'd take the 2+ save in your example.

Surviving the wound? I see no reference to best meaning survival of the wound. I see a reference to survival in general. Nosferatu insists best covers more than just the save itself, including other events beyond the save which could also increase the chance of not taking a wound. He doesn't clearly explain how 'best' uses the english language to specifically apply to MORE than the save, ENTIRELY to the overall prevention of the wound, and NOT AT ALL to the ultimate survival of the model.

Ridcully. You ignore context entirely by talking about "survival in general" - whereas a "save" is saving against a specific wound. For example you do not get saves against SA, possibly the easiest way to refute your context ignoring "general survival of the model" idea.

"Best Save" - in other words your Best "chance at stopping this wound from occurring" - the 2 words, in this context, cannot mean more than that. A "save" is, innately in WH40K, the chance of saving a wound. So I am not "using the english language to specifically apply to MORE than the save" at all - I am applying it *entirely* to what the phrase "best save" means. If you could parse the phrase differently to show your "general survival" concept, without changing the context, that would be useful in giving your argument some credibility.

At no point, despite your atttempts to say I have done, have I considered something BEYOND the save - a reroll of a save is still innately linked to the process of saving wounds. Your rediculous examples were not.

(this is why you do not need to consider beyond this point btw, I thought it was sparklingly obvious where the cutoff would be - little thing called context. Whether you would rather the model die to allow your army to do something else another turn is entirely irrelevant to the phrase "best save", whereas your chances of passing the save must be)

So when you are told you are to take your BEST [CHANCE AT] SAVING the wound, what do you tihnk you do?

Take something which is NOT your best chance of saving the wound (e.g. a single 4+ save) or something which DOES provide the best chance of saving the wound, such as a rerollable 5+?

"Best save" must mean the best [way to not take a wound] as that is what a save is attemtping to do - and the best save is therefore the one with the highest probabilty of success. This is *usually* the lowest numerical value save that can be taken, however nothing in the rulebook defines this as always being the best save - there are *examples* but they are by definition not complete and are crucially *not* the rules. The only guidance is the word "best" - and in the example I gave the rerollable save is clearly better than the single save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ridcully. You ignore context entirely by talking about "survival in general" - whereas a "save" is saving against a specific wound. For example you do not get saves against SA, possibly the easiest way to refute your context ignoring "general survival of the model" idea.

"Best Save" - in other words your Best "chance at stopping this wound from occurring" - the 2 words, in this context, cannot mean more than that. A "save" is, innately in WH40K, the chance of saving a wound. So I am not "using the english language to specifically apply to MORE than the save" at all - I am applying it *entirely* to what the phrase "best save" means. If you could parse the phrase differently to show your "general survival" concept, without changing the context, that would be useful in giving your argument some credibility.

At no point, despite your atttempts to say I have done, have I considered something BEYOND the save - a reroll of a save is still innately linked to the process of saving wounds. Your rediculous examples were not.

(this is why you do not need to consider beyond this point btw, I thought it was sparklingly obvious where the cutoff would be - little thing called context. Whether you would rather the model die to allow your army to do something else another turn is entirely irrelevant to the phrase "best save", whereas your chances of passing the save must be)

So when you are told you are to take your BEST [CHANCE AT] SAVING the wound, what do you tihnk you do?

Take something which is NOT your best chance of saving the wound (e.g. a single 4+ save) or something which DOES provide the best chance of saving the wound, such as a rerollable 5+?

"Best save" must mean the best [way to not take a wound] as that is what a save is attemtping to do - and the best save is therefore the one with the highest probabilty of success. This is *usually* the lowest numerical value save that can be taken, however nothing in the rulebook defines this as always being the best save - there are *examples* but they are by definition not complete and are crucially *not* the rules. The only guidance is the word "best" - and in the example I gave the rerollable save is clearly better than the single save.

You're reading things into the sentences that aren't necessarily supported.
A save is defined as a characteristic, a number, never as the 'chance at stopping this wound from occuring' or 'the chance of saving a wound' or 'way to not take a wound' or the 'process of saving wounds'.

You may be able to argue that the one that gives the overall best chance to survive or prevent a wound in a given context is the 'best' save, but you cannot simply redefine 'save' to be the 'chance at saving the wound' to support that reading.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it wasn't a comparable situation - as "best" in that case is a much wider thing than making saves.

Not true.

'Best' in regards to making saves.

'Best' in regards to causing casualties.

Just because one happens to have more variables doesn't mean it's any different in principle. In regards to saves, you are arguing that you always take the best save that will most likely result in 'survival' for the model in question. My argument is that it's not that simple, because I challenge you to choose the 'best' weapon, in my example, that is most likely to cause casualties.

Just because you have an opinion on what the BRB is defining 'best' (which must be either the numerical value, or the statistical chance, but not necessarily both) doesn't mean that is how others may view it, or that you are correct.

I'm just looking for a good argument for one way or another. So far I don't think you've presented anything very convincing. Re-iterating what you believe 'best' is referring to in this case, without any reasoning behind it, isn't helping me at all.

DoW

The only examples/rules covering it use the lowest number (the example that 4+ or 5+ explicitely state that 4+ is best).
Re-rolls have exactly 1 paragraph on page 2 dealing with every time they are used, so it is necessarily vague.

That said, there are listings for better and improving which is all that should be needed as "best" needs situational modifiers (of which there are examples). Even so it is reasonable to note that not being able to improve something implies that it is best - see: "Maximum save"

If you have to re-roll your save then it directly modifies how good that actual save is.

Saying that I am going to take this wound in order to fall back and be able to survive longer is not modifying the save but modifying the entire tactics of the game play. It is taking the individual characteristic and all modifiers that apply to it and making it into a situation where you must use all of the different things all over the table.

Having to re-roll a save is a direct modification of that save and is a part of that save. This must be taken into account if it is the best possible save or not because the save is being modified directly - not the survival.

A 4++ invulnerable save and a 4+ cover save for deamons allows us to see that the saves are the same for most situations. When you must reroll the cover save the invulnerable save becomes better. When you must re-roll the invulnerable save the cover save becomes better.

When it comes down to it the player must decide which save is the best and they can only take that one save. It is left open to interpretation because of situations and rule modifications from future codices.

The 5+ armor save is better then the re-roll successful saves on 4+ cover saves (if my math is correct).

rogueeyes wrote:If you have to re-roll your save then it directly modifies how good that actual save is.

While this is really the crux of the issue, I am not certain it is correct - I am also not certain it is wrong.
It is more likely to succeed, certainly, but that is different and simply not covered.

Save is a stat. The best one available is the lowest, as specifically covered by "no save. . . can ever be improved beyond a 2+".
So by that line, giving a 2+ a reroll is NOT and improvement of the save.

kirsanth wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:If you have to re-roll your save then it directly modifies how good that actual save is.

While this is really the crux of the issue, I am not certain it is correct - I am also not certain it is wrong.
It is more likely to succeed, certainly, but that is different and simply not covered.

Save is a stat. The best one available is the lowest, as specifically covered by "no save. . . can ever be improved beyond a 2+".
So by that line, giving a 2+ a reroll is NOT and improvement of the save.

I'll agree that it is a gray area.

Technically the 2+ save is the best stat line that you can have but a re-rollable 2+ save is a better save but in essence is still a 2+ save. Being able to re-roll that 2+ save makes that save just a little bit better. A rerollable in essence is still a 2+ save but it is better than the typical 2+ save.

Say for example there is a rule that allows you to reroll your cover save. You also get a +1 bonus to the cover save from another rule. In a forest you have a 4+ save that is re-rollable that is improves to a rerollable 3+ save because of the extra +1 bonus. Now If you go to ground you end up getting a 2+ save because you get an additional +1 to your save and you still have the rerollable cover save special rule. This has now become a better save than the 2+ save that you had for an armor save (terminator armor or what have you). Now we have just found a save that is better than 2+ but is still a 2+ save.

The fact that a 2+ is the best save you can get means that that is the lowest the number can be - not necessarily the best statistical save you can get. The rerollable 2+ save is the best.

(Come to think of it fortune for eldar would allow a rerollable save ... but I don't know if they can get a 2+ armor save or not).

OK, here's a thought. The rules and examples as written give implied permission to use the save that givwes you the best chance of survival as opposed to just using the lowest number value. After all, in the Chaplain example it does not say he is stuck using the lowest save he has, which would be an auto-fail, it says he has the advantage of using the best available save. if we merely said best was determined by numeric value, regardless of other circumstances, he'd have to use the regular 3+. But instead, it states (by saying he can use a different save, even tho it's also a 3+, why couldn't they use a termie for the example) that we are allowed to take AP, denial of cover, etc into account when determining which save to use. In other words, he gets to use the save that affords him the best chance of avoiding a wound, or as tehy said, the best chance of surviving. We're merely extending this line of reasoning when we say that a model can take a 5+ instead of the re-roll if successful 4+ cover.

Make sense?