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.

 deviantduck wrote:
Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.

Now who is inferring?

Best is whatever has best odds of succeeding. Page 2 only talks about better saves, which is true in and of itself. But it never talks about best. We know this, because the 4+ re-rollable is clearly better than the 3+.

Acri - it isnt debateable though, and there is no contradiction. The best save is defined as the lowest number. This isnt, actually, arguable in rules.

Please read the tenets, and make it clear when you are proposing houserules, as it helps people avoid trying to argue with you

tgjensen wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.

Now who is inferring?

Best is whatever has best odds of succeeding. Page 2 only talks about better saves, which is true in and of itself. But it never talks about best. We know this, because the 4+ re-rollable is clearly better than the 3+.

We know you cannot improve a save beyond a 2+.

Does that mean you can't Fortune a 2+ unit? What about a 2++ save - is that different?

Or perhaps - just maybe - the maths don't even come in to play and best is the numerically lower save. You know - the way the rules actually play out.

The second paragraph under 'Models with more than one savin throw' takes into account more than just the numeric value of the save.

Niether of these saves are affected by the AP of the weapon, so the captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving

I would also like to point out

but has the advantage of always using the best avaliable save

This is not written as a requirement, You may have muliple saves, but have the advantage of always using the best avaliable save, this is a choice.

 Nem wrote:
The second paragraph under 'Models with more than one savin throw' takes into account more than just the numeric value of the save.

Niether of these saves are affected by the AP of the weapon, so the captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving

Bad example - the cover save is better than the invul save in that example.

I would also like to point out

but has the advantage of always using the best avaliable save

This is not written as a requirement, You may have muliple saves, but have the advantage of always using the best avaliable save, this is a choice.

It's written as an absolute - meaning you must use the best available save. If you don't you did not use that advantage.

If we always HAD to use the numerically best save avaliable you would have 2+ armor models having to use that save, even when against AP2 weapons, as 2+ is the numeric better, even if the AP value is enough to negate the save.

If you're shot with an AP weapon and your AS <= AP you don't have an Armor Save available.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

If we always HAD to use the numerically best save avaliable you would have 2+ armor models having to use that save, even when against AP2 weapons, as 2+ is the numeric better, even if the AP value is enough to negate the save.

If you're shot with an AP weapon and your AS <= AP you don't have an Armor Save available.

.

Yeah I edited that out becuase I didn't like it.

Bottom line:
We know the rules say you cannot improve a 2+ save.

Advocates of the OP taking his 4++ rerollable:
Can you cast Fortune on a unit of 2+ save models? By your definition that's improving a 2+ save. Please address this illegality.

Lowest is best, the rule clearly doesn't apply logic or "buffs" just a simple the closer to 1 is best.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
The second paragraph under 'Models with more than one savin throw' takes into account more than just the numeric value of the save.

Niether of these saves are affected by the AP of the weapon, so the captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving

Bad example - the cover save is better than the invul save in that example.

Regardless of whether the cover save was better or not, that sentence gives another definition of what the "best save" is; the one that gives him "the best chance of surviving". Normally that would be the lower numerical value, but not in this case.

Or, read in context with the actual rules, it reinforces that lower is better, as the rules actually state

Howconfusing wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
The second paragraph under 'Models with more than one savin throw' takes into account more than just the numeric value of the save.

Niether of these saves are affected by the AP of the weapon, so the captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving

Bad example - the cover save is better than the invul save in that example.

Regardless of whether the cover save was better or not, that sentence gives another definition of what the "best save" is; the one that gives him "the best chance of surviving". Normally that would be the lower numerical value, but not in this case.

rigeld2 wrote:Bottom line:
We know the rules say you cannot improve a 2+ save.

Advocates of the OP taking his 4++ rerollable:
Can you cast Fortune on a unit of 2+ save models? By your definition that's improving a 2+ save. Please address this illegality.

Please address my next post - the actual rules go on to prove your assumption incorrect.

The rule does not take into account any SRs. Only standard saves without rerolls or anything else special about them. A statement saying A > B cannot be used to prove A > C. In other words the armor save value rule given has no bearing on a 4++ with a reroll as no value is yet assigned to it.

Shandara wrote:If lower is better, lowest is best.

This is demonstrably not always true and therefore an unsound argument. Some peoples blood pressure for example.

Loborocket wrote: Shouldn't common sense rule the day when it comes to things like this?.

In HYWPI - Yes
In RAW - No

 Abandon wrote:
The rule does not take into account any SRs. Only standard saves without rerolls or anything else special about them. A statement saying A > B cannot be used to prove A > C. In other words the armor save value rule given has no bearing on a 4++ with a reroll as no value is yet assigned to it.

Shandara wrote:If lower is better, lowest is best.

This is demonstrably not always true and therefore an unsound argument. Some peoples blood pressure for example.

Except for the bit where it says that where Armour Saves are concerned, lower is better? We are given a very clear guideline how to determine which save is better, hence we have a guideline how to determine which is the best.

Acrimonious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
When youre told you take Invulnerable saves in the same way as armour saves, and that they use the same scale of "best", your comment doesnt pass the sniff test.

Your interpretation is a stretch. "best save" seems to me to be logically equivalent to "the save with the best chance of happening." in the OPs example, the opponent is obviously trying to force him to take the 3+ save because it has a higher chance of failure.

Logically yes.

RAW? I'd lean towards what Nosferatu said. The only example in the rules is x+ versus y+ with a lower stat being better. Hence I agree RAW 3+ is better than the re-rellable 4+, and so the 3+ must be used.

HIWPI? Take the 4++R. I do not believe GW intended one tyo take the 3+ when a 4++R is available. But that is just my interpretation. A strict reading of the rules means the 3+.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgjensen wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.

Now who is inferring?

Best is whatever has best odds of succeeding. Page 2 only talks about better saves, which is true in and of itself. But it never talks about best. We know this, because the 4+ re-rollable is clearly better than the 3+.

Please tell me where the rulebook states that. Rigeld already pointed out the places in the rulebook where it always says the lower number is the better save. There's nothing else the rules tell you to check.

RAW the best save is hence the 3+. Nowhere in the BRB does it state that being re-rollable makes a 4++R better than a 3+.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and, as a side-note. Someone said a page back he'd not like to play certain people that dwell on this forum? I'm a bit baffled. If I could pick someone to play against from Dakka, it would probably be on of the usual YMDC regulars, such as Nos or Rigeld or DR or Happyjew etc. At least I'd know I'm playing against who really knows and understands the rules. It can only make for a smoother game imho.

 deviantduck wrote:
Everyone is inferring quite a bit here. The best save is the 3+, not the 4++. Abilities that let you reroll a save should not be factored into it. It's purely the lower save.

Next, people will be arguing about 'best' when they want to kill off your own model. IE, your model has a 2+/5++ save and is your last model in a unit, and you want him to die in assault so you can shoot at the enemy unit next turn. In this case, the 5++ would give you the 'best' chance at that happening instead of your 2+.

3+ is obviously better than 4++ if you have the option to take either.

Except 4++ is clearly better if it can be rerolled. The citations above saying that the lower number is the better are HARDLY clear grammar. It *implies* it at best. That said, I'd have to agree that it implies it better than the more logical best save being the one that gives you the best chance to save, so RAW I'd have to go with the 3+ being the proper save.

That said, my gaming group doesn't play it that way, and it seems an insane rules lawyering to claim it should be. Not getting to take advantage of your reroll-gift just because you have a better armour save? WOW.
We play it as you can choose one save, whichever save you want. If you wanna kill your guys off, yeah, you can choose the worse one. CLearly THAT is against RAW, but it streamlines the game. your save, your choice.

The way it's written, a unit with stealth and shrouded with a 4+ armour save sitting in a 5+ cover could arguably be forced to take the armour save because the statline compared is 4 vs 5. The others are modifiers, sort of in the same vein as the reroll.
It's like the argument we had before the FAQ on models with I1 weapons having to pile in at their statline initiative. It was silly and made the game less fun. This does too, when someone across the table goes "no, you have to use your gakky save because it's *better*" Just wow.

Purifier, Stealth and Shrouded modify the Cover Save. In your example it's a choice between a 4+ armor save and a 2+ Cover save.
Th Cover Save is better.

While not a direct comparison, the Necron FAQ specifies that you can not choose to use a Lychguard's invuln save so you can bounce the shot if they can still use their armor save.

From my understanding of the rules, the definition of "better" in the rule book is only how low the save is. Even if would be better for the survival of the unit to bounce a shot back, or have it reroll the worse save, it would still not be a lowest save or the "best" save.

It is folly to assume that Gamesworkshop thinks mathematically when making their rules. Mathammer is something we do in our head. the rules do not make use of mathammer.

rigeld2 wrote:
Bottom line:
We know the rules say you cannot improve a 2+ save.

Advocates of the OP taking his 4++ rerollable:
Can you cast Fortune on a unit of 2+ save models? By your definition that's improving a 2+ save. Please address this illegality.

Anyone who disagrees with me should answer this. No one has yet.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Bottom line:
We know the rules say you cannot improve a 2+ save.

Advocates of the OP taking his 4++ rerollable:
Can you cast Fortune on a unit of 2+ save models? By your definition that's improving a 2+ save. Please address this illegality.

Anyone who disagrees with me should answer this. No one has yet.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

According to the "4++ with re-rolls is better than the 3+" camp, a 2+ with rerolls is better than a 2+.

The rules explicitly forbid improving a 2+ save.

Please address this illegality.

They do not account for rerolls when they say best save available. You use the 3+.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
They do not account for rerolls when they say best save available. You use the 3+.

says what? what page is that on exactly?

When they state the lower value is the better value. Nothing there states you are allowed to take reroll into account.

 Awfeel wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
They do not account for rerolls when they say best save available. You use the 3+.

says what? what page is that on exactly?

Rather odd question.
Can you find a page where they have accounted for re-rolls?
If there is no page, then they have not accounted for re-rolls.

thisisnotpancho wrote:
i wanted to take his 4+ invuln re-rolling because i knew it was better odds than his 3+ armour. (1/4 chance of failure versus 1/3 chance).

I'm trying to get my head around this statement, dice have no memories, you've still only got a 1/2 chance of passing, just that you have two chances at it. That doesn't make it a 75% sucess rate.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

thisisnotpancho wrote:
i wanted to take his 4+ invuln re-rolling because i knew it was better odds than his 3+ armour. (1/4 chance of failure versus 1/3 chance).

I'm trying to get my head around this statement, dice have no memories, you've still only got a 1/2 chance of passing, just that you have two chances at it. That doesn't make it a 75% sucess rate.

Cheers

Andrew

4++ with reroll: You roll 4 dice. statistically, 50% succeed. You reroll the failed die (2 of them) statistically 50% succeed. Total, 3/4 succeeded that's 75%.

Thats bad maths. Statistically, you still rolled 6 dice, for a 50% chance of acheiving the aim.

 AndrewC wrote:
Thats bad maths. Statistically, you still rolled 6 dice, for a 50% chance of acheiving the aim.

When the aim is to roll four 4+s and you get three 4+s, that's a 75% success rate.

If I were to consider this logically, I would say it's the armour save.

Why?

I can't imagine the daemon, feeling suddenly cocky, rip's off his own armour and goes "Booyah! I'm taking this one head on!"