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.

Kangodo wrote:
So we're delving deeper in the RAI and house-ruling?

No, I'm showing how your statements are demonstrably incorrect.

Please stop acting as if your solution is any better than mine, both require house-ruling so it's up to each group to deal with it how they want.

Well since my position has rules support and yours doesn't...

I went along with your house-rule "argument" to show you that even in that direction you have no valid standing.

It not only has rules support, it also has support by rules you made up.

What part of my statement is incorrect:
1. Doesn't the rulebook say that you need to take the best save?
2. Doesn't the rulebook say that FOR ARMOUR-SAVES the lowest is the better?
3. Doesn't the rulebook lack a paragraph that explains that inv follows the same rules as armour-saves?

Face it: GW screwed up.
Anything that works with inv-saves is a matter of houseruling and using the 4++ with rerolls is just as fine as houseruling that the 3+ is better.
The difference is that you houserule that invulnerable works the same as armour as where I am using the dictionary-definition of better and houserule how inv-saves work in a different way.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 16 solidifies that Armor, cover, and Invulnerable saves work the same way, with a few notable exceptions.

Could you quote the line that says "invulnerable saves work the same as armour saves.."?

so how are invuln saves broken exactly? But the only house rule needed is:

A: best = statistically better
B: best = numerically better

One line, pick one.

Kangodo wrote:
The difference is that you houserule that invulnerable works the same as armour as where I am using the dictionary-definition of better and houserule how inv-saves work in a different way.

So you're not using the definition of better that GW supplies?
With no basis for doing so?

Cool story bro.

Kangodo wrote:
It not only has rules support, it also has support by rules you made up.

What part of my statement is incorrect:
1. Doesn't the rulebook say that you need to take the best save?
2. Doesn't the rulebook say that FOR ARMOUR-SAVES the lowest is the better?
3. Doesn't the rulebook lack a paragraph that explains that inv follows the same rules as armour-saves?

Face it: GW screwed up.
Anything that works with inv-saves is a matter of houseruling and using the 4++ with rerolls is just as fine as houseruling that the 3+ is better.
The difference is that you houserule that invulnerable works the same as armour as where I am using the dictionary-definition of better and houserule how inv-saves work in a different way.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 16 solidifies that Armor, cover, and Invulnerable saves work the same way, with a few notable exceptions.

Could you quote the line that says "invulnerable saves work the same as armour saves.."?

Whilst not agreeing with this before I'm leaning more to your side. Due to the following

BRB Page19. Multiple Saves wrote: For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shots ap number is equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The forcefield grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these are affect by the AP of a weapon, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

Emphasis mine.

If however, this does not count as rules then the paragraph following it says that for cover saves lower also equals better so the same can be assumed for invulnerable saves however, not directly stated from what I can find. And so I would go back to my original interpretation of you take the lowest numerical value that is valid in the current situation. As I originally see it as 3+ is better than 4+ end of. Re rolls or no as it is the re-roll that gives the advantage not the save. And the re-roll is not part of that save.

sirlynchmob wrote:
so how are invuln saves broken exactly? But the only house rule needed is:

A: best = statistically better
B: best = numerically better

One line, pick one.

The issue is not statistically or numerically it is whether you can consider the reroll as part of what makes it better or worse. Rerolling is a separate rule that might come outside of the consideration of what is better.

 redkeyboard wrote:
Whilst not agreeing with this before I'm leaning more to your side.

BRB Page19 wrote: For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shots ap number is equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The forcefield grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these are affect by the AP of a weapon, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance ofsurviving.

Emphasis mine.

This is a poor example for either side because the cover save is numerically better and the invul save is statistically worse. No matter which interpretation is correct the bolded would be true.

If however, this does not count as rules then the following paragraph says that for cover saves lower also equals better so the same can be assumed for invulnerable saves however, not directly stated from what I can find.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And let's go ahead and mention that a 2++ could not ever be re-rolled using the "A" interpretation.

You cannot improve a save past a 2+. (page 19)
If an invul save follows a different definition of better (magically) you cannot ever improve it. Unless you house rule that way also.

In addition, page 17 shows the only difference between an armor and an invul - and the definition of better isn't included. Without house rules.

For heaven's sake, people. Let it go.