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.

Is a 5+ inv save better than a forced rerolled 4+ cover save?

Case in point, termie in cover shot at using a lascannon and a "Fire at my target" order

The rules says best available save, is that before or after rerolls?

Thanks.

What deos a save do? Provide a fixed % chance of ignoring a wound

so the BEST save is the save which gives you the BEST % chance of ignoring the wound.

Rerollable 4+ is 25% chance of ignoring the wound, 5++ is 33%. The clearly better chance of ignoring the wound is the 5++, therefore it is the "best save" and must be used.

Note: to forestall anyone trying to bring in spurious arguments about "best" and the context. The context behind "best save" is *entirely* to do with ignoring the wound. It has NOTHING to do with the tactical situation at the time, i.e. you may prefer to let the poor guy die, and therefore arguments going down that line are wrong to begin with.

The best "save" is the one that keeps you alive. Elementary mathematics (at most multiplying two figures together) tells you what this is every single time.

So, GW assumes that everyone playing is familiar with basic statistics? I know of a lot of people that are completely ignorant to the statistical outcomes of a die and couldn't multiply fractions if their lives depended on it.

I'm leaning towards that "best save" is in the 4+/5+ context where a 4+ is 'better', then you force a reroll.

The 4+ is the best save, you just happen to have to reroll it if you succeed, but that is in another context. First save, then reroll. What if you get to reroll the inv save? Is a 3+ better than a 5++ rerolled? Not obvious unless you start doing math.

Edit: Nevermind, misread the OP question. I'd say the one that gives the best % is the one to use.

I'd lean towards best numerical save on its face; i.e., the 4+ in OP's example.

It's not very well defined and (spurious or not) reading any more into it than a simple 2>3>4>5>6>X does open up the discussion to tactical considerations of 'best'.

berglin wrote:So, GW assumes that everyone playing is familiar with basic statistics?

I doubt it. IMO, GW assumes that everyone simply chooses which save to use, and will just naturally use the save that they perceive as giving them the best chance of survival.

I think people take the line about having the 'advantage' of using the best save a little more literally than it is intended. This is a beer-and-pretzels wargame, not an exercise in probability analysis.

insaniak wrote:

berglin wrote:So, GW assumes that everyone playing is familiar with basic statistics?

I doubt it. IMO, GW assumes that everyone simply chooses which save to use, and will just naturally use the save that they perceive as giving them the best chance of survival.

Which brings back in contextual analysis of "best" for necron players because of WBB and facing Power Weapon attacks in the Assault phase if they fail to die in the Shooting phase where they have a Cover Save and Armour Save option.

WBB is not a save...

You take the best save, i.e. the think most likely to stop that model taking a wound. Done, sorted, easy.

if one save has a 25% chance of success you cannot use it if another save has a 33% chance of success..

nosferatu1001 wrote:WBB is not a save...

You take the best save, i.e. the think most likely to stop that model taking a wound. Done, sorted, easy.

if one save has a 25% chance of success you cannot use it if another save has a 33% chance of success..

I think I didn't explain myself clearly, I did not intend to imply WBB is a save roll. Necron Warrior unit gets shot at, has 5+ Armor or 3+ Cover save as option. When Assault phase happens has 5+ Armour save against higher Initiative weapons but no Armour Save versus the Power Weapons at a lower Initiative. WBB would let all the Shot and Non-Power Weapon killed models make WBB (with some other conditions) but the ones killed by the Power Weapons are dead and gone, those specific models do not get to make WBB. Thus we have a context in which the 5+ Armour save may be construed as better then the 3+ Cover Save because it was better to die and come back then to just die and be removed from the game.

Necrons with WBB is the only models for which a less likely to succeed save roll may be better then one that is more likely to succeed.

Except that is irrelevant to the context: you are making a save against THIS wounding hit.

Not a possible wounding hit 1 phase time. NOt a possible wounding hit 3 phases time. Now. This save, now.

What is your best chance of saving THIS wounding hit? That is the one you use.

K.I.S.S

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that is irrelevant to the context: you are making a save against THIS wounding hit.

Not a possible wounding hit 1 phase time. NOt a possible wounding hit 3 phases time. Now. This save, now.

What is your best chance of saving THIS wounding hit? That is the one you use.

K.I.S.S

K.i.S.S. is not a mindless imperative to strip things down, it's about not being more complex then necessary. In a tactical game where choices determine results and impact my options as well as my opponents later the entire match is the context. From start to finish.

Except it is not the context of this phrase. Which is what is important here.

What is the best chance of not taking a wound. That is what the sentence means. If you want to change this wording, fine, it jut would not longer be the rules...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it is not the context of this phrase. Which is what is important here.

What is the best chance of not taking a wound. That is what the sentence means. If you want to change this wording, fine, it jut would not longer be the rules...

The rule states best, the examples used are about particular models that "want" to survive that particular attack because that is the models best option since it's dead and gone once it hits zero wounds regardless of the source of the wound. But examples do not introduce limits on what "best" means, they are merely examples of what may happen. In the case of a Necron model with WBB one wound is not the same as another wound with respect to hitting zero wounds remaining on the model. The rule as written does not have the context of "best option to save this wound right now".

The phrase "best save" has one and one meaning only.

What is your BEST chance of not taking a wound. You are removing context and as such failing at this argument.

I believe the "best save" is the one with the lowest numerical value. Rerolls have little to no bearing on which save is "best" for the initial roll.
If you want the statistical bs on that an initial 4+ cover is then a 50% chance compared with the 5++ at 33%. Thus the 4+ cover is "Best". After the initial roll, if successful, reroll as required..... which is still a 4+ cover with a 50% chance of success.

No, because a 4+ rerollable save has a fixed % probability of success of 25%

Multiplying two numbers together (never more) is not exactly rocket science. INitial chance of a pass is 50%? Then your chance of success with a reroll is 25%.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The phrase "best save" has one and one meaning only.

What is your BEST chance of not taking a wound. You are removing context and as such failing at this argument.

Did you press the submit button early? All I see is the repetition of a previous categorical statement lacking any attempt to support it with reason.

Nos, its basic percentage math stop trying to make it complicated.

Primary roll: 4+ 1-2-3 = fail, 4-5-6 = success... 50%
Reroll: 4+ 1-2-3 = fail, 4-5-6 = success... 50%

The reroll does NOT change the number needed for success. It does not change the type of die rolled. Both rolls have to be considered seperately as only the circumstance of the roll is changed, not the numbers needed nor the die type.
You are right about one thing.. Its not rocket science. No amount of Mathhammering is going to change the die or the number needed.

Leez - i have already explained this, your retorts require ignoring context, the english language, and game rules.

Helgrenze - erm, nope. When you KNOW your save will be rerolled, your chance of success has to be adjusted accordingly. The reroll DOES CHANGE the CHANCE of success - if it did not then why bother?

It changes the chance, but not the save.
The rule require the best save, not the best chance of success.

This is why the issue is brought up with some regularity.

People read it both ways.

1) Best save = best chance
2) Best save = best Save (Save is a stat--reroll is not)

And a save provides a chance of surviving the wound.

The best chance of surviving the wound is then the best save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Leez - i have already explained this, your retorts require ignoring context, the english language, and game rules.

That's exceedingly rich statement considering your stance on 5+ roll vs 4+ with re-roll.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And a save provides a chance of surviving the wound.

The best chance of surviving the wound is then the best save.

I tend to agree.

As I stated though, Save is a stat on the profile.
If the requirement is to use the stat instead of the 2 step removed "chance of success" that is never written in the rules, you are incorrect.

Nos... the reroll has zero bearing on the OT question.
You take the best save available AT THAT TIME Not the best after mathhammering the reroll into the equation.
In this case the "Best save' would be the 4+ cover save not the 5+ invul.
The reroll does not suddenly make the initial save that is required to be made a 4+ on a d4. It is a different roll that has no bearing on the initial save.

I honestly do not understand why people want to insist that a reroll is the same as the initial roll. Every time a question on rerolls comes up people want to blast around with their mathhammers and whatnot. A reroll is a seperate entity from whatever is being rerolled.

Think of it this way..... if you put a target divided into 2 parts on a spinning disk and throw a dart at it, you have a 50% chance of hitting either side. If you take the dart out and redo the throw your odds of hitting either side do not change it is still a 50% chance.
Now put up a target with 3 divisions.... the odds are now 33% of hitting any part. Rethrowing does not change the odds, just, possibly, the results.

Personally, in regards to the OT.. I would rather have two chances with 50% in my favor than one chance with 33% in my favor.

Leez - given you attempt to just use the word "best", entirely divorced from the fact it is in context with saving wounds, your statements are hardly airtight.

Helgrenze - presumably you dont understand probability mathematics. Your chance of passing a 4+ save iwth a reroll is 25%, because there are 4 outcomes and only one of them results in the wound being ignored (whcih is what a save does, despite Leezs inabilty to see this).

nosferatu1001 wrote:Helgrenze - presumably you dont understand probability mathematics. Your chance of passing a 4+ save iwth a reroll is 25%, because there are 4 outcomes and only one of them results in the wound being ignored (whcih is what a save does, despite Leezs inabilty to see this).

Ok please explain this in as much detail as you can. Assume that I have ZERO understanding of what you are saying... in other words try to keep it fairly simple and easy to understand.

As I see it, a single die used for this game has 6 sides. A single roll of one of these dice wil result in a single number from 1-6. If a given target number for a single roll is 4 or better to succeed, then half of the numbers rolled, or 50%, would be successful. Retaking that roll will not change the chances, 1 in 2 or 50-50, of success. It MAY change the results, but not the, to use your term, Probability. The probability curve of a single die roll does not change with successive rolls.

Previous rolls do not affect later odds.
They do, however, affect the overall chances.

For a silly example:
What are the odds of you rolling a 4+ if I let you re-roll as many times as needed to get a 4+?

100%

helgrenze wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Helgrenze - presumably you dont understand probability mathematics. Your chance of passing a 4+ save iwth a reroll is 25%, because there are 4 outcomes and only one of them results in the wound being ignored (whcih is what a save does, despite Leezs inabilty to see this).

Ok please explain this in as much detail as you can. Assume that I have ZERO understanding of what you are saying... in other words try to keep it fairly simple and easy to understand.

As I see it, a single die used for this game has 6 sides. A single roll of one of these dice wil result in a single number from 1-6. If a given target number for a single roll is 4 or better to succeed, then half of the numbers rolled, or 50%, would be successful. Retaking that roll will not change the chances, 1 in 2 or 50-50, of success. It MAY change the results, but not the, to use your term, Probability. The probability curve of a single die roll does not change with successive rolls.

I think nos is trying to set things such that the roll which gives the best chance to survive is the one used and not the one which the best save. In this case the 5+ gives a better chance to survive then a 4+ with re-roll (which you've clearly shown you understand), even though a 4+, on it's own - no re-roll, is a better save roll then 5+ (which I think is the point you are trying to make). So we have a situation where the best save roll does not offer the best chance to survive.

It's odd to me that on the one hand he's arguing that the roll which offers the best chance to survive is the right one yet in the Nercon example he's arguing that the best roll needs to be made even though that leads to the lowest chance to survive the game. The division is simple by a phase or more.

The only thing that can be agreed upon is that it's unclear and GW should FAQ it.

"Best" is not a game term and is never defined. Although it's not typically a problem, there's certain times when it can be contentious.

Consider, for example, turbo-boosting Seer Council bikers being shot at by IG vets with plasma guns and the 'Fire on my target' order:

The Jetseers have a 3+ cover save and a 4+ invul save. The 3+ cover save is clearly the 'better' save because 2/3 of the time avoiding a wound is better than 1/2 of the time avoiding the wound.

In this situation, however, with the 'debuff' from the IG order, the 4+ invul save represents a better chance to avoid taking a wound because 50% chance to avoid is greater than 45% chance to avoid (straight 4+ vs rerolling 3+).

So which save is "better"? Is it the "pure" dice roll needed to avoid harm or the cumulative best chance at avoiding harm when taking all buffs/debuffs into consideration?

There's no answer without more input.

Leez wrote:

insaniak wrote:I doubt it. IMO, GW assumes that everyone simply chooses which save to use, and will just naturally use the save that they perceive as giving them the best chance of survival.

Which brings back in contextual analysis of "best" for necron players because of WBB and facing Power Weapon attacks in the Assault phase if they fail to die in the Shooting phase where they have a Cover Save and Armour Save option.

...unless you read the rest of my post.


This is just covering all the same ground that it did last time. At the end of the day, we are not told what mechanism to use to decide which is the 'best' save, so it's all down to personal interpretation as to how to do it, and whether it's even necessary in the first place. Discuss it with your opponent and move on.