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.

A question which came up in the last game:
In the profile of the Wraiths they have a 3+ save and as the Necrons do not have different armor types which confers the save like the Imperium, Chaos and the Tyranids, we could not really say if the save in the profile is just the Phase shifter or a generic armor save.

The problem is if the wraiths are under the influence of something like Nullzone in which case the inv save would be worse than the armor save and the wound would allow armor saves would the wraiths get a normal 3+?

Null zone doesn't make the invul numerically worse, it just forces rerolls.

That said there's nothing covering a circumstance where you have multiple numerically equal saves. I'd say pick one - in the case of Null Zone you'd usually pick the normal save (barring AP3 or better obviously)

Wraiths have both an armour save (listed in the profile) and a separate invulnerable save (from the phase shifter). The save on their profile does not come from the shifter at all, because there is no rule saying that it does.

The model is forced to use the "best save available" (RB p19), which does not necessarily mean the save with the lowest number. In a situation where the Wraith is forced to reroll its invulnerable save, then its armour save is clearly better - so use that.

Similarly, if a Wraith lost its invulnerable save (from a Vindicare's shield breaker shot, for example), then it wouldn't lose its armour save as well.

Does the Codex not state that the save is an invulnerable save? This would mean the Wraiths have no armour save to switch to, they have one save and it's an invulnerable one.

 htj wrote:
Does the Codex not state that the save is an invulnerable save? This would mean the Wraiths have no armour save to switch to, they have one save and it's an invulnerable one.

It doesn't. It's listed with a 3+ and a phase shifter and the phase shifter grants a 3+ invul.

 htj wrote:
Does the Codex not state that the save is an invulnerable save? This would mean the Wraiths have no armour save to switch to, they have one save and it's an invulnerable one.

Nope, you are thinking of the 3rd ed codex. In the fifth codex they get a phase shifter as part of their standard wargear, which confers a 3++ save.

rigeld2 wrote:

 htj wrote:
Does the Codex not state that the save is an invulnerable save? This would mean the Wraiths have no armour save to switch to, they have one save and it's an invulnerable one.

It doesn't. It's listed with a 3+ and a phase shifter and the phase shifter grants a 3+ invul.

Well I'll be damned. Could have sworn it did, but I must be getting confused with my Daemons. Bloody Wraiths.

Canoptek Wraiths are listed as having a 3+ save in their stat line.

They also have a phase shifter listed in their wargear (as a matter of fact their 'only' wargear unless you've purchased some for them), which indicates that "...A model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save"


Sadly however the phase shifter doesn't say it is addition to their default 3+ (aka: they have an armor save too), or 'replaces' what the 3+ stands for in their profile (aka: no armor save)

HIWPI is to give them both the armor save as listed in their profile 'and' the invulnerable save granted by the wargear, the same as i'd do for Overlords, or Crypteks with a Timesplinter cloak. (or for that matter any model carrying a dispersion shield or similar wargear)

The Sv listed in the characteristics is their armour save (see page 2).
Invulnerable saves are not listed in the characteristic profile, only armour saves.
So if the profile says 3+ they have a 3+ armour save in addition to their 3+ invulnerable.

The wraith has permission for the 3+ armor save per the profile. It also has permission for a 3++ per the Phase Shifter wargear. There's no text saying that the Phase Shifter replaces the armor save. Therefore, you have permission to use both and the rules limit that to using the best applicable save.

There's no need for HIWPI here because the RAW are clear.

 kcwm wrote:
There's no need for HIWPI here because the RAW are clear.

Yeah, now I know that I was wrong about the rule in the book replacing rather than adding, I agree with this, and others who have said it. It's cut and dried.

hm ok thank you guys. You cleared that up with the armor save and I think I go with what rigeld said about the identical saves.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 htj wrote:
Does the Codex not state that the save is an invulnerable save? This would mean the Wraiths have no armour save to switch to, they have one save and it's an invulnerable one.

Nope, you are thinking of the 3rd ed codex. In the fifth codex they get a phase shifter as part of their standard wargear, which confers a 3++ save.

It was the same in 3rd edition, 3+ armor with 3+ invul save due to "phase shift" special rule.

Wraiths are 3+/3++

 Cheexsta wrote:

The model is forced to use the "best save available" (RB p19), which does not necessarily mean the save with the lowest number.

Considering that Page 2 states Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. , I'm pretty sure RAW best save is equivalent to lowest number.
Doesn't matter at all in Wraith case, with them being 3+/3++ though.

Luide wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

The model is forced to use the "best save available" (RB p19), which does not necessarily mean the save with the lowest number.

Considering that Page 2 states Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. , I'm pretty sure RAW best save is equivalent to lowest number.
Doesn't matter at all in Wraith case, with them being 3+/3++ though.

It does if they have an effect that forces them to reroll invul saves but they get hit by an AP4 or worse weapon. Or if in CC with the same effect on then they would only re-roll the AP3 or better hits instead of every save.

It's situational but important. More so for C'tan as well since theirs is a 4+/4++.

 loreweaver wrote:
Wraiths are 3+/3++

Indeed they do.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Luide wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

The model is forced to use the "best save available" (RB p19), which does not necessarily mean the save with the lowest number.

Considering that Page 2 states Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. , I'm pretty sure RAW best save is equivalent to lowest number.
Doesn't matter at all in Wraith case, with them being 3+/3++ though.

It does if they have an effect that forces them to reroll invul saves but they get hit by an AP4 or worse weapon.

No it doesn't. As far as rules are concerned, 3+ invuln isn't any better 3+ armour save, so when hit by AP4 weapon, Necron player could just choose to use the 3+ armour save. Now, if Wraiths were 4+/3++, and were hit with AP5 or worse while being affected by null-zone, you'd have a point.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Or if in CC with the same effect on then they would only re-roll the AP3 or better hits instead of every save.
It's situational but important. More so for C'tan as well since theirs is a 4+/4++.

Again, completely same situation.

Now, if there were a power that forced one to re-roll successful cover saves, then there might be an actual in-game effect. But for Wraiths affected by null-zone, there are only 2 possible options:
1) Attack ignores 3+ armour save. 3++ (re-roll succesful) is your best save, you must use it.
1) Attack doesn't ignore 3+ armour save. 3+ isn't better than 3++ (re-roll succesfull) and vice versa. Necron player may choose which save to use.

A 3+ single roll is better than a 3+ forced re-roll. You show me where an invulnerable save is classified as "better" than an armor save.

Else, Luide, you don't seem to fully grasp what I was getting at. And in your examples, if something is AP3 (or armor ignoring) then the entire point is moot as they could only take the invul.

Also, a cryptek with a timesplinter cloak is 4+/3++.

Back on subject, a save with a forced re-roll on success is not better than (or the same as) a save of the same caliber with no forced re-roll on success, as long as the save is allowed to be made in the first place. Which is why I made my point about CC, and why the distinction is important to the subject matter of the thread.

 Kevin949 wrote:
A 3+ single roll is better than a 3+ forced re-roll. You show me where an invulnerable save is classified as "better" than an armor save.

If the 3+ armor is ignored (due to AP) the 3++ reroll is better than the armor save you would get. Which is what Luide said.

Back on subject, a save with a forced re-roll on success is not better than (or the same as) a save of the same caliber with no forced re-roll on success, as long as the save is allowed to be made in the first place. Which is why I made my point about CC, and why the distinction is important to the subject matter of the thread.

As far as the rules on which save to take are concerned, a 3++ forced re-roll and a 3+ are the same save.

rigeld2 wrote:
As far as the rules on which save to take are concerned, a 3++ forced re-roll and a 3+ are the same save.

The rules say you must take the better save, and one of them is clearly better. The rules say nothing about discounting any factors in determining which save is better, therefore anything which factors into which save is better applies.

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
As far as the rules on which save to take are concerned, a 3++ forced re-roll and a 3+ are the same save.

The rules say you must take the better save, and one of them is clearly better. The rules say nothing about discounting any factors in determining which save is better, therefore anything which factors into which save is better applies.

The rules also clearly define that lower saves are better.
So you have no permission to subjectively evaluate outside factors - just look at the numerical value of the save.
a 4+ armor save is better than a 5++ re-roll failures, per the rules.

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
As far as the rules on which save to take are concerned, a 3++ forced re-roll and a 3+ are the same save.

The rules say you must take the better save, and one of them is clearly better. The rules say nothing about discounting any factors in determining which save is better, therefore anything which factors into which save is better applies.

Actually the rules define best as lower number. Thats it.

Really? All I've got is that the same save is better if it's lower, and even that is more oblique reference tautology than "clear definition".

Pyrian wrote:
Really? All I've got is that the same save is better if it's lower, and even that is more oblique reference tautology than "clear definition".

Page 19 wrote:a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.

We have to take the (objectively) best save.

Page 19 wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+.

Defines that the only way to "improve" a save is to decrease the number - or else you're saying that a 2++ cannot be made re-rollable.

To the best of my knowledge, however, are you not supposed to take armor saves in account first where available?

Or is there no real discernible order of operations on which save to take? Yes I know the "always take the best save available" is the precedent here, but does not armor come before wargear saves in the case of two (or more) saves being the same?

There is no order; any equal save is just that - equal.

 Kevin949 wrote:
A 3+ single roll is better than a 3+ forced re-roll. You show me where an invulnerable save is classified as "better" than an armor save.

Yes, because 3++ is obviously better than having no save. Or do you disagree?

 Kevin949 wrote:
Else, Luide, you don't seem to fully grasp what I was getting at. And in your examples, if something is AP3 (or armor ignoring) then the entire point is moot as they could only take the invul.

Yes, which was the whole point of including that possibility. What I tried to show you and you missed is, that the whole question is moot in case of Wraiths: There are only two options:
1) Wraith can't take armour save. Invulnerable save is only option, therefore the "best".
2) Wraith can take armour save. Neither save is "better" according to definition of "better" used in rules, so you're allowed to to choose between armour and invulnerable saves. Exactly same way as Lychguard in ruins hit by AP3 attack can choose whether to use cover save or dispersion shield.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Also, a cryptek with a timesplinter cloak is 4+/3++.

Now we have an actual situation where it matters. But as far as rules are concerned, that 3++ is always better than 4+. Even if you were afflicted by situation where you were allowed to re-roll failed armour saves and was forced to re-roll successful invulnerable saves, you'd still be forced to take that 3++ save.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Back on subject, a save with a forced re-roll on success is not better than (or the same as) a save of the same caliber with no forced re-roll on success, as long as the save is allowed to be made in the first place. Which is why I made my point about CC, and why the distinction is important to the subject matter of the thread.

I agree that is isn't better, but I disagree on it being worse. Page 2 defines armour saves as "lower are better" and other places explicitly define that saves are improved by lowering them. Being able to re-roll failed or being forced to re-roll successful doesn't make save "better" or "worse", as far as the rules definitions go.

One 3+ armor save is much better than having to reroll a 3++ invulnerable save. The first has a 67% chance to pass while the latter is actually less than 50 percent. Why would anyone choose the worst save? The rules explicitly state not to.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
One 3+ armor save is much better than having to reroll a 3++ invulnerable save. The first has a 67% chance to pass while the latter is actually less than 50 percent. Why would anyone choose the worst save? The rules explicitly state not to.

Percentages of pass/fail aren't taken into account when determining a better or worse save. You have the same chance each time of rolling 3+ on a six sided die, you're just being forced to do it twice instead of once.

And trust me, I was thinking the same thing you were earlier but reminded myself that you can't factor in what it "essentially" becomes, because it does not matter about what it effectively is only what it actually is.