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.

Dra'al - and, when you actually read the whole sentence, the reason it gives them the BEST chance of survival is that it is the LOWEST numbered save

You only have permission to choose the lowest numbered save available to you. Nothing else.

What line gives you permission to only use the lowest one?
it can't be the one on page 2, since that only describes armour saves.

If the page 2 definition does not include modifiers, re-rolls or everything else, then those things do not count for determining which save is better.

It does not offer a more subjective definition of 'better' or 'best'

Furthermore if Invulnerable Saves or Cover Saves do not offer a different mechanic of determining which save is better then we ONLY have the page 2 way of determining one.

You compare your saves, taking the lower each time, eventually leading to the 'lowest', which must be the 'better' out of all of them, hence 'best'' according to page 2.

You can't insert re-rolls, modifiers, special rules into the rule because they aren't there!

Oh, and before someone asks why you have to use the lowest number - this is because you are told invulnerable and cover operate in the same manner as Armour, but only with specific differences

If the method of choosing the better save (lower is better) isnt listed as an exception, you have no right to choose it.

And, of course we know this is NOT an exception for Invulnerable saves, as you are told, in the praetorian FAQ, that you CANNOT choose a 4++ save over a 3+, so it still adheres to the same rules.

So, you must choose the lower one. Anything else ignores the rules, or leaves you with no way to ever take an invulnerable save. Given those two options, following the rules makes sense

Lychguard FAQ.

But otherwise completely true.

Gah, lychgaurd / prateorian name mixup.

Thanks for the catch!

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

tgf wrote:


In the future calculate your 1 die result and realize you have the chance 4 times. Obviously they can take into unrealistic territory like say 110% chance to succeed. but this will give you relative odds. The thing people tend to forget when calculating odds in this game is each die roll is an independent trial and previous die rolls do not impact future die rolls. Many people will say that rolling a 6 followed by a 6 is a 1 in 36 chance. But if you have already rolled the first six you are no more or less likely to get a 6 on the second roll meaning you have a 1 in 6 chance to get that second 6 once the first is rolled.

This is terrible math. I realise that rolling one 6 on a single die is 1/6. But the chance of one 6 showing up on four dice rolls is not 1/6, it's much higher.
Someone else above brought up a similar problem. What's the chance of one 4+ showing up when I roll 100 dice? It's greater than 50%, that's for sure!

Yes it is quite terrible math but most people can't to exponential fractions in their head, I was offering a simplistic way estimating however it is inaccurate and gets more inaccurate the further from 1 you go, I am pretty sure I said it can give unrealistic results but when you have to make a quick table side calc its better than nothing, how much better I guess is in the eye of the beholder. I have never had anyone bust out a calculator and work out odds of success in a game, we usually dumb it down and just try to get close for speed of play.

Youre also working out a fairly pointless stat - the average. Expectation is a much better calcualtion (my odds of getting at least X result) but harder for a layman to calc....

RAW it seems fairly clear that the 3+ should be used as the rulebook defines the lower number as better.

HIWPI I'd certainly let my opponent go with the 4+ re-rollable, as it does give you a better chance of survival.

Poll added

This statement seems to address ap values, but I thought I might point out that on page 17 of the BRB it states that an invulnerable save may be taken against any wound.

Not convinced this means much though given the necron FAQ

HiiC wrote:
This statement seems to address ap values, but I thought I might point out that on page 17 of the BRB it states that an invulnerable save may be taken against any wound.

Not convinced this means much though given the necron FAQ

Yes, it may be taken against any wound that ignores the armor save. The invulnerable is only available if there is no armor save, or if it is numerically better than the armor save (i.e, Lilith's 4+ invul in CC)

Also, it does not state that an invulnerable save may be taken against any wound.

This is what it says:

"Invulnerable saves are different to armor saves because they may always be taken whenever a model suffers a wound - the Armor Piercing value of the weapon has no effect"

It does not say "any wound," it says "may always be taken whenever a model suffers a wound," the difference is subtle, but it's there.

 grrrfranky wrote:
RAW it seems fairly clear that the 3+ should be used as the rulebook defines the lower number as better.

If the rulebook said that you had a 33% chance of rolling a 6 on a D6 some of you would be doing your mathhammer with that statistic on this forum. The fact is, a lower save is not always better when you factor in re-rolls. If the rulebook says that the "best" save is always the lower value, then it is arguing with the laws of probability and is scientifically wrong. "Best" gives you the best chance of survival, because that is the purpose of a save.
If you want a RAW argument, I would maybe throw the general vs. specific conflict out there but I don't think that will accomplish much.

 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.

This reads like a strawman argument. The scenario you're positing has nothing to do with the opposing viewpoint, which equates the best save with the save most likely to ensure the survival of the model. You're describing a scenario in which the player makes a tactical decision to deliberately take a worse save. These two things are not the same.

-Yad

Yad 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.

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.

This reads like a strawman argument. The scenario you're positing has nothing to do with the opposing viewpoint, which equates the best save with the save most likely to ensure the survival of the model. You're describing a scenario in which the player makes a tactical decision to deliberately take a worse save. These two things are not the same.

-Yad

Although I want to agree that the 3+ argument is strawman, the problem is that the permissive rulebook has no mention of what the best save is. The only thing close to it is their strawman of what is "better." So although it's not quite describing the situation at hand, nothing else is describing it better. The strawman, in this case, is the argument. I hate the rulebook sometimes. Most times. If it had never described what is "better" we could have gone by the dictionary definition of "best," no arguments. But it had to go and say a lower score is better.

sorry, double post

-Yad

If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Evileyes wrote:
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!"

Well, it is a khornate demon. Common sense isn't really it's strong point

But yes, I agree. You use the armor save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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?

Pg19.

Under "Models with more than one save." The bold part.

"a model gets to make on saving throw, but it has the ADVANTAGE if always using the best available save."

on this SAME PAGE that you noted... there is also a snippet below with the words "uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving"

Even your example page implies that "best" here is defined as highest chance of survival.



Also

-------- page 4 of the BRB

The Most Important Rule

In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer 40,000, there are bound to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules, or you can't seem to find the right page. Even if you know the rule, sometimes it is just a really close call, and players don't agree on the precise outcome.

Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves (in a manner befitting the better class of Imperial Citizen, of course). If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the game - on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides. Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.

----------

I'd say do this every game until they FAQ it on a "per person that disagrees" basis.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

That doesn't rule out that there is a third option that is best.

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

That doesn't rule out that there is a third option that is best.

Given what criteria? We can only consider what the rules allow us to consider.
You have option A that is good.
You have option B that is better than option A.
You must take the best option.

Why would you consider A (the worse option, since worse is the opposite of better) when the given criteria show you clearly that B is the best?

I"m still a bit lost here. so let me recap (very broadly) what the two sides to the argument are.

Side A - you must take the 4+ re-rollable because it has a better chance of succeeding
Reasons for - the book says you must take the best save, and since 4++ re-rollable is better than 3+, the 4++ re-rollable must be "the best"
Reasons against - misinterpretation of the word "best" since the book also says you may never have better than a 2+ save, which would make re-rolling a 2+ or 3+ save illegal.

Side B - You must take the 3+ save because you do not factor in re-rolls.
Reasons for - Permissive ruleset. The rulebook does not permit you to factor in re-rolls so you do not. 3+ is better than 4++, and is therefor "the best".
Reasons against - since the game does not define "best" you must use the dictionary definition, which supports taking re-rolls into consideration.

It seems both sides have valid points for and against, and it will be up to the players to decide in each of their games which to use. Personally, I would probably side with side B.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oh, and before someone asks why you have to use the lowest number - this is because you are told invulnerable and cover operate in the same manner as Armour, but only with specific differences

Page?
It's okay if you want to play it like that, but it are just house-rules.
The BRB does not say that inv-saves work the same as armour saves.

If the method of choosing the better save (lower is better) isnt listed as an exception, you have no right to choose it.

If you were right, the text would say that the lower save is the better save.
In reality it says that the lower armour-save is the better save, so it does not apply to this case.

And, of course we know this is NOT an exception for Invulnerable saves, as you are told, in the praetorian FAQ, that you CANNOT choose a 4++ save over a 3+, so it still adheres to the same rules.

That's because a 3+ is better than a 4++.
The FAQ tells us that "Note that you must always use the best save available, and so cannot choose to use the dispersion shield's invulnerable save in place of your armour save if the model’s armour save is better and available."

That is not a verdict on 3+ vs 4++ with rerolls.

So, you must choose the lower one. Anything else ignores the rules, or leaves you with no way to ever take an invulnerable save. Given those two options, following the rules makes sense

We do not ignore a single rule.
The rules say that we take the best save available: A 4++ with rerolls is better than a 3+.
The only rules that could 'counter' this only apply to 4++ without rerolls and to armour saves.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

That doesn't rule out that there is a third option that is best.

Given what criteria? We can only consider what the rules allow us to consider.
You have option A that is good.
You have option B that is better than option A.
You must take the best option.

Why would you consider A (the worse option, since worse is the opposite of better) when the given criteria show you clearly that B is the best?

Option B is better than option A, but if the BRB defines "best" diffrently than the dictionary, you may not be able to choose either. Sometimes you must use a third options if that's the case.

On the note of "best" saves an "improving" a save.

Maximum Save: ...no save... can ever be improved beyond 2+.

The way the book defines a "best" or Maximum save on page 19 excludes any mention of re-rolls, saying it end at 2+. We know a save can be mathimaticly improved beyond that with a re-rolls, but the book ignores that. We can not use mathhammering to determine a "best" save if the rules do not include one of the variables in the equation.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.

So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.

So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.

Ok, I'll bite, since you've been trying so hard for so long and everyone has been ignoring you. You clearly really really want to develop on this but you need someone to go "ok, what is it then?". It's like seeing that guy go "Hey, ask me what I'm doing 8D"
This argument makes no sense. A 2+ that can be rerolled is better than a 2+ according to his argument.
Cool story bro.

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.

So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.

Ok, I'll bite, since you've been trying so hard for so long and everyone has been ignoring you. You clearly really really want to develop on this but you need someone to go "ok, what is it then?". It's like seeing that guy go "Hey, ask me what I'm doing 8D"
This argument makes no sense. A 2+ that can be rerolled is better than a 2+ according to his argument.
Cool story bro.

Except the rules explicitly forbid you from ever improving a 2+ save.
If you've made it better, you've improved it. That's against the actual rules.

Can you twin link 2+ ?

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

That doesn't rule out that there is a third option that is best.

Except the rulebook tells you what ie the better option

Find permission to determine best using refills, page and para.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.

So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.

Ok, I'll bite, since you've been trying so hard for so long and everyone has been ignoring you. You clearly really really want to develop on this but you need someone to go "ok, what is it then?". It's like seeing that guy go "Hey, ask me what I'm doing 8D"
This argument makes no sense. A 2+ that can be rerolled is better than a 2+ according to his argument.
Cool story bro.

Except the rules explicitly forbid you from ever improving a 2+ save.
If you've made it better, you've improved it. That's against the actual rules.

You're taking this particular concept out of context.

Maximum Save

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 invuln) can ever be improved BEYOND 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

-------------

The implication here is that a model can not have 1+ saves to make it invincible, by that it can not IMPROVE its save. (Improve here meaning a lowering of the numbered roll)

This is using YOUR definition of better. Meaning if rerolls do NOT count towards "better" or "best" that would mean that I can in fact reroll 2+ no matter which side of this argument I am on.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you have 2 things and one is better than the other, which one is best?

The one that is better than the other: Which is the 4++ with a reroll.

So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.

Ok, I'll bite, since you've been trying so hard for so long and everyone has been ignoring you. You clearly really really want to develop on this but you need someone to go "ok, what is it then?". It's like seeing that guy go "Hey, ask me what I'm doing 8D"
This argument makes no sense. A 2+ that can be rerolled is better than a 2+ according to his argument.
Cool story bro.

Except the rules explicitly forbid you from ever improving a 2+ save.
If you've made it better, you've improved it. That's against the actual rules.

The context CLEARLY states that it applies to decreasing the number to 1. The line explaining the rule says "Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails."

Here's the thing. You're applying the way YOU read the rules to how HE reads the rules. You're too stuck in your own bubble for this to be a meaningful argument.
YOU think he's trying to read it as 4++ and a reroll being A ROLL that is somehow a 2.8++ or whatever it ends at.
HE is saying that, yes, it is 2 rolls, but the end result is clearly preferable and therefore by definition better.

Therefore it's ony by YOUR reading that the discrepancy happens.
By HIS reading, he is not "improving one roll beyond 2+" as the rule states you can't. His reading is that it is STILL a 2+. It's just better than the other 2+ since it can be rerolled. This is a distinction you are unable to make.

I've already said this before in this thread, but I'll say it again: This is the kind of backwards, game destroying, rules lawyering thinking that is in YMDC. But it is what YMDC is. What Rigeld is saying is the kind of thinking that belongs here.
It's a completely unbending oncompromising reading of everything, even where it is clearly bananas, but when two people can't agree on something, that's the sort of reading that has to win.
Rigeld is right about his original reading, for YMDC. (but this follow up argument was just lazy, man. This is you applying your reading to what he was saying.)
But I would never, in a million years, play it like the reading is, because it is completely crystal clear to me that it is either an unintended complication, or a huge fail to make the game more complicated than it has to be. Best save should mean the actual best save, not a definition of best that doesn't conform with the English language because it has become a type of legal term.