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.

The 40k rulebook does not delve into the realm of mathematics or statistics. It also doesn't go into concepts of syntax, logic, vocabulary, etc.

For this to be a truly "permissive ruleset" to the extreme that math deniers are taking this, we need much more definition on a number of subjects.

Proponents of the 4++ save are simply pointing out that it is the best available save. Statistically, mathematically provable. To deny your opponent that save is to jimmy the rules to make them take something that is not the best available.

Acrimonious wrote:
the rules to make them take something that is not the most likely to succeed.

So I can define for myself what is the best save, ignoring the rulebook definition?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So I can define for myself what is the best save, ignoring the rulebook definition?

The rulebook says a lot of things, you've read it your way, making "best" a term that means something very specific instead of actually resulting in what's best for the model. I think it's fair to say that in this case it can interpreted differently while both parties still follow the rulebook. But you know... There's another book with this problem, and people have been fighting about what that one says for 1500 years. I don't see this thread getting a quicker resolution.

Is the poll RAW or HIWPI?

 Awfeel wrote:

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.

And if rerolls do not count for better or best, and the only rule we have that does is based on the number...
Gee, it's like it's exactly what I've been saying! Thanks for agreeing with me!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So I can define for myself what is the best save, ignoring the rulebook definition?

If there is no rulebook definition than you can define it by the actual meaning of the English words: The best save is thus the one that has the least chance of failing.

Hey, look at this: We have no BRB-definition!

rigeld2 wrote:
So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.

I'll bite too, since this is getting pathetic.

Yes, the correct solution to THIS problem causes issues with ANOTHER rule.
So your proposal is to ignore the correct ruling on THIS problem.
And you can't see how that is stupid?

Actually the BRB defines best as lowest.

BRB p.17 "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound..."

That pretty much clears that up, doesn't it? It doesn't matter which is lower, because you can ALWAYS take the invulnerable save.

 launcelot7891 wrote:
BRB p.17 "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound..."

That pretty much clears that up, doesn't it? It doesn't matter which is lower, because you can ALWAYS take the invulnerable save.

Yea, you forgot the important bit of that sentence That being... "the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect."

The whole rule is this:
"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect." (17)

The context is that AP values do not bypass Invuln saves.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the BRB defines best as lowest.

Proven wrong many times in this thread.
Next?

 launcelot7891 wrote:
BRB p.17 "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound..."

That pretty much clears that up, doesn't it? It doesn't matter which is lower, because you can ALWAYS take the invulnerable save.

You may not always take an invulnerable save.

Necron FAQ 1.4 April 2013

Note that you must always use the best save available, and so cannot choose to use the dispersion shield's invulnerable save in pace of your armour save if the model's armour save if better and available."

In other words, you cannot choose to use your invulnerable save whenever you want.

Purifier - so you can find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls? Because so far you haven't provided jack when it comes to permission to calculate rerolls to determine what is the best save.

you are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Purifier - so you can find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls? Because so far you haven't provided jack when it comes to permission to calculate rerolls to determine what is the best save.

you are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.

By definition the best save is the one that helps you survive. That's not really that difficult. Your referential rule saying that best is a legal term meaning lowest is really weak and only supported by the lack of a clear definition of what best means.

"Lower is better", so page 2 says. Saying that that does not define what is 'best' is ignoring a clear definition.

 Purifier wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Purifier - so you can find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls? Because so far you haven't provided jack when it comes to permission to calculate rerolls to determine what is the best save.

you are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.

By definition the best save is the one that helps you survive. That's not really that difficult. Your referential rule saying that best is a legal term meaning lowest is really weak and only supported by the lack of a clear definition of what best means.

No, they have defined "better" as "lower". They do not define it as best chance of surviving - even thte oft misquoted mixed save rule doesnt say any different.

"Best" is therefore "lowest", by definition.

Find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls intheir definition of "better". Page and para, or concede you are making up a houserule. That is fine, however please dont pretend the actual *rule* is anything other than clear.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Purifier - so you can find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls? Because so far you haven't provided jack when it comes to permission to calculate rerolls to determine what is the best save.

you are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.

By definition the best save is the one that helps you survive. That's not really that difficult. Your referential rule saying that best is a legal term meaning lowest is really weak and only supported by the lack of a clear definition of what best means.

No, they have defined "better" as "lower". They do not define it as best chance of surviving - even thte oft misquoted mixed save rule doesnt say any different.

"Best" is therefore "lowest", by definition.

Find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls intheir definition of "better". Page and para, or concede you are making up a houserule. That is fine, however please dont pretend the actual *rule* is anything other than clear.

Or you know, you could read one of my several posts where I *did* pretty much say it was a house rule.

What I am saying though, is that I feel this is so extreme rules lawyering, that I would consider anyone demanding this rule to be TFG. This is over the top. This is completely into douche territory.
The rule that you guys are referring to is not clear. It's vague at best and referential more than stating something. It is however the best there is, unless you use a dictionary and/or logic instead and read the sentence saying to use the "best" save using the English language rather than referring to a different paragraph that sort of talks about something along the lines of what saves are and tells you that a certain modification makes it better.

They have defined better as lower. But some damned common sense tells you that bigger chance of survival is EVEN BETTER! But I know, you follow the letter religiously. That's why I made the reference to the bible. There are a lot of discussions there if some things should be read by the letter or as an example to follow the spirit of it. You're an extremist, and that's fine. It just gets scary when every 14 year old learns from you and starts demanding these douche moves to try and win more.

You are, in short saying:
"You can't take your best save because you have to take your Best save."
And you think that's in spirit with the game.

Just to remind you guys of this:

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

It's hardly douche behavior to use the definition provided by the rulebook, which is completely clear. It is also the ONLY way provided to determine which save is better than

"Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better". Page 2, last paragraph

It's 100% clear, I'd like to hear how that single sentence is vague?

As soon as you know which save is better (according to the method provided) than the rest you have the 'best' save, no?

House-ruling it to include all sorts of subjective notions of what is best or better is all fine, but you can't claim adherence to the actual rule then.

 Shandara wrote:
It's hardly douche behavior to use the definition provided by the rulebook, which is completely clear. It is also the ONLY way provided to determine which save is better than

"Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better". Page 2, last paragraph

It's 100% clear, I'd like to hear how that single sentence is vague?

As soon as you know which save is better (according to the method provided) than the rest you have the 'best' save, no?

House-ruling it to include all sorts of subjective notions of what is best or better is all fine, but you can't claim adherence to the actual rule then.

I disagree. I think it's VERY vague. The definition you are touting is a general rule explained to differentiate it from all the other stats, and that's how it's presented. Not as the end-all definition of the word "better" and by relation "best" in the book.

and since you're defining "Better" as a lawyering term here, it isn't actually true that it then follows that best is related to it. In fact, "best" has no definition. That's as much a dictionary definition as what my camp is claiming. In English Best follows better. But the rulebook doesn't define that distinction. It only says that being lower makes it better. Not best.

And that's why this whole discussion is getting out of hand. We're not allowed to use dictionary terms, and I can see where that rule comes from, because it's not always applicable in the rulebook. I think it is here, because "best" is not defined, but the opposite camp thinks I should be burnt for using a dictionary and then procedes to do it themselves to define that their better is logically followed by best.

 Purifier wrote:

Spoiler:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Purifier - so you can find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls? Because so far you haven't provided jack when it comes to permission to calculate rerolls to determine what is the best save.

you are told that the lower value is better, by definition the lowest value is the best value. That really isn't difficult.

By definition the best save is the one that helps you survive. That's not really that difficult. Your referential rule saying that best is a legal term meaning lowest is really weak and only supported by the lack of a clear definition of what best means.

No, they have defined "better" as "lower". They do not define it as best chance of surviving - even thte oft misquoted mixed save rule doesnt say any different.

"Best" is therefore "lowest", by definition.

Find a rule allowing you to consider rerolls intheir definition of "better". Page and para, or concede you are making up a houserule. That is fine, however please dont pretend the actual *rule* is anything other than clear.

Or you know, you could read one of my several posts where I *did* pretty much say it was a house rule.

What I am saying though, is that I feel this is so extreme rules lawyering, that I would consider anyone demanding this rule to be TFG. This is over the top. This is completely into douche territory.
The rule that you guys are referring to is not clear. It's vague at best and referential more than stating something. It is however the best there is, unless you use a dictionary and/or logic instead and read the sentence saying to use the "best" save using the English language rather than referring to a different paragraph that sort of talks about something along the lines of what saves are and tells you that a certain modification makes it better.

They have defined better as lower. But some damned common sense tells you that bigger chance of survival is EVEN BETTER! But I know, you follow the letter religiously. That's why I made the reference to the bible. There are a lot of discussions there if some things should be read by the letter or as an example to follow the spirit of it. You're an extremist, and that's fine. It just gets scary when every 14 year old learns from you and starts demanding these douche moves to try and win more.

You are, in short saying:
"You can't take your best save because you have to take your Best save."
And you think that's in spirit with the game

.

I understand your problem with the people that are promoting the strict RAW here. But keep in mind that their RAW interpretation might not even be how they would play it. People on the YMDC Forum in my opinion often make the mistake to want a HIWPI answer but ask for a RAW interpretation. These are completely different things.

I personally dont post much in YMDC threads that arent clear i tend to answer questions that are easy to answer and only read in threads like this one. But what i learn from those debates is where the critical rules questions occur so i am prepared to discuss my point of view on it with my opponent. Most of the time when RAW stands against RAI or HIWPI its really helpful to explain the RAW argument to your opponent and than decide based on that how we would play it. If there wasnt the RAW crew people wouldnt be aware of how important it is to actually talk to your opponent about certain rules interpretations when/before they occur.

On Topic:
HIWPI - I would let my opponent chose which save he thinks is the best.
RAW - Through the definition given on page 2 i think the "lower" save without rerolls would be the best.

I do a lot of devil advocate type of stuff myself, and would never play the game with over half of the interpretations I have discussed on this board. In fact, if you want to even wave away rules that are defined based on a simple narrative reason I am likely going to let you do so. This is because it is a game foremost and the enjoyment of the players should be embraced. If you can find a good narrative argument that will make the game different, and therefore more interesting, I would simply be too curious to simply deny you because the 'rules as written' say otherwise.

The reason I do a lot of rules as written arguments, that I would not otherwise follow, comes from the fact the rules as written are often pretty messed up. Sometimes you need to debate over something in order to simply understand it yourself, at other times you do it because it just leads to hilarious conclusions as the rules fall apart. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, trying to fit an argument into a very restrictive scope is a mental exercise that I find to be quite fun and it has greatly expanded my view on not just Warhammer rules, but how rules are written in general.

In this case, though I have not thrown my hat into the ring, I would personally allow the best save to be whatever you think is going to net you the best return. If I was to ask to come up with an answer based purely on raw I would very likely have the opposite conclusion because the rules try to establish that low is better. This is because rules as written are created in a 'vacuum' which do not account for every different combination of the rule, and in this case the whole possibility of re-rolling is not even addressed so we can not interpret the rules to include them.

Hell, my favorite outcome thanks to one of these threads: Thanks to rules as written, via FAQ's, tanks can climb ladders in the 40th millennium.

Kangodo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So I can define for myself what is the best save, ignoring the rulebook definition?

If there is no rulebook definition than you can define it by the actual meaning of the English words: The best save is thus the one that has the least chance of failing.

Hey, look at this: We have no BRB-definition!

Except, of course, there is a rule book definition - you just refuse to apply it.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.

I'll bite too, since this is getting pathetic.

Yes, the correct solution to THIS problem causes issues with ANOTHER rule.
So your proposal is to ignore the correct ruling on THIS problem.
And you can't see how that is stupid?

Pathetic and stupid? Do you have to stoop that low?
It's neither, however. You also can't make a 3+ rerollable because that's better than a 2+.
Or maybe, just maybe, the actual rules tell you that improving a save is solely based on lowering the number, and therefore the best save must be the lowest number.

Although a re-rollable save is better in terms of odds of surviving the BRB state that the value of a save exists between - and 2+, not - , 6+ , 6+ re-roll, 5+ ... 2+ and 2+ re-roll. Because a re-rollable save is not an actual save the best must be determined by the values given in the BRB, thus making the lower the save the better.

IXLoiero95XI

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So I can define for myself what is the best save, ignoring the rulebook definition?

If there is no rulebook definition than you can define it by the actual meaning of the English words: The best save is thus the one that has the least chance of failing.

Hey, look at this: We have no BRB-definition!

Except, of course, there is a rule book definition - you just refuse to apply it.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you can never Fortune a 2+ unit using your rules.
Cool story bro.

I'll bite too, since this is getting pathetic.

Yes, the correct solution to THIS problem causes issues with ANOTHER rule.
So your proposal is to ignore the correct ruling on THIS problem.
And you can't see how that is stupid?

Pathetic and stupid? Do you have to stoop that low?
It's neither, however. You also can't make a 3+ rerollable because that's better than a 2+.
Or maybe, just maybe, the actual rules tell you that improving a save is solely based on lowering the number, and therefore the best save must be the lowest number.

No need to call names, I'll agree with that, but let's face it, rigeld, you're pretty good at pushing people's buttons with your rampant mean sarcasm. or "maybe, just maybe," you could be a little more civil yourself too instead of always just skirting the limit of where implications of others stupidity crosses to open insulting?
It actually DOESN'T tell you that it's "solely based on lowering the number" it just gives that as a way to tell it's better. And that's why I think your strict reading is, even RAW, questionable. I think the word "best" might be used in the rulebook as a term to describe the best for the situation, rather than a reference to the one instance where they tell you that a save with a lower number is better than one with a higher, which is only a reference to how that one stat works opposite to the rest which are better if they are higher in the context.

I actually truthfully believe both readings to be RAW. I have explained several times how, and it doesn't sit with a lot of people, and their exclusivism based on a sentence that clearly wasn't made to define the word "better" isn't gonna sit with me. So at that, I leave you to argue amongst yourselves, as I'm sure you will. I'm sort of curious how this conversation would have gone if GW had had a problem with the spelling, and typed out "betetr" instead of "better." How would that RAW discussion have gone?

Rigeld didnt call anyone names - Kangodo did (which is one of the reasons I have them on ignore, a seeming inability to argue without resorting to insults fairly quickly in)

When you are told the lower save is the better save, how is that NOT dictating the 40k defnition of "better"? Do you also think "target" lacks a 40k specific meaning?

A single sentence that bdefines "better" does, indeed, define better. You have explained why you dont like that definition, but have yet to come up with any RAW stating otherwise.

If it helps this is the same definition as in 5th

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld didnt call anyone names - Kangodo did (which is one of the reasons I have them on ignore, a seeming inability to argue without resorting to insults fairly quickly in)

When you are told the lower save is the better save, how is that NOT dictating the 40k defnition of "better"? Do you also think "target" lacks a 40k specific meaning?

A single sentence that bdefines "better" does, indeed, define better. You have explained why you dont like that definition, but have yet to come up with any RAW stating otherwise.

If it helps this is the same definition as in 5th

It doesn't, however, define "best." I think if you're gonna argue semantics down to the letter, you don't get to in the next breath argue that one word is almost the same as another.
You have yet to show me where in the rules it defines what a "best" save is.

 Purifier wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld didnt call anyone names - Kangodo did (which is one of the reasons I have them on ignore, a seeming inability to argue without resorting to insults fairly quickly in)

When you are told the lower save is the better save, how is that NOT dictating the 40k defnition of "better"? Do you also think "target" lacks a 40k specific meaning?

A single sentence that bdefines "better" does, indeed, define better. You have explained why you dont like that definition, but have yet to come up with any RAW stating otherwise.

If it helps this is the same definition as in 5th

It doesn't, however, define "best." I think if you're gonna argue semantics down to the letter, you don't get to in the next breath argue that one word is almost the same as another.
You have yet to show me where in the rules it defines what a "best" save is.

The best is defined by nothing being better. The rulebook defines that the lower the better. It also says it cant get better than 2+. Theres your best save.

Purifier - it doesnt need to explicitly define the "best" save, as it does so by:

1) DEFINING that lower number is better when it comes to saves. There is no RAW argument against this definition
2) DEFINING the lowest save as a 2+

WHen you take the two together the 40k definition of "best" can be determined - it is the lowest number

There isnt any RAW argument against this. None.

 Mywik wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld didnt call anyone names - Kangodo did (which is one of the reasons I have them on ignore, a seeming inability to argue without resorting to insults fairly quickly in)

When you are told the lower save is the better save, how is that NOT dictating the 40k defnition of "better"? Do you also think "target" lacks a 40k specific meaning?

A single sentence that bdefines "better" does, indeed, define better. You have explained why you dont like that definition, but have yet to come up with any RAW stating otherwise.

If it helps this is the same definition as in 5th

It doesn't, however, define "best." I think if you're gonna argue semantics down to the letter, you don't get to in the next breath argue that one word is almost the same as another.
You have yet to show me where in the rules it defines what a "best" save is.

The best is defined by nothing being better. The rulebook defines that the lower the better. It also says it cant get better than 2+. Theres your best save.

1) It is my opinion that something that has more special rules to increase survivability is by definition better than what is described in the section that describes a lower number on the statline as being better than a higher number on the statline.
2) That is, as has been said a million times, taken out of context by your side. That is to explain it cannot be 1+. Not to explain it cannot be improved upon by special rules.

Purifier - it doesnt need to explicitly define the "best" save, as it does so by:

1) DEFINING that lower number is better when it comes to saves. There is no RAW argument against this definition
2) DEFINING the lowest save as a 2+

WHen you take the two together the 40k definition of "best" can be determined - it is the lowest number

There isnt any RAW argument against this. None.

1) Just went through this for the other guy
2) and this.

Skills are better when improved by special rules. Best is not just a lower number. Your argument falls on the fact that you need "best" spelled out and defined. it is not. Your wringing out "betters" is just barely falling short of it.

I don't know why I'm still doing this. You're not going to convince me. The quotations you make need to be so grossly taken out of context in order to work with your logic that I cannot take them seriously.
And I'm not going to convince you, because you have taken a deathgrip on your opinion and wouldn't let go ever.

Depending on how you read it. they're both RAW. I don't know why you think RAW would always mean one reading. It doesn't have to.