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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
If you read Best (that best is a term to be defined ONLY by other rules specifying Better, and that it is in fact a rule-term) then page 2 must be considered.

So you actually define "best" as something that is not "the most better"?

If you read best (if someone asked you, "which one of these two saves would be best for my character to take?" you cannot in all seriousness say "oh, that'd be the one that has a bigger chance of killing you") then page 2 is only an example for a way to improve, but other things that actually DO MAKE THE SAVE BETTER also factor.

You're told how to improve saves - page 19. I've cited it. Do the rules on page 19 include special rules in how to improve armor saves?

So. Again. I believe both readings are RAW. And I think I have proven this point time and time again.

No, you really haven't.

yeah, I really have. Your refusal doesn't make it any less so. The most better is in my favour actually, since I have more things to throw in than you do. And I'm told one way of comparing saves to eachother. That doesn't say that making a save better doesn't make it better. Common sense tells me that a better save is better.

I know we can't use dictionary definitions, but you do need to use English to read the book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

So here we have a definition of 'best' that conforms to common usage of the word. Why can't we go with this?

That's actually the only instances that uses the word "best," so by definition, it's law.

 Crimson wrote:

Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

So here we have a definition of 'best' that conforms to common usage of the word. Why can't we go with this?

Red herring - in that example the cover save is a 3+ and his invul is a 4+.
It doesn't support your argument.

 Purifier wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

So here we have a definition of 'best' that conforms to common usage of the word. Why can't we go with this?

That's actually the only instances that uses the word "best," so by definition, it's law.

On P. 19 directly above the example it states in bolded letters:

"[...] a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save"

So not the only instance.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

So here we have a definition of 'best' that conforms to common usage of the word. Why can't we go with this?

Red herring - in that example the cover save is a 3+ and his invul is a 4+.
It doesn't support your argument.

To be fair it also talks about "best chance of surviving".

 Mywik wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

So here we have a definition of 'best' that conforms to common usage of the word. Why can't we go with this?

That's actually the only instances that uses the word "best," so by definition, it's law.

On P. 19 directly above the example it states in bolded letters:

"[...] a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save"

So not the only instance.

Errr... that's the exact phrase that we are talking about. That's the exact word that I am arguing people are reading differently. The other one is the only one referring to that word

And it isn't a red herring any more than page 2 is. It's easy to just dismiss anything that doesn't conform to your theories as red herring.

 Purifier wrote:

yeah, I really have. Your refusal doesn't make it any less so. The most better is in my favour actually, since I have more things to throw in than you do. And I'm told one way of comparing saves to eachother. That doesn't say that making a save better doesn't make it better. Common sense tells me that a better save is better.

I know we can't use dictionary definitions, but you do need to use English to read the book.

You're told one way to compare 2 things. You are not given permission to compare them any other way.
If the only way you're permitted to compare them shows that the 4++ is not better, how can it possibly ever be the most better?

That's actually the only instances that uses the word "best," so by definition, it's law.

And in that instance its - wait for it - best because it's the lower number.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

yeah, I really have. Your refusal doesn't make it any less so. The most better is in my favour actually, since I have more things to throw in than you do. And I'm told one way of comparing saves to eachother. That doesn't say that making a save better doesn't make it better. Common sense tells me that a better save is better.

I know we can't use dictionary definitions, but you do need to use English to read the book.

You're told one way to compare 2 things. You are not given permission to compare them any other way.
If the only way you're permitted to compare them shows that the 4++ is not better, how can it possibly ever be the most better?

That's actually the only instances that uses the word "best," so by definition, it's law.

And in that instance its - wait for it - best because it's the lower number.

No, it's - wait for it - best because it gives the larges chance of survival!
It gives the largest chance of survival because it's the lowest number, but that's just one of the ways of gaining largest chance of survival.

And I'm NOT told to compare two things. I'm told to pick the best save. How I pick it is not in any way described. I have to use my common sense for that one. Your common sense told you that only numbers apply because numbers have been explicitly mentioned as something that is better than a different number.
My common sense tells me that if I have a higher chance of survival, that's a better way of choosing it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

yeah, I really have. Your refusal doesn't make it any less so. The most better is in my favour actually, since I have more things to throw in than you do. And I'm told one way of comparing saves to eachother. That doesn't say that making a save better doesn't make it better. Common sense tells me that a better save is better.

I know we can't use dictionary definitions, but you do need to use English to read the book.

You're told one way to compare 2 things. You are not given permission to compare them any other way.
If the only way you're permitted to compare them shows that the 4++ is not better, how can it possibly ever be the most better?

That's actually the only instances that uses the word "best," so by definition, it's law.

And in that instance its - wait for it - best because it's the lower number.

No by the wording its "best chance of surviving". At the moment im not really clear of my own interpretation and tend to agree with both sides in some points. Therefor i just stop arguing.

rigeld2 wrote:

You're told one way to compare 2 things. You are not given permission to compare them any other way.

What is this then?

to give him the best chance of surviving.

 Purifier wrote:
It gives the largest chance of survival because it's the lowest number, but that's just one of the ways of gaining largest chance of survival.

I've cited the definition of improve - lowering the number.
I've cited the only definition of "better" in the book - lower numbers are better.

Can you cite one thing - in the actual rulebook - that allows you to take special rules into account? You've failed to do so every time.
The one time you actually attacked my argument you failed miserably, by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're told one way to compare 2 things. You are not given permission to compare them any other way.

What is this then?

to give him the best chance of surviving.

Way to remove context to seem like it proves your point!
Good job!
Could you be more deliberately misleading?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
It gives the largest chance of survival because it's the lowest number, but that's just one of the ways of gaining largest chance of survival.

I've cited the definition of improve - lowering the number.
I've cited the only definition of "better" in the book - lower numbers are better.

Can you cite one thing - in the actual rulebook - that allows you to take special rules into account? You've failed to do so every time.
The one time you actually attacked my argument you failed miserably, by the way.

I disagree. I feel I completely dismantled it and shamed you. And I've told you about 15 times now that the original rule gives me all the RAW needed. It's right there. It gives me permission to choose the best one.

Way to remove context to seem like it proves your point!
Good job!
Could you be more deliberately misleading?

Could you? You have time and time again cut out the piece of your page 2 and 19 and not given the context and ignored it completely when I've brought the context in.

rigeld2 wrote:
According to the "4++ with re-rolls is better than the 3+" camp, a 2+ with rerolls is better than a 2+.

The rules explicitly forbid improving a 2+ save.

Please address this illegality.

The point is, a reroll does not "improve the save". A 3+ with a reroll is not "a better save" than a regular 3+

"The best save available" is most certainly the saving throw with the best chance of negating the wound allocated to the model.

The page 2 description of the 'lower the number the better' does not preclude other Special Rules from making a higher number better than a lower number option because of re-rolls increasing probability. This is a preliminary description without regard to other special rules in the BRB or individual Codices. Those special rule apply to the save in question making it the best save possible.

My other example would be taking a Toughness Characteristic Test on a Chaos Lord with a Bike. The Bike is Wargear, granting +1 to his Toughness Characteristic. But the printed profile in the book is at T4. So do we ignore the Bike for Toughness Tests? No. The addition of that piece of wargear gives him un-ignorable benefits, just like the Greater Reward for the Bloodthirster. If I think of more examples I'll post them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcress410 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
According to the "4++ with re-rolls is better than the 3+" camp, a 2+ with rerolls is better than a 2+.

The rules explicitly forbid improving a 2+ save.

Please address this illegality.

The point is, a reroll does not "improve the save". A 3+ with a reroll is not "a better save" than a regular 3+

Yes, actaully a rerollable 3+ save IS BETTER than a regular 3+ save. The Rerolling improves the chance of negating the wound.

I would also like to see a roster of people's armies compared to how they voted. That would be interesting.

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
It gives the largest chance of survival because it's the lowest number, but that's just one of the ways of gaining largest chance of survival.

I've cited the definition of improve - lowering the number.
I've cited the only definition of "better" in the book - lower numbers are better.

Can you cite one thing - in the actual rulebook - that allows you to take special rules into account? You've failed to do so every time.
The one time you actually attacked my argument you failed miserably, by the way.

I disagree. I feel I completely dismantled it and shamed you.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/535192.page#5782147
Really? Did you miss the post where I proved your attempt wrong?

And I've told you about 15 times now that the original rule gives me all the RAW needed. It's right there. It gives me permission to choose the best one.

Now - define best. If it's not "the most better" or something similar I'd like to know why.

Way to remove context to seem like it proves your point!
Good job!
Could you be more deliberately misleading?

Could you? You have time and time again cut out the piece of your page 2 and 19 and not given the context and ignored it completely when I've brought the context in.

Please, cite the context I've cut out that changes the definitions of the rules. Here, I'll quote them in entirety for you.

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+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

Page 19 wrote:Sometimes, a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save - a good example is a Space Marine Captain who is protected by both power armour and a force field from his Iron Halo. As if this wasn't enough, the model might be in cover as well. In these cases,a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.

Page 2 wrote:Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

Than give the page number that defines the lower number as better!
Because page two does NOT give that definition, page two tells us that "the lower an armour save is, the better,".


Conclusion:
1. Page two only talks about armour saves.
2. Not a single page tells us to treat inv saves as armour saves.
3. The example on page 19 literally says that the Captain uses the 3+ save "to give him the best chance of survival".
4. A 4++ with reroll gives him the best chance of survival VS a 3+

Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.

rigeld2 wrote:
quote=Page 14]Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
quote=Page 14]Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+

Since the others prove MY point nicely, how about you add the next sentence after this aswell so we can see that the intention is not that it's stating a 2+ can't be improved by special rules, but that it can't be made into 1+?

It feels good being right. I don't know how it feels being you though.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
quote=Page 14]Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+

Since the others prove MY point nicely, how about you add the next sentence after this aswell so we can see that the intention is not that it's stating a 2+ can't be improved by special rules, but that it can't be made into 1+?

It feels good being right. I don't know how it feels being you though.

There is no "next sentence after that". I mis-cited the page - that's the page 2 quote. Literally the last sentence on the page.
Could you explain how they prove your point? I asked you to do that when you accused me of only posting half the rule. Please do so or apologize.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong thing. You did post the full one, the one saying that 1+ can never happen.

You can't deny having cut that part out in every or almost every instance you have quoted it before though.

And I don't want to explain it again. It's all back there in many many posts. You can read througn that.

Kangodo wrote:
Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.

Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
"The best save available" is most certainly the saving throw with the best chance of negating the wound allocated to the model.

The page 2 description of the 'lower the number the better' does not preclude other Special Rules from making a higher number better than a lower number option because of re-rolls increasing probability. This is a preliminary description without regard to other special rules in the BRB or individual Codices. Those special rule apply to the save in question making it the best save possible.

(snipped)

I agree "highest probability of passing" is what i would call "best", but the rules never give us any guidance to that effect.

In fact, the only guidance we have suggests the opposite. It says best is lowest.

A special rule can make one save more likely to save a wound than another, sure, but it does not change the definition of "best" implied by the page 2 quotation.

I don't think the prose about lower saves being better is a particularly solid rule, but it's all we have on this topic.

So, the question comes down to, how do you want to play? would you rather play strictly according to the best available interpretation of RAW, or should we "do what makes sense". This looks like an example of where the two play styles diverge.

 Purifier wrote:
Sorry, I quoted the wrong thing. You did post the full one, the one saying that 1+ can never happen.

You can't deny having cut that part out in every or almost every instance you have quoted it before though.

You're right - I did cut out an irrelevant sentence.

And I don't want to explain it again. It's all back there in many many posts. You can read througn that.

No - seriously - I have read your posts. You've called my integrity into question and you can't just hand wave that away. Please clarify or apologize.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.

Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.

How is what the lowest combined number of the total amount of rolls relevant to the survival of your character?
You're getting really incoherrent, but I think that's what you're trying to say?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Sorry, I quoted the wrong thing. You did post the full one, the one saying that 1+ can never happen.

You can't deny having cut that part out in every or almost every instance you have quoted it before though.

You're right - I did cut out an irrelevant sentence.

And I don't want to explain it again. It's all back there in many many posts. You can read througn that.

No - seriously - I have read your posts. You've called my integrity into question and you can't just hand wave that away. Please clarify or apologize.

It wasn't irrelevant. it was highly relevant.

I've "called your integrity into question"? No. You're trying to bully an apology from me? the audacity!

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.

Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.

How is what the lowest combined number of the total amount of rolls relevant to the survival of your character?
You're getting really incoherrent, but I think that's what you're trying to say?

I'm saying that if you have no rules telling you that an invul save is like an armor save (and therefore similarly limited) like you're claiming,
then you have no rules that tell you how to take an invul save at all. What die do you roll? What is the target number? Is lower better? how many dice?
Answer those questions with actual rules please. I asked once before but I didn't see a response.

Even though Rigeld keeps ignoring it, "to give him the best chance of survival" is pretty clear indication what GW means by 'best.' Surprisingly enough, they mean what the word actually means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm saying that if you have no rules telling you that an invul save is like an armor save (and therefore similarly limited) like you're claiming,
then you have no rules that tell you how to take an invul save at all. What die do you roll? What is the target number? Is lower better? how many dice?
Answer those questions with actual rules please. I asked once before but I didn't see a response.

What does it matter? You're the RAW-über-alles guy. The game is unplayable if you don't factor the intent, we all know that; this has never bothered you before.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.

Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.

How is what the lowest combined number of the total amount of rolls relevant to the survival of your character?
You're getting really incoherrent, but I think that's what you're trying to say?

I'm saying that if you have no rules telling you that an invul save is like an armor save (and therefore similarly limited) like you're claiming,
then you have no rules that tell you how to take an invul save at all. What die do you roll? What is the target number? Is lower better? how many dice?
Answer those questions with actual rules please. I asked once before but I didn't see a response.

They are similarly limited. It's your limitations I don't agree with. now THIS is a red herring.

 Crimson wrote:
Even though Rigeld keeps ignoring it, "to give him the best chance of survival" is pretty clear indication what GW means by 'best.' Surprisingly enough, they mean what the word actually means.

I haven't ignored anything, please don't insult me.

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm saying that if you have no rules telling you that an invul save is like an armor save (and therefore similarly limited) like you're claiming,
then you have no rules that tell you how to take an invul save at all. What die do you roll? What is the target number? Is lower better? how many dice?
Answer those questions with actual rules please. I asked once before but I didn't see a response.

What does it matter? You're the RAW-über-alles guy. The game is unplayable if you don't factor the intent, we all know that; this has never bothered you before.

Perhaps read that post in context, then you'd understand why I said what I said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Combine these 4 points and you come down to only one possible outcome: He uses the 4++ with rerolls.

Unfortunately you have no rules that tell you how to take that save.
Have fun rolling 5 d6 and trying to get lower than a 4 total. That's how it works imo. Find rules that prove me wrong.

How is what the lowest combined number of the total amount of rolls relevant to the survival of your character?
You're getting really incoherrent, but I think that's what you're trying to say?

I'm saying that if you have no rules telling you that an invul save is like an armor save (and therefore similarly limited) like you're claiming,
then you have no rules that tell you how to take an invul save at all. What die do you roll? What is the target number? Is lower better? how many dice?
Answer those questions with actual rules please. I asked once before but I didn't see a response.

They are similarly limited. It's your limitations I don't agree with. now THIS is a red herring.

Sorry, I mistook you for Kangodo. Wrong person - I apologize for the tangent. That post is meant for him to reply to.

rigeld2 wrote:

I haven't ignored anything, please don't insult me.

So what you think "to give him the best chance of survival" actually means?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I haven't ignored anything, please don't insult me.

So what you think "to give him the best chance of survival" actually means?

In the context of that paragraph, and the definitions in the book, the lowest save.

You cannot take a single sentence out of context and decide. That's what you're doing.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I haven't ignored anything, please don't insult me.

So what you think "to give him the best chance of survival" actually means?

In the context of that paragraph, and the definitions in the book, the lowest save.

You cannot take a single sentence out of context and decide. That's what you're doing.

I very much disagree. The intent of the rule is clear. He is taking one of two saves and the choice is not because one is higher than the other. The choice is because it gives him the highest chance of survival even in context the reasoning of his choice is clear.

The reason why it gave a higher chance of survival happened to be because the number was lower, but the choice was made to survive. not to adhere to numbers.

So, people are quoting parts of an Example to count against an actual rule on page 2 now?

Which has more validity?

Also.. the captain in the example has a cover save (3++) and an invulnerable save (4++), and he takes the 3++ (which is lower) because it has the 'best' chance of survival.

Lower is better? Lowest is best?

What you're doing, Rigeld, is assuming that a general summary of stats, merely intended to remind that save works differently to than the other stats, applies directly to a situation where multiple special rules are involved. That text is at least as much out of context when applied to this situation as mine was.

Your interpretation to leads to unnatural situation where 'best' does not mean best. The other interpretation doesn't, thus it is better interpretation (when I say 'better', I mean better, not worse; just to be clear.)