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.

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

Which has more validity?

The example provides intent. Again you are misreading the situation. It's not counting against the rule, only your reading of it. Text in the rulebook or your opinion on how the rule should be. Which has more validity?
I am not saying the example proves the rule wrong. I'm saying the example proves the intent of the rule.

Examples containt more prosaic language and are merely to illustrate a point.

The rule is supposed to set down what exactly they want.

Also from my previous post the page before:

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?

The example fits the point above lower being better and thus lowest being best perfectly.

 Purifier wrote:

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 you're making an argument for intent? Sure, whatever - I rarely get involved in those because 99% of the time I couldn't care less.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

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 you're making an argument for intent? Sure, whatever - I rarely get involved in those because 99% of the time I couldn't care less.

The intent of the rulebook is to use it to play 40k. But you can use it to smack children over the head with too. I think intent counts when it's spelled out as clear as it is here.

Shandara, the example is right. Lower is better. Lower AND better is even better though! the example takes two different things and puts them on scales. It could have been a pebble on the ground against a banana too. It doesn't matter what it compares. It matters that it is comparing them in order to find the one that gives the best chance of survival.

 Crimson wrote:
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.

If that was the only place that lower is defined as better I might agree. It's not. The only way to improve a save is to lower it (page 19).

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.)

It does mean best. It means best using criteria set using the rules. Your definition of "best" uses criteria you've invented.

Which is best - a tape measure or a rolling pin? If you have to ask "Best at what?" then you're agreeing that "best" requires defining criteria. I've shown, in the rules, where criteria are defined. You have not.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're making an argument for intent? Sure, whatever - I rarely get involved in those because 99% of the time I couldn't care less.

I know; which is I found it hilarious how you complained earlier how other poster's interpretation broke the game. Strict-RAW is useless, most of the times it does not even exist except in the heads of certain individuals. The rules are written in casual manner instead of as logical syntax, you always need to interpret them. In a situation where rule is unclear you absolutely need to consider the intent.

 Purifier wrote:
The intent of the rulebook is to use it to play 40k. But you can use it to smack children over the head with too. I think intent counts when it's spelled out as clear as it is here.

Except it's not spelled out clearly at all - at least not in your favor.
"Best" must have criteria defined. Agreed?
We have defined criteria for a better save. Agreed?
We have a defined way to improve saves - that is, make them better. Agreed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're making an argument for intent? Sure, whatever - I rarely get involved in those because 99% of the time I couldn't care less.

I know; which is I found it hilarious how you complained earlier how other poster's interpretation broke the game. Strict-RAW is useless, most of the times it does not even exist except in the heads of certain individuals. The rules are written in casual manner instead of as logical syntax, you always need to interpret them. In a situation where rule is unclear you absolutely need to consider the intent.

But only to a minimum. By trying to impose intent farther "up the stack" than required to make rules work, you're making a situation where you're making up rules.
To make the rules work, invul saves must have the same restrictions as armor saves. That's the only "intent" I'm applying. You're reaching much farther than that and ignoring rules to do so.

rigeld2 wrote:

It does mean best. It means best using criteria set using the rules. Your definition of "best" uses criteria you've invented.

No, it is a criteria used in an actual example, written by the people who wrote the rules, and matches the common sense interpretation of the word. "to give him the best chance of survival"

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It does mean best. It means best using criteria set using the rules. Your definition of "best" uses criteria you've invented.

No, it is a criteria used in an actual example, written by the people who wrote the rules, and matches the common sense interpretation of the word. "to give him the best chance of survival"

... an example that you've taken out of context of the rest of the rules in the book, and ignores the actual criteria set forth.

Hi. I'm not sure if this has been pointed out before in this thread but in the FaQ and Erreta of the rulebook on the Games workshop site it makes it seem clear to me that you can use both saves. Here is what it says

Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves
Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are
different to armour saves because they may always be taken
whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,
suffers a penetrating or glancing hit – the Armour Piercing
value of attacking weapons has no effect upon an Invulnerable
save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores
all armour saves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
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.

If that was the only place that lower is defined as better I might agree. It's not. The only way to improve a save is to lower it (page 19).

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.)

It does mean best. It means best using criteria set using the rules. Your definition of "best" uses criteria you've invented.

Which is best - a tape measure or a rolling pin? If you have to ask "Best at what?" then you're agreeing that "best" requires defining criteria. I've shown, in the rules, where criteria are defined. You have not.

You're not good at metaphors. In your example you also need to be told that "it's for rolling dough." (we know that we're looking at what to use to save a wound. We know that. It's not shrouded in mystery.)

your metaphor would be more like "Which is best - a tape measure or a rolling pin at rolling dough?" And your response is "have we defined what best *means*?"

The metaphor is still bad, since it doesn't really clarify anything.

 Purifier wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
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.

If that was the only place that lower is defined as better I might agree. It's not. The only way to improve a save is to lower it (page 19).

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.)

It does mean best. It means best using criteria set using the rules. Your definition of "best" uses criteria you've invented.

Which is best - a tape measure or a rolling pin? If you have to ask "Best at what?" then you're agreeing that "best" requires defining criteria. I've shown, in the rules, where criteria are defined. You have not.

You're not good at metaphors. In your example you also need to be told that "it's for rolling dough." (we know that we're looking at what to use to save a wound. We know that. It's not shrouded in mystery.)

your metaphor would be more like "Which is best - a tape measure or a rolling pin at rolling dough?" And your response is "have we defined what best *means*?"

The metaphor is still bad, since it doesn't really clarify anything.

"Best" must have criteria defined. Agreed?
We have defined criteria for a better save. Agreed?
We have a defined way to improve saves - that is, make them better. Agreed?

I'll quote the relevant example here in its entirety, to make a point (bold emphasis mine);

For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The Force Field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapons, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

Note the bolded part. The 'best chance of surviving' pertains to that part of the sentence. Out of 2 saves he picks the lower because it 'gives him the best chance (of surviving)'. I can't infer anything about re-rolls or anything out of this.

The next paragraph is also an example but explains what to do when a model has more than 1 cover save:

If a model can benefit from different types of cover, for example, being behind a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save) and a barricade (4+, the model uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+).

So the best save is the lowest? Again, nothing about re-rolls or anything..

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

Well, you're the one that is using the rules for armour saves for situations with inv saves with NO rule that allows you to do this.

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.

Yes. He takes the save that gives him the best chance of survival.
The example says that 3++ > 4++, nobody argues against that.
People argue that 4++ /w reroll > 3+

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

It's not my problem that they didn't decently define an inv save in the BRB.
But two wrongs don't make a right.

Just because they failed to decently define it, does not give you the right to treat it as a "super armour save".

 Shandara wrote:
I'll quote the relevant example here in its entirety, to make a point (bold emphasis mine);

For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The Force Field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapons, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

Note the bolded part. The 'best chance of surviving' pertains to that part of the sentence. Out of 2 saves he picks the lower because it 'gives him the best chance (of surviving)'. I can't infer anything about re-rolls or anything out of this.

The next paragraph is also an example but explains what to do when a model has more than 1 cover save:

If a model can benefit from different types of cover, for example, being behind a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save) and a barricade (4+, the model uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+).

So the best save is the lowest? Again, nothing about re-rolls or anything..

That may be because it's a pretty damn specific and rare argument. A far sight more rare than the rule for shooting at an elevated angle with a vehicle, which happens in almost every game with a vehicle on one side and a flyer on the other, which GW notes in the BRB as "in extremely rare cases."

I'm certain it's not the only rare occasion they haven't explained out in excruciating detail. They are, after all, already covering it by saying to pick the best one.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

It's not my problem that they didn't decently define an inv save in the BRB.
But two wrongs don't make a right.

Just because they failed to decently define it, does not give you the right to treat it as a "super armour save".

Great - you can take that save all you want. It's always available.
Unfortunately you have no rules telling you how to take that save and since you can only take one you're not allowed to roll at all.

Congratulations, I'm done arguing this with you.

 Purifier wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
I'll quote the relevant example here in its entirety, to make a point (bold emphasis mine);

For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The Force Field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapons, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

Note the bolded part. The 'best chance of surviving' pertains to that part of the sentence. Out of 2 saves he picks the lower because it 'gives him the best chance (of surviving)'. I can't infer anything about re-rolls or anything out of this.

The next paragraph is also an example but explains what to do when a model has more than 1 cover save:

If a model can benefit from different types of cover, for example, being behind a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save) and a barricade (4+, the model uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+).

So the best save is the lowest? Again, nothing about re-rolls or anything..

That may be because it's a pretty damn specific and rare argument. A far sight more rare than the rule for shooting at an elevated angle with a vehicle, which happens in almost every game with a vehicle on one side and a flyer on the other, which GW notes in the BRB as "in extremely rare cases."

I'm certain it's not the only rare occasion they haven't explained out in excruciating detail. They are, after all, already covering it by saying to pick the best one.

I'm not sure where you get it that this is rare. I get units that have multiple cover saves many times over the course of a game. Any unit that shoots at another with 2 bits of terrain in between has to deal with this (regardless of whether they are 2 different types of terrain). Units with 2 saves themselves AND cover aren't rare either.

Page 19, 2nd column (where my quoted text comes from) does not contain the text 'in extremely rare cases'. It says 'Sometimes, ... "

I'm on the side here where "best" save is always the save that gives your model the "best" chance of surviving.

Typically that is the lowest Numerical save. However, this is not always the case.

If you can re-roll failed invunerable saves, there is a chance that your Lower numerical save gives you a better chance of survival.

If you are hit by Null zone, and your invunerable save is a lower numerical value than your armor save, it still might not have the best chance of your model surviving.

I understand the idea that the book tells you that a lower save is better. Typically this will be true, but the BrB does not cover every possible rules interaction that may occur.

 Shandara wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
I'll quote the relevant example here in its entirety, to make a point (bold emphasis mine);

For example, if the Captain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon, his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is a number equal to or lower than that of his armour save. The Force Field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapons, so the Captain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

Note the bolded part. The 'best chance of surviving' pertains to that part of the sentence. Out of 2 saves he picks the lower because it 'gives him the best chance (of surviving)'. I can't infer anything about re-rolls or anything out of this.

The next paragraph is also an example but explains what to do when a model has more than 1 cover save:

If a model can benefit from different types of cover, for example, being behind a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save) and a barricade (4+, the model uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+).

So the best save is the lowest? Again, nothing about re-rolls or anything..

That may be because it's a pretty damn specific and rare argument. A far sight more rare than the rule for shooting at an elevated angle with a vehicle, which happens in almost every game with a vehicle on one side and a flyer on the other, which GW notes in the BRB as "in extremely rare cases."

I'm certain it's not the only rare occasion they haven't explained out in excruciating detail. They are, after all, already covering it by saying to pick the best one.

I'm not sure where you get it that this is rare. I get units that have multiple cover saves many times over the course of a game. Any unit that shoots at another with 2 bits of terrain in between has to deal with this (regardless of whether they are 2 different types of terrain). Units with 2 saves themselves AND cover aren't rare either.

Page 19, 2nd column (where my quoted text comes from) does not contain the text 'in extremely rare cases'. It says 'Sometimes, ... "

Yeah, I was talking about a save being better while not being a lower numeric value... since that was what you were complaining wasn't detailed.

rigeld2 wrote:
Great - you can take that save all you want. It's always available.
Unfortunately you have no rules telling you how to take that save and since you can only take one you're not allowed to roll at all.

Congratulations, I'm done arguing this with you.

You are free to start a thread claiming that you cannot take a inv save, because the BRB does not define it.
I will stay away as far as possible from that thread for those 10 minutes till it gets locked.

But that is not about this topic, and you cannot just make up definitions for inv saves.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great - you can take that save all you want. It's always available.
Unfortunately you have no rules telling you how to take that save and since you can only take one you're not allowed to roll at all.

Congratulations, I'm done arguing this with you.

You are free to start a thread claiming that you cannot take a inv save, because the BRB does not define it.
I will stay away as far as possible from that thread for those 10 minutes till it gets locked.

But that is not about this topic, and you cannot just make up definitions for inv saves.

Well, that's what you just did. I'm not saying that - you've claimed it. Have fun with that discussion.

rigeld2 wrote:
Well, that's what you just did. I'm not saying that - you've claimed it. Have fun with that discussion.

Hey, I'll let you in on a little secret: WH40k-rulings are inconsistent and contradict each other!
Sometimes you have to pick between breaking rule A or breaking rule B.

They really aren't, but go ahead and tilt at that windmill.

Wait.. what.. You deny that?
The company that is famous for gakking up their rules does a great job at it according to you?

That's it.
I'm done :')

This one is a painful subject. I voted for 3+ because the BRB does support a lower armor save equating to the best save to use versus an AP 4 or higher wound, and GW appears to have not taken into consideration that a re-rollable 4++ is statistically better than a regular 3+ save. While I agree that a 4++ w/ re-roll is technically better, its only usable versus AP 3 or lower wounds per the BRB. Even though its stupid, its still RAW.

As to how I would play it? 3+

As to what I play, I play TDA heavy Grey Knights.

SJ

Kangodo wrote:
Wait.. what.. You deny that?
The company that is famous for gakking up their rules does a great job at it according to you?

That's it.
I'm done :')

I didn't say that.
I said that they aren't as inconsistent and contradictory as people like to pretend.

The reroll is just not a modifier to the save.

There's no RAW reason to include the reroll in determining which is "best".

There is also no RAW reason not to the rules state.

Must always take the best save possible.

SO let me present this situation.

You have 2 choices

one provides you a 75% chance of living

The other only a 66% chance of living.

Which of these choices is the best option for you assuming livining is the desiered outcome?

The rule only states best save, then gives examples (that don't include the rare case of a re-roll) explaining the basics of the rule.

Breng77 wrote:
The rule only states best save, then gives examples (that don't include the rare case of a re-roll) explaining the basics of the rule.

RAW tells us how to determine the "best" save, even if its mathematically wrong. It is a common fallacy on this forum to assume GW understands or uses basic math in their rules.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
RAW tells us how to determine the "best" save, even if its mathematically wrong. It is a common fallacy on this forum to assume GW understands or uses basic math in their rules.

SJ

Exalted.