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.

 Ghaz wrote:

Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better.

The lower an Armour Save is, the better it is, with the lowest Armour Save being the best.

Please quote pg and rule in the book that cites that the lowest armor save is the best. This is not established in the rulebook anywhere.

The rulebook establishes that lower is better but not that lowest is best. That is something you extrapolated from English superlatives. Just as others are extrapolating that best refers to the most advantageous result. You deny them the ability to do so using the logic of English semantics yet insist your ability to use English superlatives is permissible here. Your argument has boiled down to "Because I said so" which is not valid.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Chaosmarauder, which is better: 2+ save, or a rerollable 3+ save?

It's up to the owning player to decide which is the -best- for his given situation. The rule in no way defines what "best", ifor it did there would be a chart, or explanation for various rerolls. Instead it gives a SINGLE example of a Singular case, showing you can not be forced to take a save that would otherwise instantly wound or kill your model if another is available to prevent it.

If you feel a 4+ rerollable is more likely to mitigate more damage than your 3+ then it is the best available save.

I didn't ask which was best; I asked which was better. So again, which is better: 2+ save or re-rollable 3+ save?

A rerollable 3+ save is better - it has an 88.8% chance of saving vs a 2+ save which is an 83.3% chance.

I believe though that your question is a leading question has to do with the following phrase from the BRB:

Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better.

Which, if you inspect it, is simply an anecdotal phrase pointing out to the reader that unlike other characteristics the lower an armour save is the better (rather than higher like all the other ones) - it is not a rule defining that the lower numerical value is always the best.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better.

The lower an Armour Save is, the better it is, with the lowest Armour Save being the best.

Please quote pg and rule in the book that cites that the lowest armor save is the best. This is not established in the rulebook anywhere.

The rulebook establishes that lower is better but not that lowest is best. That is something you extrapolated from English superlatives. Just as others are extrapolating that best refers to the most advantageous result. You deny them the ability to do so using the logic of English semantics yet insist your ability to use English superlatives is permissible here. Your argument has boiled down to "Because I said so" which is not valid.

This supposition is only possible by ignoring the relationship between "better" and "best" in the English language. And this is a commonly used convention, not one known only bye lawyers and English professors, but by almost every grammar school student.

Charistoph wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better.

The lower an Armour Save is, the better it is, with the lowest Armour Save being the best.

Please quote pg and rule in the book that cites that the lowest armor save is the best. This is not established in the rulebook anywhere.

The rulebook establishes that lower is better but not that lowest is best. That is something you extrapolated from English superlatives. Just as others are extrapolating that best refers to the most advantageous result. You deny them the ability to do so using the logic of English semantics yet insist your ability to use English superlatives is permissible here. Your argument has boiled down to "Because I said so" which is not valid.

This supposition is only possible by ignoring the relationship between "better" and "best" in the English language. And this is a commonly used convention, not one known only bye lawyers and English professors, but by almost every grammar school student.

Whereas your and Ghaz's supposition is only possible by ignoring the definition of "best" in the English language in favor of what you perceive to be an IMPLIED definition of best within the rules. You are literally arguing that the English word "best" has been redefined by Games Workshop and should be used over the English equivalent of being the most advantageous.

 Ghaz wrote:
Perhaps you should heed your own advice and stop making up rules in desperation to support a position which has already been disproven.

Ghaz: Perhaps you should heed your own advice and stop making up rules in desperation to support a position which has already been disproved.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better.

The lower an Armour Save is, the better it is, with the lowest Armour Save being the best.

Please quote pg and rule in the book that cites that the lowest armor save is the best. This is not established in the rulebook anywhere.

The rulebook establishes that lower is better but not that lowest is best. That is something you extrapolated from English superlatives. Just as others are extrapolating that best refers to the most advantageous result. You deny them the ability to do so using the logic of English semantics yet insist your ability to use English superlatives is permissible here. Your argument has boiled down to "Because I said so" which is not valid.

So you're ignoring the logical progression that when you can't get a better save you've reached the 'best' save and instead are substituting your own definition? Yeah, that's what I call a straw man argument that has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better.

The lower an Armour Save is, the better it is, with the lowest Armour Save being the best.

Please quote pg and rule in the book that cites that the lowest armor save is the best. This is not established in the rulebook anywhere.

The rulebook establishes that lower is better but not that lowest is best. That is something you extrapolated from English superlatives. Just as others are extrapolating that best refers to the most advantageous result. You deny them the ability to do so using the logic of English semantics yet insist your ability to use English superlatives is permissible here. Your argument has boiled down to "Because I said so" which is not valid.

So you're ignoring the logical progression that when you can't get a better save you've reached the 'best' save and instead are substituting your own definition? Yeah, that's what I call a straw man argument that has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

You're using Straw Man incorrectly, learn your fallacy definitions. You are not permitted to follow logical progression using English superlatives if others are not permitted to follow simple logic using English definitions, especially when there is no hard REINVENTION of the word "best" anywhere in the rules.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
RAW - you get to use your best save - which is the most advantageous.

2+ is a 5/6 chance of saving.

3+ rerollable is an 8/9 chance of saving.

Therefor, RAW, the 3+ rerollable is not only allowed but forced to be taken.

Does that not break the rule that states an armour save can never be better than a 2+?

Feth it, just ask your opponent.

I don't really see how this is even an argument. CLEARLY the intent of "using the best available save" is to prevent players from using worse saves to lose more models to game the system for some sort of unexpected rules interaction.

Non-real Example: My opponent has exactly one more melee with a unit that uses power weapons before his turn ends and if I get exactly 1 more blood tithe point I will somehow auto-win next turn. My units have a normal save ignored by the power weapons and an invuln save, so I will use the normal save so they all die and I auto-win by gaming a rules interaction that makes zero sense from any sort of war standpoint and that the unit literally has a 0% chance of ever doing even if they were a suicide squad who don't care about their lives, as they clearly want to kill as many enemies as possible.

That aside the rule is vague and you can easily interrupt a re-rollable 4+ as better then a single 3+. When you are arguing between a 3+ armor save or a re-rollable 4+ cover save your opponent is literally getting NO advantage from this for choosing the "worse" save and if you are arguing the re-rollable 4+ is worse...why do you care if your opponent is actively hurting themselves and making the game "easier" for you other then you KNOW its a BETTER save are trying to game the system to such an extent that most people would never play with you ever again.

Other similar saves 2+ vs re-rollable 3+ are the same situation, one is mathematically better, but overall i don't see why you care which one he uses when your opponents goal is to not lose models and hes not actively trying to game the system to lose models for some reason.

 jokerkd wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
RAW - you get to use your best save - which is the most advantageous.

2+ is a 5/6 chance of saving.

3+ rerollable is an 8/9 chance of saving.

Therefor, RAW, the 3+ rerollable is not only allowed but forced to be taken.

Does that not break the rule that states an armour save can never be better than a 2+?

That rule is from the Models & Units section where it is describing each characteristic for a model. What it is saying is you will never see an armour save characteristic for a model better than a 2+.

Actually, it quite literally states

A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.

 jokerkd wrote:
Actually, it quite literally states

A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.

And in the context of where that rule is in the BRB - it means 'A model can never have an Armour Save Characteristic Value better than 2+'

There are many notorious Eldar with rerollable 2+ saves or Ravenwing with rerollable 2+ and 3+ saves.

But there are NO cases of a model characteristic being 1+ or modifiers that allow it to be 1+

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Actually, it quite literally states

A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.

And in the context of where that rule is in the BRB - it means 'A model can never have an Armour Save Characteristic Value better than 2+'

There are many notorious Eldar with rerollable 2+ saves or Ravenwing with rerollable 2+ and 3+ saves.

But there are NO cases of a model characteristic being 1+ or modifiers that allow it to be 1+

So you are saying that re-rolls are not counted in the calculation of the best save...

IMO a re-roll is not part of the save. iI's a specific permission to have another go after a failed attempt. The save (the number required to pass) remains the same (3+ for power armour, 4+ for jink)

The second roll entirely replaces the first, as if the first roll did not happen. No penalties can be applied from the first failure and no bonuses can be gained either.

In order for a 4+ save to be better than a 3+ it would need to happen more regularly which would only be true if both rolls were counted. if you count both rolls why can't I make you take a morale
test from the initial failure?



I've re-read this and appreciate ive not made the clearest point ever lol

This is one of those classic troll threads that YMDC is notorious for having.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
But there are NO cases of a model characteristic being 1+ or modifiers that allow it to be 1+

Indeed. The only thing that can be 1+ is Feel No Pain since it is technically neither a characteristic nor a save and only an Iron Hands warlord in 40k can get it that low.

Anyone can if they get shot by warp flame and pass a Toughness test enough times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So in conclusion, no consensus? Ask opponent before the game?

Arkaine wrote:Whereas your and Ghaz's supposition is only possible by ignoring the definition of "best" in the English language in favor of what you perceive to be an IMPLIED definition of best within the rules. You are literally arguing that the English word "best" has been redefined by Games Workshop and should be used over the English equivalent of being the most advantageous.

Incorrect. The use of "better" is already established in use of the system. When a "best" is used in such circumstances, it is common convention that the meaning is "none better" and using the same standards. I am not aware that the standards of "best" changes when the standard of "better" is already established.

However, do note that I only ascribe a requirement of using the best Save when determining possible Cover Saves. I do not see any such requirement when determining between Cover, Armour, and Invulnerable Save.

DeathReaper wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Actually, it quite literally states

A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.

And in the context of where that rule is in the BRB - it means 'A model can never have an Armour Save Characteristic Value better than 2+'

There are many notorious Eldar with rerollable 2+ saves or Ravenwing with rerollable 2+ and 3+ saves.

But there are NO cases of a model characteristic being 1+ or modifiers that allow it to be 1+

So you are saying that re-rolls are not counted in the calculation of the best save...

No, I think he's saying that a 1+ Save is not the same as a rerollable Save.

He's simply saying that the sentence I quoted only refers to not being able to have a 1+, and not a "better" rerollable 3+


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, a 1+ vehicle repair is also possible

Or pen or glance on a 1.

So what if I jink with my ravenwing command squad vs a bolter wound?

I have a 3+ re-rollable jink save or a 3+ armour save.

what do I take?

 BassDrum wrote:
So what if I jink with my ravenwing command squad vs a bolter wound?

I have a 3+ re-rollable jink save or a 3+ armour save.

what do I take?

Whichever you want. 3+ and 3+ are both the best save.

3+ re rollable. If anyone tells you otherwise show them the rules for Ravenwing.

This is unlikely to wind up any differently to any of the previous discussions on the topic. So barring any clarification from GW, add it to the 'discuss with your opponent' list, if it's not already on there.


Moving on.