Do you always have to take the best (or any) save?

[Lerra]

I've often heard that you must always roll the best save that is available to a model, but I'm having difficulties finding anything firm in the rulebook which backs this up.

I lost an argument on this particular rules debate last night. Basically, what happened is that at I4, a SM player dealt 10 wounds to a squad of 10 Necrons in close combat, with several powerfists on the way at lower initiative. The Necron player chose to not take any armor saves so that the squad would be wiped out. That way, the squad could take its WBB next round (which it wouldn't be able to do after a sweeping advance), plus the powerfists were not able to deal any wounds that disallowed WBB.

Here are a few relevant chunks of the BRB:

p.20: "Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw."

p.24: ". . . the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."

The argument was that the wording "can test" means that the test is optional, not required - you don't have to take any save if you choose not to. Also, just because the model "has the advantage of always using the best available save", doesn't mean that it must use that advantage. I couldn't find anything in the GW FAQs or the Adepticon FAQ on this issue either.

[Orminah]

It's true. No need at all. You can choose to fail saves.

[codiddy]

I let the cron's take their WBB after getting swept, assuming there is still another unit of warriors or a res orb within 6"

as to the rest, it seems legit, if he doesn't want to even attempt the saves, then i'd let him

[Nabterayl]

I was originally going to agree with you, but I think if you look more closely at the multiple save rules there's good cause to think that models must take their save.

Page 24 tells us that if a model has more than one save, it "has the advantage of always using the best available save." Thus, a multiple-save model, at least, must always take its best available save.

The question, then, becomes whether "can test" with regard to single-save models means that a single-save model may choose not to test. But that cannot be correct, because the "can test" on page 20 applies to multiple-save models as well, and as we realize by the time we get to page 24, it does not actually mean that taking a save is optional.

That said, I assume there was some reason that a squad of wiped-out necrons was allowed its WBB roll?

[Lerra]

That said, I assume there was some reason that a squad of wiped-out necrons was allowed its WBB roll?
There was another squad of warriors within 6", so the damaged necrons were able to WBB into that squad. In the explanation for WBB, the necron codex says that a damaged model will rejoin the nearest squad within 6", even if that wasn't its original squad.

[Nabterayl]

Fair enough.

[Lerra]

Another relevant paragraph that I stubbled across:

p.24, subheading Remove Casualties: "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a single Wound in their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So, a model becomes a casualty by either A) failing a save, or B) being disallowed a save. If you believe that saves are optional, then you have an unfortunate hole in the rules. By RAW, a model which has a save but chooses not to take it is neither failing its saving throw nor being denied a save, and would not be removed as a casualty. This paragraph certainly seems to imply that there are only two possibilities: either you have an eligible save, and you take it, or you are not allowed a save.

[BuFFo]

You must always use the best save.

[Cyberscape7]

Are you sure about always using the best save? I thought that if you had multiple saves you could choose which one you wuld take, which in 99.9% of cases is the best one anyway. But I do think you can choose whatever save for one simple reason. How do you explain the Zoanthropes armour save???:confused:

[Nabterayl]

You definitely always have to use your best save. See page 24.

[Culven]

A model must attempt its best Save available (remember that some saves can be negated by certain weapons). Trying to argue that "can test" means that it is option will lead to problems in other cases where "can" and "may" are used. Typically, the rules use "can" to indicate that something is premitted to occour within the scope of the rules. In this case, the rules allow models to attempt Saves, provided that another rule doesn't prevent the use of that Save. If the rules made Saves optional, the phrase would state "may test".

[Koppenflak]

Another interpretation-

Depending on which rule is stated first, then they may not be mutually exclusive.

The rule which states "can save" may imply the save is optional, and the subsequent rule of "must always use the best available save" could be said to mean that if you DO choose to roll for the save, you need to take the best one you have at your disposal.

[Hugz4Genestealers]

Another interpretation-

Depending on which rule is stated first, then they may not be mutually exclusive.

The rule which states "can save" may imply the save is optional, and the subsequent rule of "must always use the best available save" could be said to mean that if you DO choose to roll for the save, you need to take the best one you have at your disposal.

This is how I interpreted it.

[Jwolf]

If you're in a hurry for loopholes, you can make loopholes for almost any situation, and argue based on some bit of text, ignoring others as it suits you (or calling them optional, subsets, etc.). If you're just trying to play by the rules, you must take your best available save.

Personally I would laugh if someone attempted this at the table when I was playing them. If I was judging, I would not laugh, and give them a warning.

Hopefully the new Necron book will not have the same perverse incentives.

[Leez]

In ". . . the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw."p22BRB the word "can" can mean there is a choice or it can mean there is the ability but without choice and there is nothing in the rule book distinguishing which is the RaI. The two quotes that finishes the section off ". . . has the advantage of always using the best available save."p24BRB and "If the unit can benefit from different types cover. . . uses the best cover save available . . ."p24BRB does not clarify either, it only attempts to inform which save is used when one is used, worse still the word "best" is equally ambiguous. Going to the save rules in the assault section does not resolve it either.

The judge making the call, regardless of which side they favour would be neither right nor wrong, but simply stating how the game can be played.

[Daemonette666]

I've often heard that you must always roll the best save that is available to a model, but I'm having difficulties finding anything firm in the rulebook which backs this up.

I lost an argument on this particular rules debate last night. Basically, what happened is that at I4, a SM player dealt 10 wounds to a squad of 10 Necrons in close combat, with several powerfists on the way at lower initiative. The Necron player chose to not take any armor saves so that the squad would be wiped out. That way, the squad could take its WBB next round (which it wouldn't be able to do after a sweeping advance), plus the powerfists were not able to deal any wounds that disallowed WBB.

Here are a few relevant chunks of the BRB:

p.20: "Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw."

p.24: ". . . the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."

The argument was that the wording "can test" means that the test is optional, not required - you don't have to take any save if you choose not to. Also, just because the model "has the advantage of always using the best available save", doesn't mean that it must use that advantage. I couldn't find anything in the GW FAQs or the Adepticon FAQ on this issue either.
Creatures/ characters who have multiple save options can choose to take which ever option they want. If someone shoots at you with an ap 2 weapon do you take the 2+ armour save, the 4+ invulnerable save, or a 4+ cover save? It is up to you.

In the case of the necron warriors, they only have an armour save in close combat. the 3+ armour save was ignored by the power fists, so they could not get a save anyway. The original question does not matter for the example given.

That being said, why woldn't you want to use your best save? Unless you had a rule that let the unit come back on the board as reserves if the entire unit was wiped out.

[Lerra]

In the case of the necron warriors, they only have an armour save in close combat. the 3+ armour save was ignored by the power fists, so they could not get a save anyway. The original question does not matter for the example given.

That being said, why woldn't you want to use your best save? Unless you had a rule that let the unit come back on the board as reserves if the entire unit was wiped out.

In the example in the first post, the necron squad was wiped out by bolter marines before the powerfists were able to attack. Necron warriors have a special rule called We'll Be Back which allows them to return from the dead, but models that are killed in a sweeping advance or by a powerfist can't attempt a We'll Be Back roll.

What would have normally happened in that combat is that the 10 wounds dealt at Initiative 4 would have killed 3 or so Necrons. The remaining 7 would have been killed by powerfists or through a sweeping advance, and only 3 Necrons would be eligible to use WBB. By not taking any armor saves, all 10 warriors were eligible to use WBB. In the real game, there was a monolith nearby, which means that the squad basically has two chances to roll for WBB. 9 of those 10 warriors got back up within rapid-fire range joined a nearby squad of 10 more warriors, and 19 warriors rapid-firing wiped out the space marines.

There are a lot of circumstances where you would prefer to be wiped out in combat, especially for shooty armies like Tau. If there are, say, 12 fire warriors in combat with a full squad of space marines, you know the fire warriors are going to eventually be wiped out. You'd rather have the space marines wipe out the fire warriors during the SM's assault phase so that they can be shot at. If the combat ends during the Tau assault phase, the space marines can assault a new target before the Tau have a chance to shoot at them.

[whitestar333]

I'm fairly certain that since GW writes their rules like a narrator instead of a lawyer, that they intended saves to always be taken to prevent this kind of abuse and keep a consistent style of gameplay.

With 40k rules especially, often you need to refer to context and not just RAW. For example, RAW gave us many interpretations of the Tyranid rules - almost none of which were actually true, according to the FAQ. RAW fails more often than not with GW rules because they're story writers that create rules, not vice versa.

[Leez]

Hopefully the new Necron book will not have the same perverse incentives.

Like 5th ed. BRB does with the "preferred enemy" USR?

[Jwolf]

Not clear what you mean, Leez. Are you meaning to say the Preferred Enemy lets you choose to reroll your successes (to miss more often)?

[Leez]

Not clear what you mean, Leez. Are you meaning to say the Preferred Enemy lets you choose to reroll your successes (to miss more often)?

In both cases a person wants to fail at one action to gain a later advantage. The Necrons's 2002 WBB is no more perverse then the BRB's 2008 Preferred Enemy. Your use of the word perverse is just baffling. Are we to also call tactics where one unit provides cover to another as perverse or people that use "bait" units as perverse?

A person wanting to purposely fail wound rolls or even not make them for the reasons Lerra posted, whether tactically sound or not is in the very same spirit that someone would not want to wipe out a unit they were assaulting in their own assault phase. For Preferred Enemy that is to prevent them being a valid target in their opponents next Shooting phase. The difference is, the Preferred Enemy rule is written very clearly as is the related Rage Embodied special rule for close combat, the former applies to "rolls to hit" the latter applies only to "failed rolls to hit". Whereas we're stuck with word "can" and phrase "has the advantage of" in the rules for saving throws, how does one justify reading "can" as "must"?

It's very natural for people to assume that everyone everywhere would always want to make and pass save throws and thus view this as GW's RaI, to read "can" as "must". It would be just as natural to think "who on earth would want to reroll successful to hit rolls" but here we are with tactically motivated reasons to deviate from the normal behaviour. We could plausibly take the wording in the saving throws section to be written with the word "can" to allow players this tactical option (probably Necron players with WBB would be the only ones wanting to do this). Is it not one of the standard GW memes that they do not write tighter rules because they do not want to restrict player creativity? This is however, in my opinion, faulty reasoning. In the end we only have RaW, and any RaI argument is little more then rulebook psychoanalyse.

In the end we have the word "can", so, what does the word "can" mean? Bluntly it means ability to-, permission to-, small metal cylinder with a closed end, not necessarily of worms, nowhere is "must do this or that" in it's definition.

[Nabterayl]

Your use of the word perverse is just baffling. Are we to also call tactics where one unit provides cover to another as perverse or people that use "bait" units as perverse?
Not baffling, just idiomatic. You've never heard of a perverse incentive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive) before?

[Leez]

Not baffling, just idiomatic. You've never heard of a perverse incentive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive) before?

I am aware of the meaning of the two words when used as a single term, it is after all a limited definition of when the two words are used as two words. My opening statement still stands and the reasons why are given for more then one of possible uses of the word(s) "perverse incentive" but they all hinge on the word perverse's presence. First, as two words, in the first paragraph as a pair of pseudo-rhetorical questions and the second, as a term, in the third.

The issue is that by using perverse incentive he's not only interpreting their intentions but also ascribing motivations. Motivations they didn't seem to have when they rolled 5th ed out, one could even be so bold as to point at the wording for "saves" as evidence of that. Fortunately there is a clearly worded example, the USR Preferred Enemy to indicate that there is nothing perverse going on at all. But seeing as I fundamentally do not agree with rulebook psychoanalysis as a means for interpretation thereof I disagree with implying that anything perverted is or is not going on at GW-headquaters.

[DarkLink]

In both cases a person wants to fail at one action to gain a later advantage. The Necrons's 2002 WBB is no more perverse then the BRB's 2008 Preferred Enemy. Your use of the word perverse is just baffling. Are we to also call tactics where one unit provides cover to another as perverse or people that use "bait" units as perverse?

A person wanting to purposely fail wound rolls or even not make them for the reasons Lerra posted, whether tactically sound or not is in the very same spirit that someone would not want to wipe out a unit they were assaulting in their own assault phase. For Preferred Enemy that is to prevent them being a valid target in their opponents next Shooting phase. The difference is, the Preferred Enemy rule is written very clearly as is the related Rage Embodied special rule for close combat, the former applies to "rolls to hit" the latter applies only to "failed rolls to hit". Whereas we're stuck with word "can" and phrase "has the advantage of" in the rules for saving throws, how does one justify reading "can" as "must"?

It's very natural for people to assume that everyone everywhere would always want to make and pass save throws and thus view this as GW's RaI, to read "can" as "must". It would be just as natural to think "who on earth would want to reroll successful to hit rolls" but here we are with tactically motivated reasons to deviate from the normal behaviour. We could plausibly take the wording in the saving throws section to be written with the word "can" to allow players this tactical option (probably Necron players with WBB would be the only ones wanting to do this). Is it not one of the standard GW memes that they do not write tighter rules because they do not want to restrict player creativity? This is however, in my opinion, faulty reasoning. In the end we only have RaW, and any RaI argument is little more then rulebook psychoanalyse.

In the end we have the word "can", so, what does the word "can" mean? Bluntly it means ability to-, permission to-, small metal cylinder with a closed end, not necessarily of worms, nowhere is "must do this or that" in it's definition.


I am aware of the meaning of the two words when used as a single term, it is after all a limited definition of when the two words are used as two words. My opening statement still stands and the reasons why are given for more then one of possible uses of the word(s) "perverse incentive" but they all hinge on the word perverse's presence. First, as two words, in the first paragraph as a pair of pseudo-rhetorical questions and the second, as a term, in the third.

The issue is that by using perverse incentive he's not only interpreting their intentions but also ascribing motivations. Motivations they didn't seem to have when they rolled 5th ed out, one could even be so bold as to point at the wording for "saves" as evidence of that. Fortunately there is a clearly worded example, the USR Preferred Enemy to indicate that there is nothing perverse going on at all. But seeing as I fundamentally do not agree with rulebook psychoanalysis as a means for interpretation thereof I disagree with implying that anything perverted is or is not going on at GW-headquaters.

So verbose... remember, brevity is the soul of wit:p.

Regardless, I agree with JWolf that choosing to fail saves is a perverse incentive. I can see someone from GW saying "what do you mean, you don't want to reroll your misses/failed saves/whatever".

[Thomas Taylor]

Unthinkable RaI would be applicable here. No marine, guardsman, or even necron would want to intentionally die instead of being potected bybhis armor. Common sense.

[Leez]

Unthinkable RaI would be applicable here. No marine, guardsman, or even necron would want to intentionally die instead of being potected bybhis armor. Common sense.

Common sense, within the game's fictional universe is a huge *** can of worms that would utterly destroy the game.

Necron Warrors are not thinking beings and even if they were, I'd wager their thinking would be along these lines . . .Hmmm, I can let this sword cut off my head, die, and then reform over there with my other mates or I can let that bigger, shiner, humming weapon kill me utterly with no hope of coming back. Hmm, tough call.