question about pinning

[kire]

as with so many rules in 40k the rules on pinning are brief and unclear. i am unsure as to how many pinning tests my opponent must make under a variety of circumstances

1. a unit of scouts with sniper rifles causes 3 unsaved wounds

2. telion cause 2 unsaved wounds with his stalker boltgun

3. a whirlwind causes 3 unsaved wounds

4. a unit of 3 IG mortar teams causes 3 unsaved wounds 1 from the first motrar2 from the second and none from the third

the rules for pinning are on page 31 of the big rule book and the mini rule book

any help in clarifying this would be appreciated thanks

[wash-away]

pinning is 'squad' not wound.

so say 5 scouts w/ tellion cause 2 wounds and 1 from telions bolter. if he fails 1 or all of them he only needs to take 1 LD test.

a unit takes a pinning test for each unsaved wound they received from a pinning weapon from each squad, not each model.

hope that helps.

[Jwolf]

The shooting of one unit is simultaneous and can result in up to one total pinning check, regardless of number of wounds cause or having multiple different pinning weapons in the unit. I believe the wording is somewhat confusing, but attempts to read the rules into baskets of pinning checks feel like Easter Egg Hunting to me.

A good rule of thumb is that any ambiguity is best read in the least intrusive fashion.

[mkerr]

In all of your examples the target unit would only take a single pinning test.

The number of Pinning weapons (or Pinning unsaved wounds) doesn't affect the number of pinning tests. One unsaved pinning wound is just as good as three unsaved pinning wounds.

If the target unit takes at least one unsaved wound from a weapon with the Pinning quality, then it must take a Pinning test when the shooting unit has completed all of its shooting. Then the shooting player can resolve another unit's shots (which can cause additional pinning tests). Unlike Morale tests that happen at the end of a phase, Pinning tests happen after a unit has completed its shooting.

So when a unit has completed its shooting, determine if any unsaved wounds were caused by Pinning weapons. If so, the target unit makes a Pinning test at that point.

Make sense?

[kire]

thanks for responding.

just to make sure i understand what your saying, because all saves from a single unit occur simultaneously then you only make one pinning test because after immediately taking it there are no other unsaved wounds from weapons in the unit to trigger another test


pinning is 'squad' not wound.

the rule never says squad i says weapon so why wouldn't several weapons (say 3 sniper rifles )trigger multiple pining tests all at once.

giving in my examples
3
1
1
2
pining tests respectively

[SeattleDV8]

Although the rule mentions wounds from pinning weapons it also only tells us to take "a Pinning test", .
So you could take several tests it seems to be one test per unit shooting.

[BuFFo]

You take one pinning test for any unsaved wounds from 'a weapon', not 'a unit'.

So a sniper squad that does 4 wounds with 4 seperate weapons would trigger 4 pinning tests.

There is no where in the rule book which limits pinning tests to only one. As a matter of fact, further in the pinning rules you are told that you can make multiple pinning tests ' a turn', not 'per volley of weapons' or 'per unit firing on a unit' or 'phase'.

To me it seems many people are still stuck in 4th edition when pinning was done by a unit.

Now it is done by each weapon that causes wounds.


1. a unit of scouts with sniper rifles causes 3 unsaved wounds

That would be 3 pinning tests as 3 weapons caused a wound(s) each, as per the pinning rules.


2. telion cause 2 unsaved wounds with his stalker boltgun

One weapon, one test.


3. a whirlwind causes 3 unsaved wounds

One weapon, one test.


4. a unit of 3 IG mortar teams causes 3 unsaved wounds 1 from the first motrar2 from the second and none from the third

2 pinning tests as only two weapons caused any wounds each.

[bob]

A squads firing is worked out simultaneously (all models counts having fired at the same time) so all of the wounds are worked out at the same time, this means that a squad will only have to take one test per unit that caused a pinning wound " if a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test " singular see it there

Which means in each example the answer is one

[BuFFo]

A squads firing is worked out simultaneously (all models counts having fired at the same time) so all of the wounds are worked out at the same time, this means that a squad will only have to take one test per unit that caused a pinning wound " if a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test " singular see it there

Which means in each example the answer is one

Lets break down the rule you just quoted, which is the rule that triggers pinning tests....


"if a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from A PINNING WEAPON, it must immediately take a pinning test"

Bold emphasize mine. :)

"A pinning weapon" is what is forcing the pinning test, NOT the unit.

Answer these questions please...

How many pinning weapons does a squad of 5 scouts with 5 sniper weapons have? A Basilisk? Prince with Lash? Ratlings with 3 sniper weapons?

This is not 4th edition, and whether people like it or not, the rule HAS changed. Pinning is not listed as being triggered by a unit anymore. This is 5th edition, and pinning has changed. Pinning is now forced by each individual weapon, not unit.

Back to my question...

5 Scouts cause 1 wound per pinning weapon. If a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from A PINNING WEAPON, it must immediately take a pinning test. Since the unit took 1 unsaved wound for each pinning weapon, the unit takes 5 pinning tests. Luckily for me, as I have quoted earlier, further in the pinning rules you are overtly told that you can take multiple tests a turn.

There is no rule in the book which limits you to one test at a time, and there is no rule in the book which states you take a pinning test per volley from a unit. Those two rules just don't exist.

:):)

[Shallowain]

"if a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from A PINNING WEAPON, it must immediately take a pinning test"

1: Did the unit suffer any unsaved wound? If yes, go to 2
2: were any of these wounds caused by a pinning weapon. If yes, go to 3
3: take a pinning check

You don`t take pinning checks for EVERY wound caused by a pinning check. There is no rule specifically allowing multiple checks for each and every weapon.

The rule describes a logic how to determine IF a pinning check has to be made.

multiple checks are mentioned to differentiate between morale checks and pinning checks

[StrikerFox]

unforuntately i have to agree with everyone else on here in saying that its a weapon type that pins, not individual weapons of that same type.. i do have to agree however, that if there are different TYPES of pinning weapons (ie. a barrage weapon + a sniper weapon, or a sniper scout squad lead by tellion) in the same squad, it would require multiple pinning checks (as tellions weapon is different from a sniper rifle) if that weapon type causes any unsaved wounds during that units round of shooting.. in this example two.

another example is a chaos sorc. with lash leading a squad of noise marines with a blastmaster. lash doesnt cause any wounds, but would still have to take a pinning check at the end, while the blastmaster if it causes any unsaved wounds, would have you take another pinning check. would you agree you would have to take two pinning checks? i would..

atleast thats how i see it and would rule it..

[Abominable Plague Marine]

BuFFo

This is not 4th edition, and whether people like it or not, the rule HAS changed. Pinning is not listed as being triggered by a unit anymore. This is 5th edition, and pinning has changed. Pinning is now forced by each individual weapon, not unit.

You may want to have a read of 4th ed again in that case, because, besides the bit in the 4th ed book about 25% Moral and the bit in the 5th ed book about Going to Ground, the passage reads word for word exactly the same.


StrikerFox

another example is a chaos sorc. with lash leading a squad of noise marines with a blastmaster. lash doesnt cause any wounds, but would still have to take a pinning check at the end, while the blastmaster if it causes any unsaved wounds, would have you take another pinning check. would you agree you would have to take two pinning checks? i would..

So I would have to disagree with you there. They both cause the same effect at the end of the firing units phase..............

Ive never in 4th or 5th ed seen it played any other way or had it questioned during a game, the only time it has ever come up is in forum where people try to sway the opinion of others by reinterpretting the rules.

[Xai]

This is a bit of a sticky rule, because if you go verbatim it does state weapon as a singular cause to the effect. That would mean that multiple weapons, no matter their source or order fired, would cause one test per wound(s) by a single weapon.

Now in regards to the same unit firing and causing multiple tests, in a game fluff/partial mechanics view, this doesn't really make sense. If I get wounded simultaneously by 1 sniper rifle or 40 I'm going to consider hitting the deck as one thought process, not contemplate each individual shot that struck me at once. "I'm fine with getting hit with 13 shots at once, but anything over 13 at once is just too many" Really? I don't think so... You either react to the one whole instance of incoming fire from a single source, or you don't. Mind you this is purely from a logical standpoint in my opinion.

So, in summary, should you take multiple pinning tests from 1 unit? - From what the rules state you probably should.

I, however, am going to make it a house rule that you don't. Granted, this has never even come up in the hundreds of games I've played, but just in case :)

[BuFFo]

Let me fix your equation here :)


1: Did the unit suffer any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon?

Yes it did.


2: take a pinning check per weapon that caused any amount of wounds.

Alright!

One pinning check per weapon that caused any unsaved wounds.

A pinning weapon triggers a pinning test. This is no different than if 4 melta guns from a unit hit a tank, or 2 plasma guns 'got hot' in your unit.

I fail to see why other weapon's special rules stack, but when it comes to a pinning special weapon, all of a sudden its ability does not stack with other pinning weapons.... :confused:

[StrikerFox]

So I would have to disagree with you there. They both cause the same effect at the end of the firing units phase..............


true, and i normally would have agreed with you, however, after re-reading the rules for pinning, i would only have the justify that different weapon types ie. lash and blastmaster, are two different types of pinning, although caused in the same instance from the same squad. i see the logic behind it, but if im just trying to take that "middle path" then i would think this is just that.. i know its all coming from one squad and or volley of shooting, thus only one pinning check, but per whats written (and trust me i roll my eyes as i type this) it does say "a pinning weapon"... i wouldnt go as far as saying "per number of pinning weapons do you have to take that many pinning checks..." it just gets rediculous..

but yeah, normally it doesnt get questioned either where i play, but this just is a VERY interesting topic... kinda like our "immobilization" topic our group had before RTT.. XD

[mkerr]

@BuFFo: I can understand the confusion, but that's not how pinning works. I don't suffer any unsaved wounds until your unit has completed it's shooting. After I remove my casualties, I determine if any were caused by a pinning weapon. If so, I make a pinning test. That's it.

Let's jump into the Shooting Sequence for an example:
3. Roll to Hit
4. Roll to Wound
5. Take Saving Throws
6. Remove Casualties

At this point (just after #6), I determine if any of my unsaved wounds were caused by pinning weapons (answering the "Did the unit suffer any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon?" question). If so, then I make a pinning test.

Yes, my unit can take several pinning tests in the Shooting phase, but never more than one per unit that targets it. Why? Because I only check ONCE for unsaved wounds caused by pinning weapons.

-- MKerr

P.S. Even if there was a typo in the rulebook that made it 100% clear that your interpretation was vaid (which is not the casee), it really wouldn't matter. No gaming group or tournament would let it stand. So you might get an advantage if you found a poor sap that agreed with you, but all you'd end up doing is changing the game balance to support a "lots of Pinning" (or "lots of Fearless") game. Which falls into the "Meh. No fun" category.

[BuFFo]

@BuFFo: I can understand the confusion, but that's not how pinning works. I don't suffer any unsaved wounds until your unit has completed it's shooting. After I remove my casualties, I determine if any were caused by a pinning weapon. If so, I make a pinning test. That's it.

Oh don't get me wrong, I totally see the other side of the coin here.

The issue I have is that in this game, as in most games, there is a cause and effect of which the game's rules run off of.

The cause is "any unsaved wounds from "A" pinning weapon.

The effect is "take a pinning test".

What I don't understand from your side of the coin is that if five different pinning weapons in a single unit caused any unsaved wounds per weapon, why you are only triggering one pinning test, and discarding the other four?

Where in the book are we told to ignore multiple pinning tests? Should I ignore multiple melta effects as well? Or multiple 'gets hot' effects?


Let's jump into the Shooting Sequence for an example:
3. Roll to Hit
4. Roll to Wound
5. Take Saving Throws
6. Remove Casualties

At this point (just after #6), I determine if any of my unsaved wounds were caused by pinning weapons

No sir, this is where you have it wrong in my opinion.

The rule clearly states "Any unsaved wounds from "A" pinning weapon". Not multiple pinning weapons at once. You are missing the "A" in the rule. The pinning test is triggered from a singular pinning weapon, not multiple pinning weapons clumped together.


(answering the "Did the unit suffer any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon?" question). If so, then I make a pinning test.

Yes, as per the rule, for each pinnign weapon you took any unsaved wounds from, you take a pinnign test. The rule does not state "take a pinning test from a pinning weapon, but ignore all tests after the first".


Yes, my unit can take several pinning tests in the Shooting phase, but never more than one per unit that targets it.

Yes, further in the pinning rules we are told a unit can take multiple pinning tests during a turn. There is zero limitations to when you have to take them stated anywhere. As far as the rule is concerned, 'any amount of pinning tests' can be applied to both 'one million tests at once' or 'one million tests spread out during a turn'.


Why? Because I only check ONCE for unsaved wounds caused by pinning weapons.

I understand your point of view, but once again, there is no rule forcing you to only take ONE pining test and disregarding the others.



-- MKerr


P.S. Even if there was a typo in the rulebook that made it 100% clear that your interpretation was vaid (which is not the casee), it really wouldn't matter. No gaming group or tournament would let it stand. So you might get an advantage if you found a poor sap that agreed with you, but all you'd end up doing is changing the game balance to support a "lots of Pinning" (or "lots of Fearless") game. Which falls into the "Meh. No fun" category.

Never make blanket worldy assumptions.

My gaming group/store plays as the rule stands, which is multiple pinning tests at once. And the preliminary 'Ard Boyz I was at played it the same way.

So saying "Well everyone across the planet does one thing it must be right. First, you don't know that, and second, should I even bring up the 'world is flat' argument?

When you get down to it, the rule allows for multiple pinning tests. What tourneys do is no more a 'standard' than what my friends do. Each GT location has its own set of 'house rules'. In 40k, there is one standard, and that is the books you buy coupled with online erratas and faqs.

This is one thing you would need to discuss with your opponent before hand before things get out of hand :)

I have already said my peace, and I will just start to repeat myself on here if I keep responding. I will keep reading the thread so I can see other people's opinions to help broaden my point of view, but I won't respond in it much anymore. I don't want to turn this into Warseer.

Personally, if we played together, we could play it either way. I don't really care. Whatever it takes to get the game going, keep everyone happy, and the gaming experience as fun as possible are my only goals when gaming.

Love,

BuFFo

p.s.

XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

[StrikerFox]

yeah talked it over with my gaming group, and although they do see the points being made, still, its per unit shooting, not per weapon. even tho i tried to go the middle path (different pinning weapons cause multiple saves) they would still say its from the same unit, coming in one volley of fire.. and i agree with them..

but i do see your point buffo, its just the wording is a bit ambigious.. as most rules are.. :P

[Abominable Plague Marine]

Not to throw fuel on the fire.............

Buffo, if you look at Barrage weapons without needing to include Ordinace Barrage weapons and multiple barrages into the equation (do so if your not convinced), can you see why it is only one pinning test per unit and not per source inside the unit?

[nojinx]

Funny thing: this board, since its inception, has had its rules section dominated by the same ol' debates that have saturated the bigger boards over the last two years. It's like a "Who's Who" of the Most Contested 40K Rules Debates.

This one is a case of people latching onto a grammatical status of use - in this case, the singular case of "a pinning weapon" - and assigning that usage additional meaning that is not inherent. Use of the phrase in that sentence as written does not necessitate a one-to-one relationship between the instance of "a pinning weapon" and the test involved. I have yet to see an argument that supports that relationship.

The literal and logical meaning of the sentence we are discussing does not impose multiple checks.

Sometimes, when you read something and think you see multiple meanings or logical interpretations, it is best to read the sentence as a question, leaving the significant clauses intact. Put it as an interrogative you present to yourself or your opponent in the situation:

Did my unit suffer any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon? If so, it must immediately make a pinning check.

In all the examples of the previous poster, the above statement literally and logically functions with no lack of clarity. In each case, the unit must make a pinning test because the unit suffered an unsaved wound from a pinning weapon.

The key hear is to recognize that the rule is satisfied by the single test. Recognizing that, we have no reason to go further, to seek out some other possible meaning or "Easter Egg", as they say.

[entendre_entendre]

seriously? all shots from one unit occur simultaneously. quote from rulebook: "a squad of space marines cannot destroy a transport with its lascannon then mow down its occupants with their bolters". seems pretty clear to me. 1 unit, 1 check. you could cause multiple checks per unit, but you'd need multiple pinning weapon units to do so.

[Nabterayl]

Simultaneity has nothing to do with it. It's still possible to keep track of how many Pinning weapons caused wounds, even if they were all fired by the same unit. We keep track of different weapons within a single unit's shooting all the time; the question is simply whether we must now do so for Pinning weapons as well.

The multiple-test reading is quite compatible with the fact that all saves from a given unit's shooting happen simultaneously. The multiple-test reading doesn't advocate for, e.g., a unit getting pinned by one sniper rifle and then getting a cover save for having gone to ground when rolling for subsequent sniper rifles in the same attacking squad.

The main debate in my mind stems from the fact that 5th edition has a different wording than 4th edition. Fourth edition, page 32, stated:


"When the firing of a single enemy unit inflicts casualties with pinning weapons, the target must take a Leadership test to avoid being pinned" (emphasis added).

Fifth edition, page 31, says:


If a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test. This is a normal Leadership test.

If the unit fails the test, it is immediately forced to go to ground (as described on page 24). As the unit has already taken its saves, going to ground does not protect it against the fire of the pinning weapon that caused the test (or indeed of any other weapon fired by the same unit that phase) - it's too late!

As long as the tests are passed, a unit may be called upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn, but if a unit has already gone to ground, no further Pinning tests are taken.

The single-test position has a couple of questions to answer:
Why was "the firing of a single enemy unit" changed to "any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon?"
Doesn't "...the fire of the pinning weapon that caused the test" make it clear that individual, identified weapons inflict a given Pinning test? If so,
Why do we only query the conditional at the end of a unit's attack, when the only limitation the text of the rule imposes is that the conditional is to be queried more often than once per turn?

Conversely, the multiple-test position has a couple of questions to answer:
Why is it relevant that the wording has been changed?
If we are to query the conditional multiple times during the same shooting attack, why are the Pinning tests delayed until the end of the attack?

I'd suggest that these are the questions to be debated, not whether the shooting happens simultaneously or not.

[mkerr]

The key hear is to recognize that the rule is satisfied by the single test. Recognizing that, we have no reason to go further, to seek out some other possible meaning or "Easter Egg", as they say.

That's exactly the way this (and any other ambigous rule) should viewed. If you find yourself justifying a clearly abusive intepretation of a rule, when the rule can be satisfied in a non-abusive manner, then you are probably on the wrong side of the argument.


Where in the book are we told to ignore multiple pinning tests? Should I ignore multiple melta effects as well? Or multiple 'gets hot' effects?

That's your best argument, by the way. I'd stick with that instead of the "a pinning weapon" argument. Nojinx's statement effectively counters it, but it's an excellent argument.


Never make blanket worldy assumptions.

I'm strangely comfortable making blanket worldly assumptions; I have a reputation for it. But I should've included the word "reasonable" in my statement because I'm aware that many gaming clubs create house rules that make the game work better for them.

I remember a Baltimore GT a few years back where I had to crash my Rhino into difficult terrain (and hope the passengers were ejected) because the judge ruled the unit inside wasn't scoring ("models that aren't on the table can't contest table quarters"). I'm sure we all have tons of stories like that, lol.

If your group finds that the games are more fun and run smoother by forcing a pinning test for each pinning weapon, then that's awesome. I suspect that all it does is eliminate armies that don't have an option of ignoring pinning tests from being competitive, which is the last thing those armies need.

-- MKerr

[Nabterayl]

The rule is satisfied by a single test per what? Surely you wouldn't say that the rule is satisfied by a single test per game, right, or per turn? You aren't saying that the rule is satisfied by a single test, mkerr, you're saying that the rule is satisfied by a single test per firing unit. What BuFFo and I want to know is why that should be, given that the test is caused by individual weapons ("the weapon that caused the test"). There is no default principle in the rulebook that tests of a given type should be only inflicted once per unit, or once per turn, or once per anything, unless otherwise specified.

[Tarion]

That's exactly the way this (and any other ambigous rule) should viewed. If you find yourself justifying a clearly abusive intepretation of a rule, when the rule can be satisfied in a non-abusive manner, then you are probably on the wrong side of the argument.Honestly, I think thats the biggest argument for multiple pinning checks from a single unit I've ever heard.

Since Pinning is such a joke if you continue to apply the 4th edition rules to it.

[Denzark]

Shooting by 1 unit at another is simultaneous. Just as you wouldn't roll 3 morale checks if a unit took 75% casualties from 1 lot of shooting, you wouldn't take more than 1 pinning test from a single source of shooting (ie 1 unit) even if that source had 2 different types of weapons.

The multiple pinning tests referred to are due to the option of 1 unit getting hit by 2 or more different units with pinning weapons ie 'ratlings cause 2 unsaved wounds take 1 pinning test. Then a Basilisk casues another 3 - take another pinning test' and so on.

[Nabterayl]

Yes, but the rule you're referring to specifically states that the unit needs to take a test at the end of any phase after which it has suffered 25% casualties or more. The pinning language is very different. Simultaneity has nothing to do with it one way or the other - events that happen simultaneously happen at the same time; they don't become a single event. If you hit a trukk with eight heavy bolter shots from the same devastator squad, you roll for penetration eight times. Each hit occurs simultaneously, and each is even identical, but they're still independent events.

[Tarion]

Shooting by 1 unit at another is simultaneous. Just as you wouldn't roll 3 morale checks if a unit took 75% casualties from 1 lot of shooting, you wouldn't take more than 1 pinning test from a single source of shooting (ie 1 unit) even if that source had 2 different types of weapons. That'd be a good example if the wording wasn't so vastly different. For the 25% casualties, its a simple check - Did the unit lose 25% or more in a single turn? Yes - Morale. The "or more" rules out the need to take multiple checks.

[mkerr]

Taken out of context, I completely understand your argument. I think it's interesting and a lot of fun to discuss, but it isn't the correct interpretation of the rule.

When you consider Pinning's place in the Shooting Sequence, a single test makes a lot more sense.

Here's the Shooting Sequence:
1) Your unit selects a target and determines line of sight.
2) Your unit checks range.
3) You roll to hit for ALL of your unit's shooting.
4) You roll to wound for ALL of your unit's hits.
5) My unit makes saving throws.
6) I remove casualties from my unit.

At this point, I need to determine if any of my unsaved wounds were taken by a Pinning weapon. This is a "Yes" or "No" question. If yes, then I make a Pinning test. If no, we move to the next unit's shooting.

More pinning weapons increases the chance of forcing a pinning test, but they don't require me to make multiple tests.


The rule is satisfied by a single test per what? Surely you wouldn't say that the rule is satisfied by a single test per game, right, or per turn? You aren't saying that the rule is satisfied by a single test, mkerr, you're saying that the rule is satisfied by a single test per firing unit. What BuFFo and I want to know is why that should be, given that the test is caused by individual weapons ("the weapon that caused the test"). There is no default principle in the rulebook that tests of a given type should be only inflicted once per unit, or once per turn, or once per anything, unless otherwise specified.

I make the determination each time I remove casualties - which happens only once when an enemy unit shoots at me. If I removed casualties after each weapon fired, then your interpretation would be correct.

-- MKerr

[Denzark]

This is simply rules lawyering using poxy GW poorly written rules to try and fudge something simple. What I will do is this:

1. Re-read every single battle report in WD - I have every WD from 124 and have no recollection of ever seeing it mention something momentous such as passing or failing 10 pinning test caused by one units - that sort of jazz is exactly what they would mention (especially when they are trying to punt new snipe units a la ratlings or scout sgt clever-clogs).

2. I am going to UK Throne of Skulls this Oct - I will ask a GW Nottingham judge for a ruling and then post back - assuming i don't get thrown out for being so stupid.

3. In the mean time if anyone tries to do this to me in a game I will drop trowel and clip off a cleveland steamer on the table as a protest.

Reminds me of the whole homing beacon controversy - frankly ridiculous and now faq'd to death.

[mkerr]

That'd be a good example if the wording wasn't so vastly different. For the 25% casualties, its a simple check - Did the unit lose 25% or more in a single turn? Yes - Morale. The "or more" rules out the need to take multiple checks.

His example is actually a very good one and I think illustrates the danger of treating the rules like tax code. A single unit CAN take 25% casualties SEVERAL times in a single phase.

For example:
1. A 10-man squad of Tactical Marines loses 3 Marines to Unit A's shooting (that's more than 25%).
2. The now 7-man squad loses 3 more models to Unit B's shooting (that more than 25% again).
3. The now 4-man squad loses 2 more models to Unit C's shooting (more than 25% a third time).

Does the unit take a single Morale check at the end of the phase? Or does it take 3?

I can't find anything in the rules that SPECIFICALLY says that a unit can never take more than one Morale check for casualties in a single phase. Can you?

I suspect that careful reading will reveal hundreds of rules that can be interpreted in the same manner.

-- MKerr

[Nabterayl]

The trigger there is ending a phase with 75% or fewer of your starting strength. That's the difference. Every time you end a phase with 75% or less the strength you started the phase with you do indeed take a test. For pinning, the trigger is a pinning weapon causing any number of wounds. Every time a pinning weapon causes any number of wounds, you take a test. It's just a question of clearly identifying the actual cause of the test.

[mkerr]

The trigger there is ending a phase with 75% or fewer of your starting strength. That's the difference.

That would make a lot of sense if the rule said that, but it doesn't.

Here's what it says: "A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check a the end of that phase, or else it will fall back." (BGB, p 44).

I can easily argue that I can force a unit to lose 25% or more of it's models SEVERAL TIMES during a single phase, so I should be able to force it to take multiple Morale checks.

It feels a lot like the argument you are using for Pinning weapons. Out of context, both arguments seem reasonable. But when you consider that you only remove casualties ONCE for a unit's shooting, it makes sense that multiple pinning weapons would only trigger one Pinning test.


For pinning, the trigger is a pinning weapon causing any number of wounds. Every time a pinning weapon causes any number of wounds, you take a test. It's just a question of clearly identifying the actual cause of the test.

The cause of the Casualty Morale Test is losing 25% or more of your models in a single phase. I can easily see that criteria met several times in a single phase (as per my earlier example). Nothing in the Taking Morale Tests section specifically restricts this to one test per unit in a single phase.

This is just another example of why the rules (and the game) have to be viewed as a whole, not dissected into individual phrases. Out of context, you can prove just about any point you want.

-- MKerr

[Nabterayl]

That's a fair point, mkerr, and well taken. On the other hand, for that example the unit of analysis is the unit - you check whether the unit has suffered the requisite casualties and test once. For pinning weapons, it still seems to me that the unit of analysis is the weapon, not the victim unit - you check whether the weapon has caused a wound and test once - then do the same for the next weapon.

[Old_Paladin]

Oh No! The pinning question has spread to another thread; it's like Nurgles Rot, it's everywhere (and mildly itchy).

Wait... does this mean I have to make one sanity check? Or two seperate ones (one from each thread, even though they're both from the same forum)? :D

[hidden_snake]

Honestly, this seems to boil down to a Rules as Written VS: Rules as Intended debate. Speaking from the RaW standpoint, I can see how it makes sense for you to have to take multiple pinning checks from a single unit, but from a RaI standpoint, it doesn't really seem to make sense, nor fit with the way the game works in general.

[Nabterayl]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the way the game works in general." All dice rolls are simply a question of shifting the distribution curve of results, and I assume GW's designers are sophisticated enough to treat them that way. In fact, I see more evidence of the designers branching out mathematically these days; consider the various curves of the Punisher as opposed to the Exterminator.

If by "makes sense" you mean can be justified from a fluff standpoint, I personally prefer the multiple test position for the following reasons:

It eliminates the weirdness of multiple units being more effective than single units by virtue of being multiple units. Consider, for example, two squads of five snipers lined up end to end. Under the single-test model those two squads are more likely to pin an enemy unit than the same ten models lined up end to end in a single unit. Similarly, three Basilisks in a single squadron are somehow less effective at pinning an enemy than the exact same three Basilisks, in the exact same positions, organized as three separate units. This doesn't "make sense" to me from a fluff/real-world standpoint, and the multiple-test model avoids this weirdness.
Shooting only happens simultaneously from a rules standpoint. We don't know how long a turn of gameplay or even a single shooting attack takes, but it's intuitively obvious that shooting attacks take time. As an easy example, if a single bolter kills two models, it's obvious from the fluff nature of the bolter that those two models were not hit at the same instant. Similarly, a squad of ten models is unlikely to fire at exactly the same instant. A series of multiple shots ringing out, or a series of shells falling from the sky, over a period of time seems to me like it would create more uncertainty among the victims than a single instant.

[Madjob]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the way the game works in general." All dice rolls are simply a question of shifting the distribution curve of results, and I assume GW's designers are sophisticated enough to treat them that way. In fact, I see more evidence of the designers branching out mathematically these days; consider the various curves of the Punisher as opposed to the Exterminator.

If by "makes sense" you mean can be justified from a fluff standpoint, I personally prefer the multiple test position for the following reasons:

It eliminates the weirdness of multiple units being more effective than single units by virtue of being multiple units. Consider, for example, two squads of five snipers lined up end to end. Under the single-test model those two squads are more likely to pin an enemy unit than the same ten models lined up end to end in a single unit. Similarly, three Basilisks in a single squadron are somehow less effective at pinning an enemy than the exact same three Basilisks, in the exact same positions, organized as three separate units. This doesn't "make sense" to me from a fluff/real-world standpoint, and the multiple-test model avoids this weirdness.
Shooting only happens simultaneously from a rules standpoint. We don't know how long a turn of gameplay or even a single shooting attack takes, but it's intuitively obvious that shooting attacks take time. As an easy example, if a single bolter kills two models, it's obvious from the fluff nature of the bolter that those two models were not hit at the same instant. Similarly, a squad of ten models is unlikely to fire at exactly the same instant. A series of multiple shots ringing out, or a series of shells falling from the sky, over a period of time seems to me like it would create more uncertainty among the victims than a single instant.

Your second point answers your first. If there is an invisible time factor to consider as far as an RAI interpretation goes, consider that while unit shooting is considered essentially simultaneous (happening within a matter of seconds or even minutes), separate unit shooting is not. This implies that a greater length of time has passed in between units firing, time for a unit which had ducked for cover to avoid sniper fire or an artillery barrage to poke their heads out some time later, only to be forced back down again by a new round of shooting. In game terms, this would have been 1 sniper team firing, followed by another at the same target (or two consecutive basilisk barrages staggered thanks to firing as separate units) and the target unit taking 2 separate pinning checks.

Of course, this won't convince anyone who wants a more concrete example to follow after for rule arguments, I just felt like pointing this out.

[mkerr]

That's a fair point, mkerr, and well taken. On the other hand, for that example the unit of analysis is the unit - you check whether the unit has suffered the requisite casualties and test once. For pinning weapons, it still seems to me that the unit of analysis is the weapon, not the victim unit - you check whether the weapon has caused a wound and test once - then do the same for the next weapon.

I agree that your "quality of a weapon" argument is the strongest one. I think it's too easy to poke holes in your "it says weapon - singular" argument. I also agree that they applied weapon qualities inconsistently and this should've been made more clearer in the rules.

But in the end, the Pinning rules are satisfied with a single Pinning test after a round of shooting. It's consistent with the rule and matches the way the vast majority of the players play the game (and the previous versions of the rules).

If you feel strongly that your interpretation is correct (and benefits the game), then by all means play that way. I put up with all kinds of strange House Rules when I play, so one more isn't going to hurt me. But I would avoid making it seem like your interpretation is the only valid one (or the most reasonable one).

Interesting discussion and I look forward to having more with you.

-- MKerr

[Nabterayl]

Agreed, and I look forward to more discussions with you. I don't think that my interpretation is the only one, and I recognize that it's in the minority.

I do still think it's the most faithful reading of the rule, of course, or I wouldn't hold it. But I don't think the point of these online debates is to convince people to play the way I and my group play. It's just to discuss the language of the rules so that people who want to play by the language in the rulebook can decide, among and for themselves, what the language of the rulebook actually is. If folks want to play single-test because a) that's the way tournaments play, b) they just like it better that way, or c) they've understood my analysis and have a good-faith disagreement with it, I have no problem with that.

[Denzark]

If by "makes sense" you mean can be justified from a fluff standpoint, I personally prefer the multiple test position for the following reasons:

[list=1] It eliminates the weirdness of multiple units being more effective than single units by virtue of being multiple units. Consider, for example, two squads of five snipers lined up end to end. Under the single-test model those two squads are more likely to pin an enemy unit than the same ten models lined up end to end in a single unit. Similarly, three Basilisks in a single squadron are somehow less effective at pinning an enemy than the exact same three Basilisks, in the exact same positions, organized as three separate units. This doesn't "make sense" to me from a fluff/real-world standpoint, and the multiple-test model avoids this weirdness.
]

for me there is no wierdness from multiple units being more effective than single units - getting shot at by 2 different sources, one of whom is firing as the other one reloads, or a different angle making your cover less effective, is always going to make you pause more.

[Nabterayl]

Well, that's the weirdness, to me. Two units are always more effective at pinning under the single-test rule, regardless of their disposition. Under single-test, three Basilisks in three separate units that are tread-to-tread are more effective at pinning than three Basilisks that are tread-to-tread in a single squadron. Regardless of the actual position of the models on the board, the mere fact that you have designated them separate units in your list makes them more effective at pinning under single-test.

Now, of course, rules are rules, and I prefer to go with the rules rather than what "makes sense" most of the time, since different things "make sense" to different people. I'm just saying that, for whatever it's worth, multiple-test makes more sense to me personally.

[mkerr]

for me there is no wierdness from multiple units being more effective than single units - getting shot at by 2 different sources, one of whom is firing as the other one reloads, or a different angle making your cover less effective, is always going to make you pause more.

And that's covered in the increased likelihood that multiple pinning weapons will cause at least one unsaved wound. For example, if you have a single sniper rifle in a Platoon Command Squad then you are less likely to generate a pinning test than a unit of Ratlings. Fewer shots = smaller chance to cause a wound.

It's the fact that someone got shot when I wasn't expecting it that makes me hit the ground. Not the fact that two or more guys got shot. So I wouldn't be three times as likely to hide under the table in a Luby's if someone said "three guys just got shot". It's the "got shot" part that grabbed my attention.

But it's worth stating again, you can't base rules decisions on anecdotal or fluff-based arguments. It's too easy to find a situation that supports your position.

-- MKerr

[Old_Paladin]

Well, that's the weirdness, to me. Two units are always more effective at pinning under the single-test rule, regardless of their disposition. Under single-test, three Basilisks in three separate units that are tread-to-tread are more effective at pinning than three Basilisks that are tread-to-tread in a single squadron. Regardless of the actual position of the models on the board, the mere fact that you have designated them separate units in your list makes them more effective at pinning under single-test.


I'd be careful about discussing the effectiveness of artillery, as they follow different rules.
With 3 seperate cannons, you'll average a missed scatter, a hit and a partial scatter (causing one to two tests).
A barrage is probablly going to get a unit no matter what, it's only one test but at -1. Against high leadership units the -1 is better (you're more likely, on average, to fail a single Ld. 9, then two Ld. 10)