Pinning Question

[bigman45]

Hello. I just want to clarify the pinning rule cause the last game i played my opponent didnt agree with me. On page 31 under pinning it stats that "If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must take a pinning test." To me that sounds like if a weapon with pinning that has an assult 2 on it and does two wounds, you only have to take one pinning test cause it came from one weapon. And if there was two weapons with pinning coming from the same unit and did two wounds, you would have to take two pinning tests cause it came from two different weapons. You would think if they wanted to say that you take one test per unit dealing damage no matter how many pinning weapons the unit might have they would have but they dont. I ask cause i had 12 Tau fire warriors with all pinning weapons doing 5+ wounds a shooting phase lol.

[Lord Azaghul]

I had this come up with a tau player as well (I'm guard).
His perspective was multiple pinning weapons in same units equals multiple pinning checks.
My perspective was one firing unit may only confir one pinning check per phase. IE since all weapons are fire at once only one pinning check would be taken.

I think the wording is there to distinguish between multiple units with pinning firing and only takeing one moral check from casualties.

Our group settled on my interpration. Just think about mortars and mobs of ork boys, asking them to take 8+ pinning checks, from 1 mortar squad just doesn't seem right. Also keep in mind that mortars and sniper rifles are cheap compared to other heavy weapons, if they caused that many checks they would be far more expensive.

[DarkLink]

I've seen huge arguments about this on other sites like Warseer, and I'm not sure if they ever reached a definite conclusion. I'm in support of a single pinning check, though.

[Nabterayl]

We've had our share of debates about this as well, and I think they've been pretty well reasoned. Take a look through this Rules forum and you should be able to find some pretty articulate defenses of each side.

I favor multiple checks myself, but I acknowledge it's on on gray area. Besides my conviction about the rule wording, I prefer multiple checks precisely because it makes Pinning on on worthwhile attribute as opposed to the once-in-three-games effect it often seems to have now.

[Lord Azaghul]

I prefer multiple checks precisely because it makes Pinning on on worthwhile attribute as opposed to the once-in-three-games effect it often seems to have now.

Once in three games? I run guard. My mortars, Ordance barage, and snipes force pinning checks every game, usually 3-4 times a game.

[Old_Paladin]

Oh Lord! Another pinning question.
Just so this one doesn't end up being as long as some of the other ones, just use the search feature and read the other threads. They go on (and on) in significant detail and rules quoting, and may or may not answer your question.

[Crevab]

Once in three games? I run guard. My mortars, Ordance barage, and snipes force pinning checks every game, usually 3-4 times a game.

Force checks or actually cause a unit to be pinned?

[Aldramelech]

Oh Lord! Another pinning question.
Just so this one doesn't end up being as long as some of the other ones, just use the search feature and read the other threads. They go on (and on) in significant detail and rules quoting, and may or may not answer your question.

Agreed. There was quite a lengthy thread on this. If I remember rightly the single check argument won the day.

[bigman45]

Our group settled on my interpration. Just think about mortars and mobs of ork boys, asking them to take 8+ pinning checks, from 1 mortar squad just doesn't seem right. Also keep in mind that mortars and sniper rifles are cheap compared to other heavy weapons, if they caused that many checks they would be far more expensive.

Ive never seen a morter squad of 8 before doesnt mean there isnt but i play against a guard opponent and he puts in a unit of three mortars all the time. What im getting at is if all three mortars did 50 wounds doesnt matter, all the opponent has to take it 3 pinning test cause it came from 3 different weapons, but try to keep track to see if all three did kill a model or not. Like a big blast barage from a tank kills 10 guys all the enemy would have to take is one test cause it came from one weapon. Sorry if im repeating my self i was just trying to understand what you were trying to get across.

[Rapture]

"If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must take a pinning test."
Seems like one check for each weapon that caused a wound.

[Vince]

Its one check. Like others said you can read the other post about it but one check was the "winner".

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I'm pretty sure it's one check.

For one there is the obvious caveat: certain units or situations in the game could cause you to take an obscene and obviously broken number of pinning checks.

For another, the language is there: "any" implies whether it was 1 pinning weapon or 50 pinning weapons, you take a test. If it was the way the Tau guys are saying, then it would read something like: "If a unit suffers AN unsaved wound from a pinning weapon, it must take a pinning test." The fact that it actually says "any" means pretty clearly to me that it is one check; especially since generally, you would only know if the wounds were unsaved after rolling saves, which means technically they all happen at once, and so it is pretty irrelevant that there are multiple pinning weapons.

Doing it this way introduces a lot of interesting other issues, too. WHat if I have to take five pinning checks and fail the first one? Do the other ones count? Do I even roll them? If I succeed on them, am I not pinned? The fact that these issues are not addressed at all in the rules further implies that there is only one check per unit firing at the target.

As further evidence of this, very few units with pinning weapons in the game (indeed, if any), have just single models with pinning weapons in them.This implies that the benefit does not stack per model, as generally, if was a per model thing, I'm sure somewhere in the game we would have seen it utilized by now.

Lastly, the complexity in rolling would be noteworthy and mentioned in the rules. If you had to take a check for each weapon that was pinning and say it was an assault 2 pinning weapon, you would have to roll each model separately to make sure you did it right and gave the proper number of pinning checks. The rulebook makes no mention of this.

If you look at other instances of "ANY" throughout the game rules it means "any one time this criteria is fulfilled" not "EVERY one time this criteria is fulfilled." In the case of the above rules quote, ANY means ... well, any. Definition from an online dictionary I just looked up: "One, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity; one or more —used to indicate an undetermined number or amount." I think it is pretty clear that it is one. You COULD argue it on a per-weapon basis, but doesn't it just strike you as bizarre that there are times when the Tau might inflict 10 pinning checks on one squad?

Last but not least...no other leadership test in the game can be induced multiple times over by one unit. Every other instance of leadership testing in the game points to one time only (ie say you lost a multiple assault...if you beat me with three units, I don't have to take three leadership tests).

[BuFFo]

One check per weapon fired.

There is no such thing as a 'winner'. On Warseer, when that question came up months ago, multiple checks was the 'winner'.

All that matters is that you and your group decide on ONE constant way of playing the game, and stick to it.

Which ever way you guys pick, will be the RIGHT way. It doesn't matter either way.

My group, it is multiple checks. Your group it isn't. Neither side is right or wrong. If the games are FUN, that is all that matters.

[pgarfunkle]

In the games I've seen in my local gw its one check per weapon that causes a wound.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

That is so obviously wrong I can't believe it's even on the table as an argument. If we played it that way in my group the two Tau armies there would probably have the enemy mostly frozen in place for a huge chunk of the game.

Do you guys take a morale check for every guy who died to bring you below 25% in the shooting phase too?

When you lose a close combat by 4 models do you take 4 break tests?

Throne, I can't believe this is viable. You guys must play with some poor Tau players to allow this and not think it's horribly busted.

[Nabterayl]

If we played it that way in my group the two Tau armies there would probably have the enemy mostly frozen in place for a huge chunk of the game.
A fire warrior squad can cram a maximum of fourteen pulse carbines into the unit. Natively, that's an average of 1.36 unsaved wounds landed on a unit of space marines, who will then have a 78% chance of passing their Pinning test. This is as opposed to the 83% chance of passing their Pinning test under a one-test system.

If you bump up the fire warriors to BS5, that's 2.29 unsaved wounds, who then have a 66% chance of passing their Pinning test. Let's say you have two more markerlight counters left (say you fired a full-strength Pathfinder unit at them) and can take the marines down to Ld7. Then the marines have a 29% chance of passing their Pinning test.

But, even under a one-test system, those four markerlights could take the marines down to Ld5, which gives them a 28% chance of passing their Pinning test.

So I don't really see the brokenness here.

[Rapture]

I think people are jumping to conclusions without actually thinking about the in-game implications. As the statistics presented say multiple pinning checks are not game breaking.

Also, I don't see how anyone could honestly be confused about taking more than one pinning test. If you pass the first, take the next. If you fail the next you are pinned. Do not take any more. Seems pretty simple.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

What other leadership test in the game is like that?

The only thing that remotely compares is when you have to take a pinning check and then a morale check from a particularly harsh vehicle explosion.

Also, mathhammer means nothing in the actual face of the game. The dice gods laugh at your calculations.

The Tau players at my club are very good and I regularly have had to take checks under those conditions mentioned above, with tons of markerlights on me. You neglect the multitude of units that can have pinning weapons in that army. I carry 3 tactical squads, one terminator squad, and one scout squad in my mech SM list. How many pinning checks do you think a Tau gunline can inflict on each of those squads a turn? I have often had to take pinning checks from fire sent from two or three units; in my last game against the Tau this happened, and I took horrendous casualties due to bad rolls, too.

The 3+ save =/= "This crazy easter egg rule is totally balanced because my calculator says you will only fail one armor save." Hey, fellow space marines -- anybody want to tell me the last time you got shot at my multiple str5 weapons and failed 1.23 saves? Mathhammer doesn't take into account the simple probability of things outside the scope of normal math likeliness. Sure, if everything went exactly to scientific average, I would only lose one guy and only take one pinning check after the tau guys only hit roughly half of their shots. But what about those times, which happen more often than we like to admit, where the Tau unit hits 70% of their shots and wounds on 85% of those? What about the times you throw 6 dice for saves and come up with five 1's and a 2? THe chance for one of these miracles/catastrophes goes up exponentially for each time it can possibly occur, and the fact is SM to Tau as the example, it can happen pretty consistently during the course of the game, due to the tau's higher model count and simpler target prioritization and range.

Ignoring the obvious failing that this is the foolish 1-vs-1 comparisons that means nothing on the tabletop, as I mentioned in my last game against the Tau two of my squads took some horrid fire and rolled miraculously badly for saves as the Tau army rolled miraculously well to hit. I lost half a squad to one volley, and 4 men in the other squad to another. Do you really think 9 pinning checks at ld7 is reasonable?

What else in the entire game even happens that much?

[Nabterayl]

Also, mathhammer means nothing in the actual face of the game. The dice gods laugh at your calculations.
Um ... no, they don't. On average over time those are the correct results, unless one of two things is true:
My math is wrong.
The numbers being generated are materially non-random.
Both are possible. The availability heuristic seems a more likely culprit for the perception that the math doesn't reflect the reality on the tabletop on average over time.

I'm aware (as I hope is everybody on this board who has ever touched a percentage) that we don't play "on average over time." But we do balance on average over time. With some standard deviations one way or another, sure. But there's no way to balance a game that doesn't, at the end of the day, rest on this sort of calculation.

I don't want to get into an argument with you about what's reasonable. You and I have never played each other, and as far as I know we never will, so we aren't the people with whom we should be discussing reasonableness. We both know that the language of the rule has been worked over as well as it can be (pretty sure we were in the same thread doing it, too :p). All I wanted to do was offer some more data for people to think about as they discuss what's reasonable with the people they do play with.

[Rapture]

What other leadership test in the game is like that?


The fact that a method only applies to one area of the rules is meaningless.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

So is the fact that it can be isolated and in a one-unit-versus-one-unit situation and reasoned out to be perfectly balanced, when if you change the units in question it can potentially freeze an army in its tracks.

You guys seriously don't see ANYTHING wrong with, say, an entire Infantry Platoon being forced to take 10ish pinning checks per squad shooting at it?

[BuFFo]

A fire warrior squad can cram a maximum of fourteen pulse carbines into the unit. Natively, that's an average of 1.36 unsaved wounds landed on a unit of space marines, who will then have a 78% chance of passing their Pinning test. This is as opposed to the 83% chance of passing their Pinning test under a one-test system.

If you bump up the fire warriors to BS5, that's 2.29 unsaved wounds, who then have a 66% chance of passing their Pinning test. Let's say you have two more markerlight counters left (say you fired a full-strength Pathfinder unit at them) and can take the marines down to Ld7. Then the marines have a 29% chance of passing their Pinning test.

But, even under a one-test system, those four markerlights could take the marines down to Ld5, which gives them a 28% chance of passing their Pinning test.

So I don't really see the brokenness here.

It isn't at all...

Wow... My friends Tau army doesn't get wiped off the board by turn 4 anymore... Its now turn 5... lol.


You guys seriously don't see ANYTHING wrong with, say, an entire Infantry Platoon being forced to take 10ish pinning checks per squad shooting at it?

No, because that is the RULE.

I am not going to break this down like I have 50 times in the past, but the simple things are these to remember..

1) Tests are done by unsaved wounds by A PINNING WEAPON. The end. There is no logical, educated argument here. Its in black and white.

2) Further in the Pinning Rules, you are openly and bluntly told you can take ANY amount of pinning tests in a turn. Period. 1 test, 50, 10000, it doesn't matter.

And I know what you are going to say "Well, its only 1 per round of weapons shooting" WRONG. That language is not found ANYWHERE in the entire book at all. There is NO limit to the amount of pinning tests that can be taken at any one time.

Any amount of tests during a turn has no limit. period.

Why would pinning weapons have a limit? No other special weapon that I know of has a limit. You can hit a vehicle with 4 meltas and you clearly use all 4 melta shots at once. Same for rolling 1's with plasma when you roll more than one. Same goes for pinning weapons. Thats it.

This is pretty cut and dry people.

But being that people still have an umbilical cord attached to 3rd and 4rd editions only means the gnashing of teeth and flailing of baby bottles will never end.


BUT....

As I said in my earlier post, even though I may seem very heated about my position on this, I really don't care what people play as long as the gaming group is happy, and the games are fun.

:)

There, a smiley. So that makes my entire post automatically light hearted by default lol.

[Nabterayl]

You guys seriously don't see ANYTHING wrong with, say, an entire Infantry Platoon being forced to take 10ish pinning checks per squad shooting at it?
As you know, I'm 200% with BuFFo on the rules interpretation of this one. But, in addition to that, the answer to your question is no.

Speaking only for myself here, I want my wargames to be about problem solving, not about balance. If my opponent can lock down an entire infantry platoon most of the time, well, that's a problem. I need to figure out how to solve it. If I can't - if I can only reliably beat my opponents when our lists are of equal power - then I'm not a good enough general. For me, that's the end of the story.

[Old_Paladin]

This was what I worried about in my first post.
This is just turning into the old thread again.
It's the same posters with the same argument.

We all know how Buffo and Nab feel and why. And how Emperor and I feel.
Realistically; I don't see how people feel that in this edition where everything is streamlined (quicker shooting and model removal, a quick decisive combat phase, etc.) the writers actually sat down and said "we've made the game too fast. I Know! Lets slow it down by making it possible to roll upwards of 10x 2d6 one test at a time, per unit, for pinning! You brilliant B*stard, print it!"

[Rapture]

This was what I worried about in my first post.
This is just turning into the old thread again.
It's the same posters with the same argument.

We all know how Buffo and Nab feel and why. And how Emperor and I feel.
Realistically; I don't see how people feel that in this edition where everything is streamlined (quicker shooting and model removal, a quick decisive combat phase, etc.) the writers actually sat down and said "we've made the game too fast. I Know! Lets slow it down by making it possible to roll upwards of 10x 2d6 one test at a time, per unit, for pinning! You brilliant B*stard, print it!"

Your interpretation of what should be isn't really important to anyone other than yourself and anyone who plays against you.

This question is about the rules which are in a written document. The exact wording of that document is what matters and it is ROCK SOLID.

Anyone can argue all day long that' in their opinion, there should only ever be one pinning check but that is no different than someone arguing that Land Raiders should be AV 12.

[Old_Paladin]

Your interpretation of what should be isn't really important to anyone other than yourself and anyone who plays against you.
This question is about the rules which are in a written document. The exact wording of that document is what matters and it is ROCK SOLID.
Anyone can argue all day long that' in their opinion, there should only ever be one pinning check but that is no different than someone arguing that Land Raiders should be AV 12.

Back at ya! Your interpretations should stay with you and your friends ( this is just joking around, and I do mean it in a light-hearted manner).

But really... if it's rock solid with no other way to see it, then why is there a 50/50 split about how its done? It gives phrases that can clearly be taken either way.

Like I said in the last thread, I completely respect Nab's reasons and rule quoting; they were very convincing. Likewise I think Nab understood my reasons, and could see why I thought only one test can be equally supported.
That said, I won't be posting in this thread again; there is no argument that wasn't said in the last thread, which was wrapped up very nicely for the different camps.

[L192837465]

I would have to vouch that the tests are made on a per unit basis, and the pinning checks are taken immediately after wounds are caused.

one unit causes 8 wounds to a 10 man marine squad, they take a pinning check. that same phase another squad shoots and causes one wound, the remaining marine takes another pinning check.

[Rapture]

Back at ya! Your interpretations should stay with you and your friends ( this is just joking around, and I do mean it in a light-hearted manner).

But really... if it's rock solid with no other way to see it, then why is there a 50/50 split about how its done? It gives phrases that can clearly be taken either way.

Like I said in the last thread, I completely respect Nab's reasons and rule quoting; they were very convincing. Likewise I think Nab understood my reasons, and could see why I thought only one test can be equally supported.
That said, I won't be posting in this thread again; there is no argument that wasn't said in the last thread, which was wrapped up very nicely for the different camps.

What I am talking about is not an interpretation it is fact.

There is 50/50 split because people are willing to look past what is so that they can have what they want.

[Nabterayl]

Just to be sure ... nobody's posting in this thread without reading this one (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=173) in full, right? I really feel like everything that needed to be said was already said in that one.

[Vince]

I only count things on BOLS as the winner. I play in austin so what people on Warseer say is not relevant as it is just rules lawerying that if you attempted at a tourney here would get thrown out as nonsense.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

This question is about the rules which are in a written document. The exact wording of that document is what matters and it is ROCK SOLID. The problem is that the wording is rock solid both ways. And in my opinion, it is MORE rock solid my way, coming from a grammatical perspective.

"If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must take A pinning test."

It says if you take one or take a hundred unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon...you take A pinning test. As stated, you can take a million pinning checks in a given phase, I suppose you are all pretty correct in that the wording supports a test for each pinning weapon involved, but as another poster said, don't you think that is a little counter to the entire rest of the game?

There are a whole bunch of areas where similar things are worded more specifically to make certain the interpretations aren't this fuzzy. Why wouldn't it say, "Each time a unit suffers an unsaved wound from a pinning weapon..." etc., if that's the intention?

Nevermind that it runs utterly counter to every other practice in place in the book.

In an edition of streamlining, speed rolling, and other game-hastening simplifications, you don't find the slightest thing off with gunlines full of pinning weapons (like the Tau) having to roll each model's weapon separately (which your interpretation of the rule would require in some cases).

After the amount of effort the rules go through to keep the game simple and quick I am of the mind that something like this that immensely would slow down any sort of speed rolling done normally seems counterintuitive and wrong, and I am firmly planted that it's the "multiple checks for each weapon fired" people that are the ones easter egg hunting here.

I am curious as to what exactly would make the wording of this rule legal to my side of the argument, if it were written differently. I understand you can tell me all day why it is your interpretation that is correct; can anyone tell me why mine is not? (Other than saying, "because it is!" of course).

Personally with the army lists the Tau guys at my LGS run...they would never get a game again, probably. Nothing like the endless Tau shooting phase growing by 10-15% in length due to individual model's rolling...

I know what the rule says but I don't believe for a second that was the intention.

[Nabterayl]

Since you seem to be arguing in good faith for the moment, I'll represent ;)


It says if you take one or take a hundred unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon...you take A pinning test. I suppose you are all pretty correct in that the wording supports a test for each pinning weapon involved, but as another poster said, don't you think that is a little counter to the entire rest of the game?
Yes, that is precisely our reading. One test per weapon that causes any number of wounds. If ten weapons cause ten wounds, ten tests. If one weapon causes one hundred wounds, one test. If ten weapons cause one thousand wounds, ten tests.


In an edition of streamlining, speed rolling, and other game-hastening simplifications, you don't find the slightest thing off with gunlines full of pinning weapons (like the Tau) having to roll each model's weapon separately (which your interpretation of the rule would require in some cases).

After the amount of effort the rules go through to keep the game simple and quick I am of the mind that something like this that immensely would slow down any sort of speed rolling done normally seems counterintuitive and wrong, and I am firmly planted that it's the "multiple checks for each weapon fired" people that are the ones easter egg hunting here.
From a mechanical/speed standpoint, Tau are not that worrisome. A single carbine or two (e.g., from gun drones) doesn't slow the game down any more than one or two special weapons in a squad (e.g., two guys with plasma guns). Yes, you must keep track of how the two "special" weapons did, but we do that for one or two weapons all the time. Even a 50/50 split is not that worrisome - no harder than keeping track of 4 plasma guns and 4 bolters in the same squad.

A whole squad of pinning weapons, assuming they're single-shot weapons (which most, and all Tau, pinning weapons are) is actually faster. Ten fire warriors with ten carbines fire on my squad, and cause six wounds. I know that each of those wounds must have come from a different carbine (because no carbine can cause more than one wound), so I take six tests. It isn't necessary to roll for each model individually, as I'm sure you can demonstrate for yourself. Quite fast.

The game does get slower if you have multiple pinning weapons in a single shooting attack, each of which can cause more than wound (e.g., a mortar squad). No dispute that units like that will slow the game some. Not enough to worry me, personally, but I suppose how slow is too slow is a matter of taste.


I am curious as to what exactly would make the wording of this rule legal to my side of the argument, if it were written differently. I understand you can tell me all day why it is your interpretation that is correct; can anyone tell me why mine is not? (Other than saying, "because it is!" of course).
Well, re-wording the rule would work. For instance, in 4th edition, the rule was "When the firing of a single enemy unit inflicts casualties with pinning weapons, the target must take a Leadership test to avoid being pinned down" (4th ed page 32). That's unambiguously a single test per unit, even if the unit has five hundred individual Pinning weapons.

As I discussed in the other thread (which I assume you've read), the reason I don't find your argument persuasive is because the 5th edition rule (as opposed to the 4th edition rule) speaks of unsaved wounds "from a pinning weapon." The weapon, not the unit, is the unit of analysis. The question is this: has a pinning weapon caused an unsaved wound on a unit? If so, take a Pinning test. In the argument that follows I will call this "the test."

In the other thread, Mkerr brought up the very good point that the test on page 31 is satisfied by a single check. i.e., his analysis goes like this: "Has a Pinning weapon caused an unsaved wound? Yes? Okay, I take a check. Rule satisfied."

My counter-argument was that he was ignoring the time dimension. Yes, the test is satisfied, but for how long? Here's an exaggerated example to help make my point. Turn 1, you take five unsaved wounds from sniper rifles. Using Mkerr's argument, you take a single check, and say that the test has been satisfied. Turn 2, you take five more unsaved wounds from sniper rifles. You don't take a Pinning check. Your analysis goes like this: "Has a Pinning weapon caused an unsaved wound? Yup, back on turn 1. Did I take a check for it? Yup, back on turn 1. Test satisfied."

This example is exaggerated, and I'm sure Mkerr would never use it in an actual game. But it illustrates the reason I don't buy his argument. Mkerr was arguing that the page 31 test was satisfied until the end of the current unit's shooting attack. I don't think that distinction has a sound basis in the rules. I don't see any limiting principle, so I default to satisfying the test each time an event triggers it, however close together in time those events may be (even if they occur simultaneously).

The other argument Mkerr brought up was that we treat other conditionals of identical structure as following a single-check model. He brought up the example of taking a Morale check for losing 25% or more of a unit's models. That rule, found on page 44, is "A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back."

So, to give an example of Mkerr's argument, suppose you have a unit of 20 guys. They lose 5 guys to one shooting attack (25%). In the same shooting phase, they lose 5 more guys to a different unit's shooting attack (25%). Still in the same shooting phase, they lose yet 5 more guys to a different unit's shooting attack (25%). How many checks are required by page 44? Universally the answer is one check. Yet how, Mkerr asked, is this different from my (and BuFFo's, etc.) interpretation of page 31?

My answer, which you may or may not find persuasive (Mkerr didn't) was that the page 44 rule is worded differently. The unit of analysis on page 44 is the unit. Did the unit lose 25% or more of its models during a single phase? If so, take a Morale check at the end of the phase. This test is satisfied by a single check. Did my unit lose 25% or more of its models during a single phase? Yes? Okay, I take a Morale check. Test satisfied.

By contrast, the unit of analysis on page 31 is (I believe, and BuFFo, etc. believes) the pinning weapon. The test is still satisfied by a single check, but the unit of analysis is the critical difference. Did this specific pinning weapon cause an unsaved wound? Yes? Okay, I take a Pinning check. Test satisfied. Next, did that specific pinning weapon cause an unsaved wound? Yes? Okay, I take a Pinning check. Test satisfied. Next, did that specific pinning weapon cause an unsaved? Yes? Okay ... and so on.

Remember that, even though, analytically, we treat each pinning weapon as triggering the page 31 test, in actual gameplay, our powers of logic will allow us keep track of how many individual pinning weapons per unit caused unsaved wounds without actually rolling for each individual pinning weapon individually in many cases.

Is any of that helpful in explaining why I find your argument unpersuasive, and why I find my argument persuasive?

[EmperorEternalXIX]

See, I cannot agree. And here's why: that's not what it says. It says each time a unit suffers unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon... but you suffer all of those wounds, from all the pinning weapons in a unit, all at once -- once your saves are rolled and some are failed. That all happens at literally the exact moment you fail those rolls. This is what the "any" refers to -- any time your unsaved wounds are from pinning weapons, you take the test. The way you are interpreting it, it would say, "Whenever you take unsaved wounds from ANY pinning weapon" -- not "Whenever you take ANY unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon."

Even from a fluff standpoint (which I know is irrelevant, supposedly) this is playing out in my mind rather stupidly:

**sniper hits three guardsmen**
Maybe we should duck! *rolls pinning, succeeds* No, onward men!
We should really reconsider ducking, though, huh? *rolls pinning again, passes* Nay, to war we go!!
But you know...it really wouldn't be prudent... *pinning test again, fails* You know what, now that I see that especially gory wound on this third fellow who got sniped here, let's duck instead!!!

I maintain my point: You receive those wounds all at once, and take a pinning check any *TIME* you take unsaved pinning wounds, not every weapon. The ANY refers to being wounded by pinning weapons, not the actual weapons themselves.

I humbly suggest that we put this question to the rules lawyers at the theruleslawyers.com and see what they come up with.

[Nabterayl]

I don't mean to be needlessly pedantic, but we're getting technical here, so I'm going to break up your post with a fairly high degree of granularity so we can keep everything straight:


See, I cannot agree. And here's why: that's not what it says. It says each time a unit suffers unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon...
It says "If a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test." I'm not sure I agree that you've accurately restated the rule.


This is what the "any" refers to -- any time your unsaved wounds are from pinning weapons,
I disagree. The "any" refers to any time the unsaved wounds are from a pinning weapon. "Any unsaved wounds from pinning weapons," plural, is not an accurate restatement of "any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon."


you take the test. The way you are interpreting it, it would say, "Whenever you take unsaved wounds from ANY pinning weapon" -- not "Whenever you take ANY unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon."
The article is important to me, yes. However, I am not claiming that "a" is equivalent in this case to "any." My claim is that "If a unit ... suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test" can be restated with no loss of accuracy as "Each time a pinning weapon inflicts an unsaved wound on a unit ... that unit must immediately take a Pinning test."

If the above claim is true, then the simultaneity of the wounds is irrelevant.


Even from a fluff standpoint (which I know is irrelevant, supposedly) this is playing out in my mind rather stupidly:

**sniper hits three guardsmen**
Maybe we should duck! *rolls pinning, succeeds* No, onward men!
We should really reconsider ducking, though, huh? *rolls pinning again, passes* Nay, to war we go!!
But you know...it really wouldn't be prudent... *pinning test again, fails* You know what, now that I see that especially gory wound on this third fellow who got sniped here, let's duck instead!!!

I maintain my point: You receive those wounds all at once, and take a pinning check any *TIME* you take unsaved pinning wounds, not every weapon. The ANY refers to being wounded by pinning weapons, not the actual weapons themselves.
We went back and forth on the other thread about the fluff, and this too ends up being something that goes both ways. One way is your interpretation. Another interpretation is this: is a squad more likely to hit the dirt if one man is drilled through the head from an unknown source, or if five men are drilled through the head from five unknown sources? If one photon grenade goes off in front of them? Or if five photon grenades go off in front of them?

The multiple checks can be thought of as occurring simultaneously as well; all they really do is shift the odds that the squad will fail at least one Pinning check. Similarly, if a squad has to take saves from three bolters, a plasma pistol, a frag missile, and a meltagun, we imagine that all the wounds caused happen simultaneously, even though many players will roll the dice several times to resolve an attack like that.


I humbly suggest that we put this question to the rules lawyers at the theruleslawyers.com and see what they come up with.
I'm up for anybody's perspective. If they can come up with an analysis worth reading, I'd be happy to see it. You'll understand I hope if my professional pride prevents me from acknowledging up front that they can lawyer better than I can ;)

[EmperorEternalXIX]

Well we find ourselves in the unique position of both having viable grounds to be correct, which is why I think I'd rather let the legal guys handle it. This is a tough question; it seems apparent to me that it is one way, that the ANY is relative to the moment(s) when you are wounded, not each wound itself; however you all have fairly logical reason to interpret it your way as well.

Personally I would never play it this way as it seems obvious to me from the meta game that it is vastly better than gameplay implies it should be. All of those free sniper rifles on the scouts, for example...I figure they would have at least made you pay a little if all those times I caused a pinning check I should have really caused 3 or 4 (or the times Telion has headshotted two dudes on top of that).

I have put the question to the rules lawyers. We will see what they have to say.

[Nabterayl]

Sounds good. You and I clearly have different opinions about the metagame. The fourth edition version of Pinning was really anemic, so I was overjoyed to discover the new version (or what I think is the new version, of course :p))

[Rapture]

The problem is that the wording is rock solid both ways. And in my opinion, it is MORE rock solid my way, coming from a grammatical perspective.

"If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must take A pinning test."


Exactly. A wound from A pinning weapon causes A pinning test.

If a unit receives 5 wounds from 3 pinning weapons they take 3 tests. If they receive 5 wounds from 1 pinning weapon they take 1 test.


Nevermind that it runs utterly counter to every other practice in place in the book.

I know what the rule says but I don't believe for a second that was the intention.

Unfortunately we have no way of knowing their true intentions. So we go by what we have. Whether this specific test goes against all of the others in the book is insignificant. The wording is clear. There is no room for argument.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

No, it says ANY wounds from a pinning weapon causes A pinning test. 1 wound or 100 wounds...one test. At least, that is my contention.

The fact that it runs counterintuitive to every other last bit of the streamlining aesthetic in the game notwithstanding, of course.

[Rapture]

No, it says ANY wounds from a pinning weapon causes A pinning test. 1 wound or 100 wounds...one test. At least, that is my contention.

The fact that it runs counterintuitive to every other last bit of the streamlining aesthetic in the game notwithstanding, of course.

I did not read the rule clearly. You are absolutely correct.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

Your reading of it wasn't really incorrect, and hence our problem lies. It is technically correct to read this either way. Hopefully the rules lawyers will be able to reason out the actual grammar, because technically, both sides of the argument have equal ground to dispute the wording.

[Rapture]

Now I get more confused about this one each time I look into it.

Any wounds from a pinning weapon cause a pinning test.

I think these are the important parts of the rule. I keep going back and forth.

Any wound from a weapon causes a pinning test.

Seems to support multiple tests again.

[Nabterayl]

I think "any unsaved wounds" in this context clearly means "one or more." That's what it would mean if this was a contract I was drafting or reading for work, at any rate.

The question is what "a pinning weapon" means. Does "a pinning weapon" mean "one or more pinning weapons?" If so, then each unit equipped with pinning weapons can inflict no more than one pinning check per shooting attack per unit (a mortar battery might be able to inflict one pinning check each on to different units, depending on scatter).

Or does "a pinning weapon" mean "each pinning weapon?" If so, then each pinning weapon may inflict up to one pinning check per shooting attack per unit.

To put it another way, which is the more accurate restatement of the rules?

Each pinning weapon that inflicts any unsaved wounds on a non-vehicle unit forces such non-vehicle unit to take a Pinning test.
Each unit that inflicts any unsaved wounds from one or more pinning weapons on a non-vehicle unit forces such non-vehicle unit to take a Pinning test.

[Denzark]

Shooting is simultaneous. The effects of weapons are simultaneous. If you fired at a transport and happended to pop it with the first thing you rolled, you can't put the rest of the shots onto the squad that bails out.

For me, this would say that the effects of pinning weapons are simultaneous. I don't think there is any way to 'chain' pinning tests. You wound with 8 snipers, it happens at the same time. As a result the troops decide to take cover, brown their trousers, and dig a foxhole with their teeth at the same time (or not) - this is one collective decision and hence one collective roll.

However if hit by 2 different units who wound with pinning weapons, it would make sense to role a second test - it is a different event.

[Nabterayl]

I've heard this brought up a number of times now, and I honestly don't understand it. What does simultaneity have to do with anything? Nobody's arguing that the multiple Pinning tests don't happen simultaneously. There's no mechanical conundrum presented thereby - take n Pinning tests, and if any are failed, the unit is Pinned. No different than the simultaneous Leadership tests required by a diresword - take n Leadership tests, and if any are failed, the model is removed from play.

What is about the fact that the tests happen simultaneously that cause people to read the rule as better restated by sentence 2 above than by sentence 1? Or is this strictly a fluff argument?

[RogueGarou]

Pg 31 of the rulebook states that a unit can be forced to take multiple pinning tests in a turn. They can be forced to take the tests until they fail a pinning test and then forced to go to ground.

For example, a squad of Ratlings fire on a Tactical Squad and actually cause an unsaved wound. The Tactical Squad, as per the remainder of the rule on pg 31, must IMMEDIATELY take a pinning test. They are then fired on by a Mortar Heavy Weapon Squad and take three further unsaved wounds, they must then immediately take a pinning test. Another mortar squad in the same platoon as the first then fires on them and results in a single unsaved wound, another pinning test is then required.

All shooting from a single unit is simultaneous. The effects of that single unit firing on another unit do not stack. For example, Sergeant Bob leads a Tactical Squad. He has a meltagun, a missile launcher, his bolt pistol, and seven troopers with boltguns under his command. An enemy Rhino crosses their path, Sgt Bob says "Fire, men!" and they ALL fire. Sgt. Bob does not say (as in the real world), "Private Timmy, cook the Rhino, Corporal Jimmy, light the Rhino up with a Krak Missile, everybody else, wait for those shlubs inside to come out and then make them dance!" All firing is against the Rhino. A second unit may target the disembarked squad after the Rhino is destroyed but the remaining seven boltguns in the first Tactical Squad may not. The effects of that units actions do not allow them to benefit like that because conceptually, the whole squad took their 3-4 seconds of action and shot at the Rhino. A second unit could gain the benefits of the first units firing by having a Tactical Squad bunched up in one place and then drop a Demolisher template on the unfortunate lads.

The pinning rule seems straight-forward enough to me as stated in the rulebook. If you suffer ANY unsaved wounds from a unit with a pinning weapon, you IMMEDIATELY take a pinning test. If you pass the test, you may be forced to take further pinning tests if you suffer an unsaved wound from a unit which causes pinning later in the turn. If you fail the pinning test, the unit goes to ground and can not be subjected to further pinning tests that round. It is the unit and not the individual model within the unit that is causing the pinning test unless it is an independent character with a pinning weapon or rule. It goes back to being the unit if that same pinning character joins a squad since all of the units firing and the effects thereof are simultaneous.

[Nabterayl]

The pinning rule seems straight-forward enough to me as stated in the rulebook. If you suffer ANY unsaved wounds from a unit with a pinning weapon
See, that's where people like BuFFo and I will stop you. Go back and re-quote the rule. "ANY unsaved wounds from ..." from what? Does the rulebook next say "a unit with a pinning weapon?" Or does it say "a pinning weapon?"

If the latter, what is your basis for stating that "a pinning weapon" has the same meaning as "a unit with a pinning weapon?"

[SeattleDV8]

Just be aware if you're playing in tournements, as many use the INAT FAQ, their answer is this.
RB.31A.01 – Q: Can a single unit firing multiple
‘pinning’ weapons cause an enemy unit to take more
than one pinning test per turn?
A: Unless specified otherwise in the weapon’s description,
no. Only one pinning test is taken due to the firing of a single
enemy unit regardless of how many pinning weapons they
fired or how many wounds they inflicted [clarification].

Not GW of course.

[BuFFo]

Now I get more confused about this one each time I look into it.

Any wounds from a pinning weapon cause a pinning test.

I think these are the important parts of the rule. I keep going back and forth.

Any wound from a weapon causes a pinning test.

Seems to support multiple tests again.

I just don't understand why other people don't have the same level of basic English you, I and Nabterayl have. It is written clear as day. The word 'unit' doesn't even appear in the pinning rules as a 'trigger' for taking tests at all.

This is ridiculous, which is why I say my little piece, and leave it at that.

You can lead a horse to water, but if the horse believes that by changing the meaning of the word 'water' that he is actually drinking 'air', you aren't going to convince it otherwise...


Just be aware if you're playing in tournements, as many use the INAT FAQ, their answer is this.
RB.31A.01 – Q: Can a single unit firing multiple
‘pinning’ weapons cause an enemy unit to take more
than one pinning test per turn?
A: Unless specified otherwise in the weapon’s description,
no. Only one pinning test is taken due to the firing of a single
enemy unit regardless of how many pinning weapons they
fired or how many wounds they inflicted [clarification].

Not GW of course.

As all FAQs, even GW's, its a house rule as any other. I fail to see the significance of posting random house rules in a rules debate.

And please, not everyone knows what a INAT is. I sure don't.

According to Bob's FAQ, yes, each individual weapon causes pinning. See? I can do it too lol. :)


What is about the fact that the tests happen simultaneously that cause people to read the rule as better restated by sentence 2 above than by sentence 1? Or is this strictly a fluff argument?

Its neither. People want to create unfounded rules to support their inccorect 'facts'.

1) There is no limit posted ANYWHERE in ANY 40k rule book that limits the amount of TESTS, of any kind, a unit can make. When you are called to take a test, you take it.

This rubbish about 'simultaneous' tests cannot be made is pure delusional fantasy. Why place a limit here? Lets put a limit on everything else that happens simultaneously in the game.

2) The Pinning Rules actually state, in plain English, that ANY AMOUNT of Pinning Tests may be taken by a unit during the course of a Turn. The Pinning Rule actually goes out of its way to make sure the reader understands you can make 1 test or 50.

Time to cut that umbilical cord people. 4th edition is over.

[slxiii]

"If a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test"
So let's break it down: If 1 unit takes 1+ wounds from 1 weapon, it takes 1 test. So logically, if the unit takes 2 wounds from 2 weapons, that is two tests and so on. The unit of measurement here is wounds from weapons, not wounds/turn or wounds/squad.

later in the pinning entry it says "As long as the TESTS are passed, a unit may be called upon to take multiple pinning tests in a single turn."
TESTS, multiple, implies that multiple tests can be taken at once, assuming multiple tests are prompted before the shooting is resolved.

[Rapture]

"If a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test"
So let's break it down: If 1 unit takes 1+ wounds from 1 weapon, it takes 1 test. So logically, if the unit takes 2 wounds from 2 weapons, that is two tests and so on. The unit of measurement here is wounds from weapons, not wounds/turn or wounds/squad.

later in the pinning entry it says "As long as the TESTS are passed, a unit may be called upon to take multiple pinning tests in a single turn."
TESTS, multiple, implies that multiple tests can be taken at once, assuming multiple tests are prompted before the shooting is resolved.

I think we have a winner.

If the exact wording in the rulebook uses the plural word "tests", then it conclusively that the multiple pinning test theory is correct.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

That isn't conclusive at all; it just refers to prior pinning tests, and has no indication of whether the source of those prior pinning tests. Hopefully we can get an official answer soon; I still can't believe this is being debated.

[slxiii]

That isn't conclusive at all; it just refers to prior pinning tests, and has no indication of whether the source of those prior pinning tests. Hopefully we can get an official answer soon; I still can't believe this is being debated.

the official answer is in the rulebook, look it up.
"If a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test"
NOTHING here restricts multiple tests from a single unit. The single test theory is completely nonsensical, and there is no rule to support it. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong, I would like to know if I'm reading it wrong. But when you simply say "that's not right" without any evidence, you might as well be agreeing with me.

[Rapture]

That isn't conclusive at all; it just refers to prior pinning tests, and has no indication of whether the source of those prior pinning tests. Hopefully we can get an official answer soon; I still can't believe this is being debated.

It proves that more than one test can be taken by a unit in a single turn. When combined with this:

"If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must take a pinning test."

The wording supports the idea that any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon cause a pinning test. Which would mean that tests are caused on a per weapon basis.

I don't know why you can't believe it is being debated. This rule is quite the puzzle. There isn't anything wrong with people trying to figure it out.

[SeattleDV8]

As all FAQs, even GW's, its a house rule as any other. I fail to see the significance of posting random house rules in a rules debate.

And please, not everyone knows what a INAT is. I sure don't.


The INAT FAQ (Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ) was began with the Adepticon Tournament.
This FAQ is the one being used in more and more major touraments ( for example 'Ard Boys)
It is put together by Jon 'Yakface' Regul and his group.
The current FAQ is 91 pages and can be found http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/237519.page here.

My reason was stated in my post, house rule it as you want in your own group, but if you are playing in tournaments be ready you play a single test from a single units firing.

[Rapture]

The INAT FAQ (Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ) was began with the Adepticon Tournament.
This FAQ is the one being used in more and more major touraments ( for example 'Ard Boys)
It is put together by Jon 'Yakface' Regul and his group.
The current FAQ is 91 pages and can be found http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/237519.page here.

My reason was stated in my post, house rule it as you want in your own group, but if you are playing in tournaments be ready you play a single test from a single units firing.

We aren't looking for a house rule. We are trying to discuss what the rules actually say.

[pgarfunkle]

My read of the rule is that for each weapon that causes either one or multiple unsaved wounds a test must be taken. While it could get confusing working out which weapons have caused a would when using mortar squads thats where different coloured dice come in. However as there seems to be different opinions on the topic I'd agree with a rule with my opponent before hand.

[Duke]

We aren't looking for a house rule. We are trying to discuss what the rules actually say.

I wouldn't dismiss INAT FAQ so quickly, it is quite a bit more than a simple house rule... However I see what you are saying about trying to figure out exactley what the rules say.

Duke

[SeattleDV8]

We aren't looking for a house rule. We are trying to discuss what the rules actually say.

What the rule actually says can be seen with good arguements both ways.
At this time there is no winning side.It is a true gray area in the rules.
Given that both could be correct I follow ' Meri's Rule' and use the lesser powered version.
Again, i'm not using the FAQ as an argument, just pointing out that in a tounrament setting the single test will probably be the version of the rule that is used.
Myself and the group I play with do not agree with all of the INAT's rulings , but we do use it to settle rule questions.
Until GW ( which happens very slowly) puts out their offical FAQs

[Duke]

Im going to agree with Seattle, when in doubt use the lesser of... When in a tournamnet use INAT. It just seems too broken to have every single weapon cause a check. I prefer going with RAI when RAW in unclear and I believe that the intent was to have one check from one squad, otherwise units like snipers and such would be disgusting. (Eldar Pathfinders anyone?)

Duke

[Doomgrin]

It does not say a test for "each" unsaved wound, it says "any" (meaning 1 or more). A single unit shooting is a simultaneous activity for hits, wounds, saves, morale & pinning. 1 volley of shots can cause 1 test. Not that difficult.

You only get to force multiple tests when multiple units cause unsaved wounds, all treated as separate activities.

[Aldramelech]

Im going to agree with Seattle, when in doubt use the lesser of... When in a tournamnet use INAT. It just seems too broken to have every single weapon cause a check. I prefer going with RAI when RAW in unclear and I believe that the intent was to have one check from one squad, otherwise units like snipers and such would be disgusting. (Eldar Pathfinders anyone?)

Duke

Agreed

[slxiii]

It does not say a test for "each" unsaved wound, it says "any" (meaning 1 or more). A single unit shooting is a simultaneous activity for hits, wounds, saves, morale & pinning. 1 volley of shots can cause 1 test. Not that difficult.

You only get to force multiple tests when multiple units cause unsaved wounds, all treated as separate activities.

You're right, it doesn't say for each unsaved wound, it says "for each unsaved wound from a pinning weapon"

there is NOTHING in the rules to support the idea that the unit firing it matters AT ALL. the pinning weapon is the unit of measurement, not the unit firing it.

Regardless of what INAT says about this, the rulebook very clearly says that tests are on a wound/weapon basis. No offense, but I don't have much faith in a FAQ that restricts the use of wargear based on modelling restrictions...

[sorienor]

You're right, it doesn't say for each unsaved wound, it says "for each unsaved wound from a pinning weapon"

there is NOTHING in the rules to support the idea that the unit firing it matters AT ALL. the pinning weapon is the unit of measurement, not the unit firing it.

Sorry, wrong. You simply can not look at once sentence in a vacuum ignoring all other shooting rules. Shooting happens ONLY on a per unit basis, and all at once per unit.


Regardless of what INAT says about this, the rulebook very clearly says that tests are on a wound/weapon basis. No offense, but I don't have much faith in a FAQ that restricts the use of wargear based on modelling restrictions...

It's NOT perfectly clear, at all, either way. It is completely grammatically valid to read the sentence both ways.

[Rapture]

there is NOTHING in the rules to support the idea that the unit firing it matters AT ALL. the pinning weapon is the unit of measurement, not the unit firing it.

Good point. I don't know why people keep bringing the idea of a 'unit' in the pinning debate. The RAW doesn't use the word unit at all, only weapon. So the weapon is the determining factor.



Sorry, wrong. You simply can not look at once sentence in a vacuum ignoring all other shooting rules. Shooting happens ONLY on a per unit basis, and all at once per unit.

So the unit shoots all at once, what is your point?

[The Green Git]

So the unit shoots all at once, what is your point?

Let's review the sequence when resolving shooting during a game:

1. Firing units roll a D6 for each weapon shooting to resolve hits..
2. All hits then roll a D6 for each hit to resolve wounds.
3. All wounds are allocated to the target unit's models.
4. Those wounds that allow saves then have saves rolled for them.

With this in mind let's review the pinning rules:

"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."

Notice it says "wounds" there (plural) and immediately after it says "test" (singular).

Normally you do not have to roll saves individually, you allocate them and roll them all at one go. It seems to me that you can have multiple pinning tests per TURN (which is spelled out explicitly in the text on page 31) but only one test per round of unit shooting resolution (implied by the mismatch of "test" and "wounds" in addition to the normal sequence of events).

Here in the Metro Atlanta area every player I've run across only use a single Pinning test per firing unit that causes unsaved wounds but of course multiple units can inflict a Pinning test per turn.

[Nabterayl]

Normally you do not have to roll saves individually, you allocate them and roll them all at one go. It seems to me that you can have multiple pinning tests per TURN (which is spelled out explicitly in the text on page 31) but only one test per round of unit shooting resolution (implied by the mismatch of "test" and "wounds" in addition to the normal sequence of events).
No denying that normally that's the way things go, but isn't the whole argument here that Pinning is an exception to the way things normally work? There are plenty of other exceptions where individual weapons are tracked.

The mismatch of "test" and "wounds" is taken by every multiple test advocate I know of (including myself) to mean that no Pinning weapon can cause more than one test per unit, no matter how many wounds it causes. A single Pinning weapon that causes ten thousand wounds in a single unit still only inflicts one Pinning test. This seems to me to be the most natural way to read the sentence. If I told you, "If a boy other than your son collects any candy from a house on Halloween, he must immediately dance five bars of a jig," I would mean that a boy (other than your son) who collects one candy bar at house A must dance five bars of a jig, and that if he collects twenty candy bars at house B, he must also dance five bars of a jig (not one hundred).