Finals on pinning

[gcsmith]

Right looking at posts most people dont understand how pinning works. Ive been to many tourns and its always the same, you may only take one test of a type per unit per turn, With this pinning comes b4 moral. The rule says if any unit suffers wounds from a pinning weapon it takes a pinning test. Which means if a wound is suffered by a pinning weapon, 1 or 10 it takes a pinning test not one for each wound or each diff unit.

[lobster-overlord]

Not to belittle you or to continue this thread beyond what is there but....

What are your credential that makes you the authority that will end this discussion?

I've been watching all the other threads and there is no definitive answer, save word directly from GW on this which has yet to be issued, save for using RAI and 4th edition as a basis.

[gcsmith]

Apart from every staff member i no saying this even those at warhammer world ive talked to?
I dont see why a unit will be more scared of 2 weps instead of 1 they dont know where the shots are from thats why they go to ground not the ammount of shots. and i like to see an argument against that.

[Jwolf]

Please, not another pinning thread.

Can we have a discussion on something more likely to be resolved, like that Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama will become BFFs and have their own reality show?

[gcsmith]

OOh jwolf, i just dont understand why theres discussion anyway, ive never encounted a pinning problem b4 :p

[Lord Azaghul]

OOh jwolf, i just dont understand why theres discussion anyway, ive never encounted a pinning problem b4 :p

Agreed!!!

[gcsmith]

:P bit obvious u only do one pinning test a turn no matter wat really when u read other moral test rules

[Lord Azaghul]

ok guys i must say all but gcsmith and azgull must have not played wh40k beacuse the rest of u r artards and cant even understand a simple rule im a very high levld tournment player coming second in my last so listen to my advise



Learn to use proper english and grammer before you can people retarded.

[killmad]

lol actualy sez that in the rules i think some one needs to get a rule book

[gcsmith]

Right soz my bad just found 'as long as tests are past a unit may be called upon to take multiple pinning tests unless its gone to ground already' unfortunatly thats still one per unit as u must shoot all weapons b4 resolving any casulties due to allocation.

[Vindur]

Apart from every staff member i no saying this even those at warhammer world ive talked to?
I dont see why a unit will be more scared of 2 weps instead of 1 they dont know where the shots are from thats why they go to ground not the ammount of shots. and i like to see an argument against that.

Imagine this scenario :
You are a guardsman in a 10 man squad. Jimmy goes down to fire from an unknown source.

What about this one
Same guards man same squad. This time Jimmy, Dave,Bob, Steve and John go down to fire from an unknown source

which is scarier for the guardsman.

I personally agree with the 1 pinning check camp but i do think that more than one wound should have some effect maybe a modifier or something along those lines

[Culven]

. . . unfortunatly thats still one per unit as u {sic} must shoot all weapons b4 {sic} resolving any casulties due to allocation.
Why? Is there a rule that states a unit with Pinning weapons may only force one Pinning Check a turn? The Pinning rules state "if a unit . . . suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon {bold mine}, it must immediately take a Pinning test." (Fifth Edition Rulebook, p. 31). Therein lies the source of the confusion. In previous editions, it was a single test from each firing unit, regardless of the number of Pinning weapons. The fifth edition wording is different in that it refers to a Pinning test being triggered by wounds from a pinning weapon. This could be interpreted as meaning a test is required for each weapon which wounded the target unit. If this change was intentional, it is a major change, which is why those of use whom have played previous editions are a bit leary of it.

[Jay Biga]

The use of the word any implies just that: Any wounds. Meaning from one on up. So no test for every wound, just the one test. There is no grey, it means exactly that. (ask a linguist)

Whether or not this is realistic is a different debate. But the rule is clear. Although I agree it could have been worded better.

[Nabterayl]

The use of the word any implies just that: Any wounds. Meaning from one on up.

The meaning of "any" is clear. Nobody is arguing, and I hope never has argued, about that. Here is the question:

One on up per what?

[Culven]

The use of the word any implies just that: Any wounds. Meaning from one on up. So no test for every wound, just the one test.
Right, just one test per Pinning weapon that successfully wounded, as the rule states "any wounds from a pinning weapon".

[AirHorse]

Just read what Nabertayl said, and as I read it the rule doesnt say per anything, it just says if you suffer any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon. Now as I read it does the number of pinning weapons actually matter? Maybe people are reading the sentence backwards, it can change the meaning I think.

If you read it as "a pinning weapon causes any unsaved wounds to cause a check" thats quite different to, "any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon cause a check". As far as I understand it the ordering in the sentence makes it become a collective thing even though pinning weapon is singular.

Like i said in the other thread though, im not the best at language stuff, but its the way i understand it :P

[BuFFo]

Can a mod either delete this thread or just merge it with the other pinning thread?

I like turtles.

[lobster-overlord]

But turtles can't be pinned. They're immune to shell-shock!

[slxiii]

But turtles can't be pinned. They're immune to shell-shock!

That made my day.:D

[gcsmith]

Right soz my bad just found 'as long as tests are past a unit may be called upon to take multiple pinning tests unless its gone to ground already' unfortunatly thats still one per unit as u must shoot all weapons b4 resolving any casulties due to allocation.

This guys ^^ one test per unit but multiple from diff units

[Rapture]

I have spent a good chunk of my time looking into this. The "final on pinning" is that nothing short of official GW clarification can resolve the confusion. Both sides have justifiable interpretations and neither (well not everyone) are ignoring obvious reasons to seek an advantage.

If you want to make a worthwhile contribution start a thread where you ask people to email GW for an official FAQ regarding the pinning confusion instead of this pointless waste of space.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

Learn to use proper english and grammer before you can people retarded. Failure personified, right here.

[Melissia]

That's a common error, even worse is the "before you can people retarded" part. I mean seriously... "can" versus "call"? I find that hard to classify as an honest typo.

[BuFFo]

If you read it as "a pinning weapon causes any unsaved wounds to cause a check" thats quite different to, "any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon cause a check". As far as I understand it the ordering in the sentence makes it become a collective thing even though pinning weapon is singular.

Both sentences mean the exact same thing. Both sentences infer that a single weapon causes a pinning check.

1) Can you take multiple pinning tests? Yes you can. Nothing prohibits it, and if that wasn't enough, right in the pinning rules you are told, flat out and bluntly, you can take any number of pinning tests per turn. You can then take 1 test, 4 tests, or 400 tests at any time during a turn. There is no restriction for not being able to take more than one at once, unlike morale tests. Just like melta, plasma, or any other weapon with a special rule where you can do more than one effect at once, so to can you with pinning weapons.

2) What is the source of a pinning test? Any amount of wounds from A pinnign weapon. Not unit. THis isn't even up for debate for anyone with the most basic level of the English language.

A PINNING WEAPON =/= =/= =/= does not equal =/= =/= =/= A UNIT.

Sorry guys, quit living in 4rth edition.

So what triggers a pinning test? a pinning weapon.
Can you have more than one pinning weapon in a unit? yes.
Is there a limit to the amount of test you can take? No, the rules specifically state you can take as many as needed.
So if you take 3 wounds from 3 separate pinning weapons from a single unit, that would be three test? yes.

Except for plugging your fingers in your ears and making loud sounds and ignoring logic, there is no room for debate here, at all, except for the most terrible kind of wishful thinking.

Its been 5th edition for a long time already. Start learning the rules.

[Melissia]

Buffo, your good-natured and loving posts warm my heart.

[Lord Azaghul]

Failure personified, right here.


Eh, it happens! Better to fail in an attempt then to constantly text type like an uneducated bufoon!

[EmperorEternalXIX]

When this gets officially dealt with, if it ever does, I cannot wait to flip off everyone who that 15 pinning checks on a Guard Platoon from one round of Tau shooting was fair and logical game design.

Fortunately the Tau whiners have all but quit the game since they now have to once in a while move a squad in order to win, so in my area this is largely irrelevant (and for the record the players at my group think this idea of each weapon causing a pinning test is as ludicrous as I do, even those who would benefit from it).

[Rapture]

When this gets officially dealt with, if it ever does, I cannot wait to flip off everyone who that 15 pinning checks on a Guard Platoon from one round of Tau shooting was fair and logical game design.

Fortunately the Tau whiners have all but quit the game since they now have to once in a while move a squad in order to win, so in my area this is largely irrelevant (and for the record the players at my group think this idea of each weapon causing a pinning test is as ludicrous as I do, even those who would benefit from it).

Everyone is entitled to an opinion so there is no need to be childish about people not agreeing.

Anyone who has read both sides of the argument has to agree that each stance has at least some merit. I don't think that people are being 'whiners' on either side. That is why the only way to solve the issue is an official answer.

[BuFFo]

Sorry guys, this isn't a case of 'two sides can be right' here.

One side is wrong, which is the one test per unit camp.

The other side is flat out right, which is one test per pinning weapon.


I mean, for Gods sake, I don't even think the term 'a unit / the unit / any unit' even appears in the pinning rules in any relevant way.


Okay, here is a simple experiment. I have done this to people in my local store who were playing the pinning rules all wrong.

1) I take a model holding a pinning weapon. Is this a single pinning weapon? yes it is. It is one pinning weapon ina single unit.
If you were to take a wound from this pinning weapon, would you take a pinning test? yes you do.


2) I take 4 more models, so now there are 5 models with pinning weapons. Is this a pinning weapon? No it is not, it is 5 pinning weapons in a single unit.
If you were to take 1 wound from each pinning weapon, show me in the rules where you throw away the other four tests?

You can't, because it doesn't exist.

End.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

It doesn't say anything about single pinning weapons. It says whenever they are wounded by pinning weapons. But wounds all happen at once, as with each unit's shooting being resolved as a group.

ANY wounds...takes A pinning check.

[Jwolf]

I believe we're at the inevitable point that all pinning threads reach now. Neither camp is going to be swayed, so let's agree to disagree and move on now.

Personally I'm in the simultaneous occurances do not generate sequential outcomes camp, but I certainly see the textual merits of the other side.

[BuFFo]

It doesn't say anything about single pinning weapons. It says whenever they are wounded by pinning weapons. But wounds all happen at once, as with each unit's shooting being resolved as a group.

ANY wounds...takes A pinning check.

Quote the rule correctly...

Any wounds from A PINNING WEAPON.

"A PINNING WEAPON" is exactly what a single pinning weapon is. Its plainbasic English as to what the word 'A' means.

A = ONE, SINGLE

In my example, where you took 5 wounds from 5 pinning weapons, how did you decide to throw the pinning tests that were triggered by the other 4 weapons?

Show me in the rules where you throw away the other 4 tests? You can't.

Get your head out of 4th edition.

I am done here. I explained how the rule works with clarity. I can't do anything else.

[Melissia]

As much of a jerkass as buffo continually proves himself to be, I'm inclined to agree with him this one time, as evidenced by this sentence:


As long as the tests are passed, a unit may be called
upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn

Emphasis mine. The rulebook quite clearly indicates that multiple tests are not only allowed, but the normal for units which use pinning.

[Old_Paladin]

I keep hearing a lot about this vaunted 'multiple tests per turn' proves multiple tests per firing unit.
The only problem with that is the fact that it proves nothing. A turn is all the phases that a player gets to act within (movement, shooting, assaulting).
Even the one test per firing unit obeys that rule; if three different squads firing at me, as long as I am passing the tests, then I can be forced to take additional tests.

I can also say that units are allowed more then one movement in a turn; as I am allowed to move in the movement phase, and again in the shooting phase, and another time in the assault phase (maybe even again in the assault phase; either fleeing or consolidating). However, even though I can make several moves per turn, that doesn't mean I can make several moves in the same phase (with some exceptions).
And I know that that example is not the same; but it does have similarities. I'm mostly just pointing out that the argument about several tests per game turn, proves nothing, for either opinion group.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

Buffo is hung up on the definition of "A." My side of the argument hinges much more on the definition of "Any."

I don't doubt what the rules say, the problem is both sides are technically correct. I am rolling A (single) pinning test whenever I am wounded by ANY (multiple) pinning weapons. Each time wounds are resolved and it appears I have been suffered ANY unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, I take A pinning test. "if a unit . . . suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test." Tell me how am I breaking that rule, if I suffer unsaved wounds from several pinning weapons? They all happen at once. I have taken several wounds from pinning weapons. I must immediately take A pinning test.

As for the disrespect to those of us who come from previous editions...it is worth noting that before fifth ed came out the GW stores got given a primer list of major gameplay changes that fifth ed was going to bring in, and were told to use this factsheet to prep new players and to of course market things that previously sucked (like blast weapons, for example).

I cannot find the copy of the image I had (in the month before fifth ed hit I was practically salivating for it and came across it one day online while looking for a pre-release copy). But I do know one thing is for certain, because I used that little sheet to plan my entire strategic outlook for fifth edition, and nowhere on it did the designers who made the game see fit to point out that pinning weapons were now incredibly ****ing awesome. It had all kinds of other stuff on it; blast weapons, new vehicle damage table making transports better, even the sniper rending change if I recall correctly.

But nothing about this major change...hmm, must've just been an oversight, right?

They also didn't go very out of their way to alter points costs for any of the pinning weapons in the game, either; the new marine dexes have either free or dirt cheap sniper rifles, ratlings are super-inexpensive as well. I'm sure when the Tau update comes, it will cheapen them as well. They also increased the likelihood of sniper weapons causing pinning as well, by giving the rending rule to all sniper weapons in the game.

Needless to say, this would have definitely been a reasonable thing to include on the sheet. But it wasn't. I wish I could find it.

While this sentence CAN be interpreted to mean multiple checks for multiple weapons, it is perfectly legitimate to interpret it the more conservative way as well (as I demonstrated earlier in this post). No amount of you exclaiming how idiotic we all are is going to change that fact, Buffo -- that is why we are stuck in this cyclical argument.

Regardless, I maintain the point of view that my version of the rules, the conservative classic style one, has more evidence in its favor than the crazy "free pinning weapons on scouts are now the best weapons in the game" version.

[Rapture]

Buffo is hung up on the definition of "A." My side of the argument hinges much more on the definition of "Any."

I don't doubt what the rules say, the problem is both sides are technically correct. I am rolling A (single) pinning test whenever I am wounded by ANY (multiple) pinning weapons. Each time wounds are resolved and it appears I have been suffered ANY unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, I take A pinning test. "if a unit . . . suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test." Tell me how am I breaking that rule, if I suffer unsaved wounds from several pinning weapons? They all happen at once. I have taken several wounds from pinning weapons. I must immediately take A pinning test.

As for the disrespect to those of us who come from previous editions...it is worth noting that before fifth ed came out the GW stores got given a primer list of major gameplay changes that fifth ed was going to bring in, and were told to use this factsheet to prep new players and to of course market things that previously sucked (like blast weapons, for example).

I cannot find the copy of the image I had (in the month before fifth ed hit I was practically salivating for it and came across it one day online while looking for a pre-release copy). But I do know one thing is for certain, because I used that little sheet to plan my entire strategic outlook for fifth edition, and nowhere on it did the designers who made the game see fit to point out that pinning weapons were now incredibly ****ing awesome. It had all kinds of other stuff on it; blast weapons, new vehicle damage table making transports better, even the sniper rending change if I recall correctly.

But nothing about this major change...hmm, must've just been an oversight, right?

They also didn't go very out of their way to alter points costs for any of the pinning weapons in the game, either; the new marine dexes have either free or dirt cheap sniper rifles, ratlings are super-inexpensive as well. I'm sure when the Tau update comes, it will cheapen them as well. They also increased the likelihood of sniper weapons causing pinning as well, by giving the rending rule to all sniper weapons in the game.

Needless to say, this would have definitely been a reasonable thing to include on the sheet. But it wasn't. I wish I could find it.

While this sentence CAN be interpreted to mean multiple checks for multiple weapons, it is perfectly legitimate to interpret it the more conservative way as well (as I demonstrated earlier in this post). No amount of you exclaiming how idiotic we all are is going to change that fact, Buffo -- that is why we are stuck in this cyclical argument.

Regardless, I maintain the point of view that my version of the rules, the conservative classic style one, has more evidence in its favor than the crazy "free pinning weapons on scouts are now the best weapons in the game" version.

The fact that you take every opportunity to point out specific situations that you don't like really weakens your argument. Just because something is stronger than you think it is should have no impact on your though process in this situation. Ratlings are cheap, we know. Sniper rifles are free for Marine scouts, we know. Those things have nothing to do with the rule.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

You say that, but clearly, these things that I have mentioned are a sign that pinning surely is not the best shooting trait in the game. Also, for what it is worth, there are a substantial 6 other paragraphs in my post that mention neither of those things.

In my SM list I run a full 10-man scout squad with Telion at the helm, all snipers. I am very pleased that the sniper rifles are free, thank you very much, and I don't disagree with it at all, because they are BS3 and PINNING WEAPONS AREN'T AS GOOD AS EVERYONE THINKS.

Do you honestly think GW, masters of the overnerf, would really make a weapon so easily fielded en masse that good, while simultaneously doing the other downscaling the rest of fifth edition has brought?

You may not consider my remarks as valid directly to the rules argument but the points I made about the actual units mentioned are valid; both codices were written after 5th released and have been costing these things relatively the same as they have been in previous editions. The same cannot be said for the likes of power fists, dedicated transports, or plasma guns and blast weapons. All of these things were altered by the rules or the meta game and their costs have reflected as much; yet they decide to just wing it with the sniper/pinning weapons? The idea is absurd, and I make my case accordingly.

Obviously neither side is misinterpreting the rule; otherwise this argument wouldn't be so vague. As I pointed out in my previous post, tell me how I am not following the verbage of that rule to the letter in my interpretation? You also are not giving any credence to the feature list I mentioned that preceded the 5th ed rulebook; it said nothing about this very major change to gameplay but mentioned almost every other difference from 4th ed to 5th ed I can think of. I am sure someone (probably Culven, he is very knowledgeable) may have seen the sheet to which I refer and can vouch for this fact.

Why would they change the rule so drastically and not mention it on that sheet? Or on any of the "adapting to 5th edition" tactica articles? Or on...anything? At the very least, wouldn't GW be trying to cash in on it by making some cool new units with the pinning rule, like they have with Outflank?

You can argue that my meta game points are not relevant but I think they are a pretty big indication of RAI; obviously they were not meant to be as good as this rules interpretation would make them.

[Nabterayl]

In my SM list I run a full 10-man scout squad with Telion at the helm, all snipers. I am very pleased that the sniper rifles are free, thank you very much, and I don't disagree with it at all, because they are BS3 and PINNING WEAPONS AREN'T AS GOOD AS EVERYONE THINKS.
Have you, by chance, run any games under the multiple-test system? If you have, have you run enough that players can get a feel for the way the multiple-test system changes the game? How did you find it? Overpowering?

I ask because my group has been playing multiple-test for a long time and none of us are impressed with pinning weapons even when running test lists specifically designed to cheese them. Groups vary, of course, but you seem very sure that the multiple-test system somehow breaks the game, without ever explaining that it has, in fact, broken your local metagame. I humbly suggest that it would be more useful to the readers of threads like these (and elevate the tone of threads like these) if people stuck to discussing instances of overpoweredness that they have actually experienced.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I have had times when I inflicted one check a game with that unit and have subsequently won. Recently, Telion actually broke through a Chimera's armor. I've also used him to pin a Guard command squad by blowing away it's leader. The things I have accomplished with that squad would be magnified by ten fold if I played it the way as assumed here.

While it might be more useful to players reading this thread, I am debating the rule, and using it's level of relative power as a side to my argument. These weapons would not be priced as they are if they were this good. Sure it's not going to be game-breaking -- but it's still better than a lot of things and the cost doesn't even remotely reflect that.

Unless someone can tell me how exactly playing it the way my group does breaks the rule, then all debate about the relevance of my criteria is really not directly relevant.

[MarshalAdamar]

Learn to use proper english and grammer before you can people retarded.

Hate to point it out, but…

"before you can people retarded" is not proper English (it’s capitalized) and not proper grammar either since you cannot “can” people retarded.

Just say'n

[Rapture]

Unless someone can tell me how exactly playing it the way my group does breaks the rule, then all debate about the relevance of my criteria is really not directly relevant.
Since this discussion is all about using impartial logical thinking to determine the most accurate interpretation of the rule then the relevance is relevant (?). The way you are arguing makes you seem very biased and that makes your opinion less valuable.

Just saying.

[Nabterayl]

While it might be more useful to players reading this thread, I am debating the rule, and using it's level of relative power as a side to my argument. These weapons would not be priced as they are if they were this good. Sure it's not going to be game-breaking -- but it's still better than a lot of things and the cost doesn't even remotely reflect that.

Unless someone can tell me how exactly playing it the way my group does breaks the rule, then all debate about the relevance of my criteria is really not directly relevant.
Right, but ... it sounds like you haven't actually played with multiple-test pinning, so you're only conjecturing about its level of relative power.

The point about your criteria is that nobody is trying to tell your group how to play. The point of the thread is to help readers help their groups decide how they want to play.

[Old_Paladin]

...the relevance is relevant(?)

Just saying.

This line made my day.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

Right, but ... it sounds like you haven't actually played with multiple-test pinning, so you're only conjecturing about its level of relative power. Yes, but I don't need a playtest to know that this setup is more powerful than the way my group plays. I hardly think they would improve any weapon in the game while lowering their general costs.

[Melissia]

Yes, but I don't need a playtest to know that this setup is more powerful than the way my group plays. I hardly think they would improve any weapon in the game while lowering their general costs.
Lasguns are both cheaper (individual Guardsmen are cheaper) and better (with Orders) than they were in the previous codex. Same with flamers in all Imperial armies.

[Mobious]

Oh man this argument is crazy!! :D While both sides have their points I have to agree with Buffo on this. I don't care how powerful it will be (which is not very), or that the weapons got better and cheaper, or any of those judgment calls; because in the end it is not our call (so no more of that). We either play by the rules or we do not.

I can see how Buffo's presentation could get you amped but the fact is that he is right, and he has the stronger argument. It says pinning WEAPON, where is the argument against this point? I really do not see where two pinning weapons are not allowed to cause two pinning checks. It is just wild.

Question that really proves nothing but I want to say it anyway . . . I am not sure how GW writes their rules but, would it have been that hard to just copy and paste the 4th edition rule into the 5th edition book? I has obviously changed right? Cannot be sure since I was not around for 4th, but if they changed the wording then doesn't that mean that the rule has changed, or did they just screw it up that badly?

Anyway . . . the real problem here is Games Workshop. If anything should be uncontested it should be the rules right? Why don't other hobbies have such heated debates over rules? Picture football with these issues . . .

Player A: "No, no, no!! The quarter landed with heads facing the ground, therefore it landed ON heads." :D
Player B: "Thats not the way it is supposed to be played."
Player A: "The rules say different pal."

So why doesn't stuff like this happen? Oh cause the NFL and every other hobby has real rules and real rules support. How cool would it be if at this moment I could go to GW's website, click on a RULES link, type in this issue, and have an immediate answer. Not even immediate, I will give them a week, scratch that a month. And then all their answers can sit there on the internet waiting for some curious 40k soul to peek through and be satisfied. Only downfall . . . this section of the Lounge would not exist and I would have to start working on my research paper.;)