PDA

View Full Version : Sniper Rifles



Javin
08-04-2009, 07:41 PM
Does a unit have to take a pinning test for each sniper wound or one over all?

grimm
08-04-2009, 08:33 PM
Yes and no.

If you deal two wounds from a sniper squad on a single unit, it only needs to take one pinning check.

If you deal one wound from two different sniper squads on the same unit, it will require two pinning checks.

Diagnosis Ninja
08-05-2009, 05:03 AM
The rule, straight from the book for pinning is:
"If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test." - page 31

I say that if you have 10 sniper rifles in a squad, you can potentially cause 10 pinning tests.

It gets more complex with stuff like War walkers and Eldar Missile Launchers firing plasma. Here, I would suggest doing each blast weapon separately, and then take a pinning test for each missile launcher that caused unsaved wounds.

vman
08-05-2009, 06:42 AM
The rule, straight from the book for pinning is:
"If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test." - page 31

I say that if you have 10 sniper rifles in a squad, you can potentially cause 10 pinning tests.

It gets more complex with stuff like War walkers and Eldar Missile Launchers firing plasma. Here, I would suggest doing each blast weapon separately, and then take a pinning test for each missile launcher that caused unsaved wounds.

Damn i totally forgot eldar missile launchers cause pinning !!! this, coming from an eldar player

LOOOOL

grimm
08-05-2009, 07:40 AM
The rule, straight from the book for pinning is:
"If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test." - page 31

A singular pinning test. It does not say that "for every unsaved wound from a pinning weapon, you take a pinning test."

So refer to the second post.

Diagnosis Ninja
08-05-2009, 11:28 AM
That's a direct quote from the rulebook mate. If it's worded like that, then what's the significance in the change since 4th edition, where there:
1: Had to be a casualty.
2:Refers to units causing wounds.

Hell, the wording in 4th Edition 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" - Page 32, Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook.

"If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test." - page 31, Warhammer 40,000 5th Edition Rulebook.

Now, compare this with the wording in 5th edition. It refers to unsaved wounds from a weapon. Why bother making the change unless something had changed?

My example of the rules is quite simple:

I'm using Scouts with sniper rifles. 5 hit, and we'll say 3 wound. Now, we'll say it's against guard. the squad makes it's 3 saves, passing one. By now, their squad has just taken two unsaved wounds, each from a different pinning weapon. Given the wording in 5th edition, how is that not two pinning tests?

Trinity
08-05-2009, 01:54 PM
The rule, straight from the book for pinning is:
"If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test." - page 31

I say that if you have 10 sniper rifles in a squad, you can potentially cause 10 pinning tests.

It gets more complex with stuff like War walkers and Eldar Missile Launchers firing plasma. Here, I would suggest doing each blast weapon separately, and then take a pinning test for each missile launcher that caused unsaved wounds.

I think its a single pinning test per unit that caused wounds not per wound.

T.

Old_Paladin
08-05-2009, 03:13 PM
I'm going with the group that says you take a single test (most of the time).

The important word is any wounds (ie. it doesn't matter if one take one or a hundred). The other important word is weapon, singular. If you take several unsaved sniper wounds, they are all from one kind of weapon, so only one test; however, say a guard squad causes unsaved wounds with both a mortar and sniper rifle, you'd take 2 pinning tests (from two different weapons).

But that's just my two imperial credits.

Trinity
08-05-2009, 03:17 PM
Old Paladin

I think that is actually a very spot on interpetation of the rule.

Nabterayl
08-05-2009, 03:31 PM
I incline towards the one-test-per-weapon answer. 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 main question, to my mind, is this: what causes Pinning tests?

In 4th edition, the answer to that question was "the firing of a single enemy unit" which "inflict[ed] casualties with pinning weapons."

In 5th edition, I believe the answer to that question is, "the fire of the pinning weapon" that inflicted "unsaved wounds" (emphasis added). The text does not read "the fire of the pinning weapon(s)" or "the fire of the unit." [EDIT: I would probably agree with Old Paladin if that were all the rule said. But it specifically picks out "the pinning weapon" that caused the test, which causes me to read the rule as stating that the cause of a Pinning test should be traced back to a particular individual weapon.]

The single-test position, as I understand it, advocates one of the following two positions:

"Pinning weapons do not cause Pinning tests; the shooting of a unit equipped with pinning weapons, one or more of which caused an unsaved wound, causes Pinning tests."
"All wounds from a single unit's pinning weapons are resolved simultaneously, and multiple tests of any kind can only be taken if the triggering events do not occur simultaneously, therefore even though each successfully wounding pinning weapon in a unit causes a Pinning test, only one test need be taken."

I disagree with each of these positions for the following reasons.

The first seems to me like a case of saying that the fifth edition language, despite being different from the fourth edition language, means the same thing. I do not find that persuasive. "The firing of a single enemy unit" does not, in my mind, mean the same thing as "the fire of the pinning weapon" or "a pinning weapon."

The second seems to me a case of making up a rule (the idea that simultaneous tests of the same type need only be rolled for once) that is not found anywhere in the rulebook. There exist in the game situations which might feel similar, such as the Morale test for taking 25% casualties in a single non-Assault phase, but that rule specifies that the test is taken at the end of the phase. The pinning rule, on the other hand, specifies that the test is taken "immediately," and specifies that multiple tests may be taken per turn unless the unit has gone to ground (either voluntarily or from pinning).

There seems to be a school of thought that thinks that "simultaneously" somehow means "as a single event." This is simply not true. Simultaneous events happen at the same time, but that's all. They don't need to have the same result. This is true even if the events are identical. Consider, for instance, the effect of eight shots from four heavy bolters in a devastator squad hitting a trukk. All eight shots came from the same squad and are part of the same shooting attack, so they occur simultaneously. All eight shots have the same Strength and are opposed by the same Armor Value, so each hit is an identical event. Yet in this situation most players find it intuitively obvious that each of these simultaneous, identical events must be resolved individually.

I don't see the principle in the fifth edition rulebook that makes Pinning any different.

Diagnosis Ninja
08-05-2009, 06:48 PM
:O Someone who agrees? yay!

Anyway, that's pretty much the argument I was trying to make, but didn't have the time/ wordage to make :P

As for OldPaladin's POV, where they are all the same kind of weapon, I still have to argue. Even though they are all the same, they're all different instances of the same type of gun. Hell, for a real world argument, I know fine well I'd be a lot more likely to dive for cover if there were 2 or 3 snipers, instead of just 1.

By referencing the weapon when talking about causing a pinning test, it says to me that you apply the rules for pinning for each time the rule is referenced in a summary. Unfortunately, every argument I'm thinking of revolves around describing similarities in Object Oriented programming, and in general programming skills, and I'm not describing all of that as well, unless you really want me to, of course :P

Old_Paladin
08-05-2009, 07:09 PM
I think the real world argument weakens your point.
How are you supposed to know that it's 3 snipers after you, and not a single master sniper, or 15 guys with AK's pretty far away.
Snipers pin because of the scary 'unknown' factor of the attack; you'd be a lot more level headed if it was "Ok, it's 3 snipers. One in the library, one in the bell tower, one in the burnt out car." The pinning comes from the, "Holy crap, where did that come from!"
And again, my point about several different kinds of weapon, "Crap, we got snipers somewhere, everybody down. **Boom** Oh No, Mortars have us ranged... what do we do?!?"

Lord Anubis
08-05-2009, 07:51 PM
Using that same logic, however, it makes sense that more sniper wounds would lead to a greater chance of the unit diving for cover.

With their high leadership, a Space Marine squad will probably not be rattled by a single sniper shot. Half a dozen shots, however, would mean half a dozen leadership tests and a "realistically" greater chance they'd take cover.

I think Nabterayl has a fairly solid interpretation of the rule, especially showing how the wording has been changed. I know this is not how it used to work, but under this reasoning several units become a much more viable choice (Scouts with sniper rifles, ratlings, Kroot hunters, etc.).

Slann
08-05-2009, 08:12 PM
4th edition is no longer valid and has no weight in this dispute its old out dated and had a different team of people play testing and coming up with the wording . The only word that can hold weight is the current 5th edition rule set or any official
FAQ posted to replace 5th edition text . So please stop trying to bring up old rules to confuse the topic .

Every tournament I have gone too including GW tournaments have played it where you take one test per squad firing at you not per wound from said squads .

Having more shots means more of a chance to score that wound to cause the pinning check that's the advantage to a squad of snipers .

Lord Anubis
08-05-2009, 08:20 PM
Yes, that's correct-- 4th edition isn't valid anymore. Which is why it's often helpful to look and see how rules were changed from 4th to 5th, since a change implies things work differently now.

After all, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

No one is saying follow 4th edition rules. They're saying the rule was X, now it is Y. Which implies it should no longer have result X.

Nabterayl
08-05-2009, 09:11 PM
Lord Anubis is right. In case of ambiguity, it's relevant that the wording has changed.

Still, I'll stand by my analysis of the fifth edition wording all on its own. Can somebody from the single-test camp explain how the language supports their position, and why my analysis is incorrect?

BuFFo
08-06-2009, 02:12 AM
As I have said countless times around the net....

1) you take a single pinning test per pinning weapon that causes any amount of unsaved wounds. I don't know where people are reading the words 'pinning weaponS' or 'unit' as neither ever appears in the pinning rules as a trigger for a pinning test.

2) Further in the pinning rules you are told overtly that, YES, you can take more than one pinning test during the turn. So whether you are taking one million tests at ONCE or one million tests spread out over the turn the rules don't care.

The English presented to me in the pinning rules is pretty obvious. I honestly do not understand how people are getting only a single test from a volley of 5 pinning weapons.

Either its people who liked how it was played in 4th and refuse to accept change or they just don't understand what the words 'a pinning weapon' means as a trigger for the test.

Funny.... people for a decade complain how pointless pinning was, and now that it is actually a viable tactic to use, BAM, people refuse to accept it.... What the hell is it with the pinning hate?

Diagnosis Ninja
08-06-2009, 02:56 AM
Damn, I had about seven paragraphs wrote out in the quick reply, and "the token expired", whatever that means, so I lost it. I'll try and retype it later, but I need to sort some stuff out for later now.

BuFFo: Ha, I don't think we've got that far yet, I think we're still trying to convince everyone here that the idea is plausible :/ You have hit the nail on the head though.

ZenPaladin
08-06-2009, 08:19 AM
Soooo...

Your saying I should get all my firewarriors with carbines because every wound would force a pinning test? Even if you guys have it interpreted corectly do you think I would be able to get that to fly with people?

What ever happend to the Rulz Boyz? You guys ever try sening them an E-mail? I know I did on WBB and Sweeping Advance and sadly many weeks latter did get a responce.

Tarion
08-06-2009, 09:59 AM
Soooo...

Your saying I should get all my firewarriors with carbines because every wound would force a pinning test? Even if you guys have it interpreted corectly do you think I would be able to get that to fly with people?

What ever happend to the Rulz Boyz? You guys ever try sening them an E-mail? I know I did on WBB and Sweeping Advance and sadly many weeks latter did get a responce.
I've heard of people contacting them twice and getting two opposing answers. Contacting GW tends to be a bit of a mess.

Anyway, I'm a strong proponent of the "Pinning weapon causes wound = Pinning test. Multiple weapons = Multiple tests" PoV. Mainly, because its the one the rules support ;)

BuFFo
08-06-2009, 10:05 AM
Soooo...

Your saying I should get all my firewarriors with carbines because every wound would force a pinning test? Even if you guys have it interpreted corectly do you think I would be able to get that to fly with people?

What ever happend to the Rulz Boyz? You guys ever try sening them an E-mail? I know I did on WBB and Sweeping Advance and sadly many weeks latter did get a responce.

Yes you should!

You do the same with your pathfinders and their marker lights right? You get a squad of identical weapons and hope to get stacked effects from them. So load up on carbines, and try to pin a unit. Pinning works now, so whats the problem?

And why do you need rulez boyz? The pinning rules leave no ambiguity. The only ambiguity is lost love for an edition past!

Trinity
08-06-2009, 12:15 PM
My problem with taking a pinning test for each pinning weapon wound comes down to the rule itself and how the mechanics of the turn go.

You roll to hit.
You roll all like to wounds together.
Then the opponent assigns the wounds to models in the squad based on being differently equipped or not. Then he rolls all like groups together for saves.

Then you check to see if any of the unsaved wounds were from a pinning weapon. If so you make a leadership pinning test.

You can have multiple pins if multiple units shoot at the unit. Because each unit is rolled as a group.

So that is why I disagree it allows for each weapon to cause a pinning check individually.

T.

P.S. Good discussion so far.

Slann
08-06-2009, 12:41 PM
As a tournament goer I am just telling you that's how it is played everywhere I have been too. I have traveled hundreds of miles to attend different tournys to the same thing , I field mortars so it comes up a lot , I also use scouts in SM , one check per squad shooting . I wish it was not the case cause this would make snipers worth what they should be . But its just not .You can play with your group however but don't be shocked if you go to a tourny and a judge tells you different .

Just a heads up .

Old_Paladin
08-06-2009, 03:56 PM
I think another big thing with only taking one test is a speed of play thing; any number of wounds + single test = fast play.
Anything else = slow.

People would just milk it to their advantage (in a timed game). Look at ork nobs, taking saves one at a time, with re-rolls (one at a time to see if pinning even comes up), then roll moral, then boss-polling moral (cuz the rules do say test immediately after taking any unsaved wounds)... they pass and it goes on again and again and again, until maybe they fail a moral test... then simply roll the rest of the armour save. It's a dick move, but the game would allow it.

Edit: Pinning on snipers is just icing on the cake. The point of the rifles is rending and the ability to wound even the toughest target; if you take them simply to pin, I think you've missed the point.
In fact, with most pinning weapons pinning is just a nice little bonus. Almost all weapons that can't do damage and are simply pinners, they have additional special rules (horrorfex, marker-lights, etc.)

Nabterayl
08-06-2009, 03:58 PM
Trinity,

I don't see the objection. It's not like you can't keep track of individual weapons in a single shooting attack. We do it all the time when units have multiple BS or different types of weapons. We can do it with multiple pinning weapons too.

Slann,

I understand this isn't how the tourney scene works, but while a judge's ruling or tourney rule is binding for that event, it isn't an argument as to what the language actually says.

Old_Paladin
08-06-2009, 04:10 PM
After reading through the full pinning rules word by word.
The rules say "any unsaved wounds... takes a test." That's a test (singular). Many wounds, one test.

It also mentions taking multiple test in a turn, but doesn't say anything about multiple tests from a single volley of shooting.

Javin
08-06-2009, 04:26 PM
SO um, still confused. One squad one pin test? Or does my army of 60 scouts cause potentially 60 pinning tests?

Old_Paladin
08-06-2009, 04:36 PM
SO um, still confused. One squad one pin test? Or does my army of 60 scouts cause potentially 60 pinning tests?

I don't think anyone has reached a consensus yet.
Basically, it seems to depend on what you think, what your opponent will allow and what the judges (if any) tend to go with [and many judges side with: 1 unit 1 test).

Nabterayl
08-06-2009, 04:52 PM
Yes, but it also says the weapon that caused the test, meaning a particular weapon. One test per weapon that inflicts an unsaved wound, no matter how many unsaved wounds the individual weapon inflicts.

EDIT: agreed, no consensus. I think the point of these threads is to provoke people's thoughts so they can discuss with their opponents and gaming groups, which is why I favor giving as detailed an analysis as I can. Your and your opponent's is the only consensus that matters.

Trinity
08-06-2009, 05:13 PM
Trinity,

I don't see the objection. It's not like you can't keep track of individual weapons in a single shooting attack. We do it all the time when units have multiple BS or different types of weapons. We can do it with multiple pinning weapons too.

Nabterayl, nice to meet you.

The objection isnt about keeping track of dice. Thats easy and as you pointed out often done. I was using the sequence of a combat to show why I think it is only one die for a squad not per weapon.

The second paragraph in the pinning rules talks about how to determine if a pinning test is taken. It says ( and I am paraphrasing slightly) if a unit suffers any unsaved wounds caused by a pinning weapon take the test. It doesnt say take a test for each weapon.

So when I read that, to me it is saying make all your saving rolls. Are any of the unsaved wounds from the pinning weapon. If yes then take the test.

Hope that helps to clarify my thinking.

T.

Old_Paladin
08-06-2009, 05:21 PM
My only real problem is the adding of extra words in to defend the many weapons many tests theory. It never mentions 'each' weapon, or every 'individual' weapon.

But yes, it also says 'a weapon' and ' the weapon that caused'

It would be so simple if they had just said "You take a test for EACH unsaved wound" (if thats what they meant.


Now I've even looked up ordanance barrages (as they have special pinning rules).
It says 'the tests (multiple) from barrages (*sigh!*) are taken with a -1'.

They couldn't say the test from the barrage or tests from the barrage could they [since either would prove the rule one way or the other].

Nabterayl
08-06-2009, 05:41 PM
It's ambiguous, no doubt. I'm not trying to deny that. Either way adds words, though. Single-test interpolates "per unit."

Trin, what mostly trips me up is that the rule says " the weapon that caused.". In particular, it isn't "the attack that caused" or "the unit that caused." See the difference? That's why I think we need to focus on individual pinning weapons, not individual units armed with one or more pinning weapons.

AirHorse
08-06-2009, 06:51 PM
Everyone keeps bringing up the change in wording from 4th ed, did anyone consider that they changed the wording so that snipers can pin mutliwound models that dont suffer a casualty? Im on the side of one test per unit personally, i just think its worded poorly in an attempt to make snipers better vs mutli wound models.

Nabterayl
08-06-2009, 08:20 PM
Well, it might be, Aldramech, but it might also be an attempt to make pinning a halfway useful tactic.

Trinity
08-06-2009, 09:24 PM
It's ambiguous, no doubt. I'm not trying to deny that. Either way adds words, though. Single-test interpolates "per unit."

Trin, what mostly trips me up is that the rule says " the weapon that caused.". In particular, it isn't "the attack that caused" or "the unit that caused." See the difference? That's why I think we need to focus on individual pinning weapons, not individual units armed with one or more pinning weapons.

Nabterayl

I definitly can see your point of view. So no worries I was just trying to show why I went with the single check versus per weapon. I have the feeling this will be one of those rules that will be house ruled until its FAQ'd or the next edition comes out. :)

T.