5th Edition Pinning Test Rules

[Bobman]

I thought it was one pinning check per unit shooting like before. But after reading this topic I may change my mind and re-read the rules.

 

I'm just thinking is this something they actually wanted to change drastically (that many pinning checks I believe to be a big change) or is it a 'misprint', so to speak, in the book?

[The Ultramariniest]

I'm just thinking is this something they actually wanted to change drastically (that many pinning checks I believe to be a big change) or is it a 'misprint', so to speak, in the book?

 

I think that might be the most important new idea in the thread. If Pinning were changing this drastically, from something that was neat side-effect to something that you could really rely on to subdue a squad, wouldn't that have been touted before 5th came out? Running, the changes to CC and scenarios, the new vehicle table, they were all proudly displayed by GW and expounded upon. Pinning (if it were in fact by weapon) would be just as big. Scouts and Rangers being able to force a squad to take up to 10(!) tests, that would sell more models. Heck, for my Tau army I would start taking squads of Pulse-Carbine armed Fire Warriors, mark a unit a few times and then force them to take pinning tests at a health -2 or 3.

 

However, going by the precedent set by 4th (yes, I know we are in a new edition of the game, but 5th is as much an evolution of 4th as 4th was of 3rd) I'm going firmly in the "One test per incoming batch of pinning fire". It is simply too powerful when read as a test per person. This is coming from someone who plays Marines, Eldar and Tau, the three armies which have the most readily available pinning weapons.

 

If GW comes out with an FAQ that says that each weapon causes a seperate pinning test then I will merrily abide by it.

 

The last idea I'll toss out now, is that the new wording for pinning sounds a lot like the wording for the good old "Plague" (forget the actual name) rule. I don't have my old CSM codex with me at work, but the wording (IRC) was "If a model is within 6" of a model with 'Plague' then it takes a wound on a roll of a 6". The model effected only ever had to worry about taking one wound, not one per model with "Plague" and that was confirmed by an FAQ.

[Cale]

The problem with your entire argument, Schrodinger, and the reason that you're wrong is that your position hinges on the assumption that, for a single unit's firing, one wound happens, then another, then another.

 

It doesn't work like that. Rather, all rolls to hit are made, then all rolls to wound are made, then all saves are made. Every unsaved wound from a given unit occurs, as far as the game is concerned, at exactly the same as every other unsaved wound from the same unit.

 

There is no sequence--no "first wound, second wound, third wound," as your description requires. All the wounds are simultaneous.

 

You roll saves, check to see if the saves against any pinning weapons have been failed (or if any pinning weapons have inflicted wounds that were not saved), then take your pinning test if necessary. The way the timing works out--that is, because all those wounds occur simultaneously, the writing of the rules only calls for one test.

 

Your entire position is based on a very simple and obvious fallacy--the notion that wounds occur sequentially. When you realize that they do not, it becomes obvious that your position is incorrect.

[Praeger]

Actually Cale its not.

 

Its not roll each weapon at a time, but roll the whole unit.

 

The way your reading it (wrong way) is:

Roll weapon 1 - does it wound? is it pinning? roll pinning test

Roll weapon 2 - does it wound? is it pinning? roll pinning test

Roll weapon 3 - does it wound? is it pinning? roll pinning test

 

Except this ISNT what people are saying.

 

What they are saying is:

 

Roll ALL SHOTS from unit X

how many shots where wounds from pinning weapons? Answer = X

Roll X number of pinning tests

move on to next units shooting.

 

Its never roll one weapon at a time, but just like a number of other instances take the end total number from that type of weapon and roll for it.

 

So it works like this:

Roll units shooting.

Roll untis wounding.

Roll armour saves.

Roll X number of pinning tests

 

Nothing here breaks thje normal shooting procedure

 

However, going by the precedent set by 4th (yes, I know we are in a new edition of the game, but 5th is as much an evolution of 4th as 4th was of 3rd) I'm going firmly in the "One test per incoming batch of pinning fire". It is simply too powerful when read as a test per person. This is coming from someone who plays Marines, Eldar and Tau, the three armies which have the most readily available pinning weapons.

 

Actually thats the reason there is some problems with the rules.

 

4th edition was to be viewed as "3.5" really it was an updated 3rd edition.

 

5th edition is a totaly new game. Forget everything from 3rd and 4th and only read 5th.

 

Plus if we start using 4th edition as precedent then you end up on the slipery slope of 3rd edition precedent, then 2nd edition etc

 

Only use the rules we have NOW as they are the only ones that count.

[Cale]

Roll ALL SHOTS from unit X

how many shots where wounds from pinning weapons? Answer = X

Roll X number of pinning tests

move on to next units shooting.

 

I don't think I was reading his post wrong, Praeger, but it hardly matters. The only justification there was for his post was the fact (presumed) that he was making the mistake I pointed out. Without that error, theres been nothing offered which constitutes support for your and his position.

 

The rules simply do not say anything which resembles what you posted above. End of story.

 

Read the rule again:

 

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

 

What does this mean within the context of the shooting phase rules? Well, it means that you do this:

 

Roll to hit

Roll to wound

Assign saves

Make saves

==>Check for unsaved wounds caused by pinning weapons and remove casualties.*

 

*both of these are direct consequences of unsaved wounds, and come immediately (and simultaneously, for what little it matters) after the making saves part.

 

Now, when checking for unsaved wounds caused by pinning weapons, what are we looking for? Well, that's clear in the Pinning rules: any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon.

 

So, are there any? Let's say that in this case there are. Thus, the answer is yes. Note that we're not looking at how many there are. The book phrases the rule in a binary fashion. If there are any unsaved wounds from pinning weapons, make a pinning test (note the use of the singluar article there). If not, don't.

 

So, we make a pinning test.

 

Now you would have us go and count the number of wounds dealt by pinning weapons. The book does not support this. The book doesn't, in fact, say anything to that effect. It doesn't say, takes a pinning test for each such wound, or count the number of unsaved wounds from pinning weapons and take that many pinning tests.

 

It tells you to check one simple thing: if there were any wounds caused by pinning weapons. If yes, take a test. If no, don't. That's it. El Fin.

 

What you're doing is actually adding lines to the rules which aren't there. You're insisting that they are saying something which a modicum of observation will reveal that they do not. remember: you can only do what the rules tell you to do: no more, and no less. The rules do not tell you to take one test for each unsaved wound. They don't say anything at all to that effect. What they say is to take a pinning test if the unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon. The tenses here are clear: one test is all that is required. Requiring more tests is doing something which the rules does not tell you to do.

[Praeger]

This is the simple problem with your argument Cale:

 

Now, when checking for unsaved wounds caused by pinning weapons

 

You have made it a plural though its a singular in the rules.

 

Its not saying to take a test if weapons pinned, but to take a test if a weapon pinned.

 

To be honest I can see both sides very clearly and dont wish to come across as arguing either side - Im just pointing out the problem with your argument :confused:

 

What you're doing is actually adding lines to the rules which aren't there. You're insisting that they are saying something which a modicum of observation will reveal that they do not. remember: you can only do what the rules tell you to do: no more, and no less.

 

Exactly - but the rules also never say weapons as plural, but weapon as singular. If a single wound is inflicted by a single weapon take a test.

 

Saying that this extends to all wounds inflicted by all weapons from a unit is also not stated by the rule and is adding text to the rule which is not there.

 

What they say is to take a pinning test if the unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon.

 

Exactly. Did you take a wound from that singular weapon that causes pinning? take a test. What about that singular weapon? yes? take a test.

 

The tenses here are clear: one test is all that is required. Requiring more tests is doing something which the rules does not tell you to do.

 

Agreed - but the argument isnt multiple tests, but one test per weapon.

 

Again it never says plural weapons or if a unit fires any pinning shots, but if a wound is inflicted from a single pinning weapon.

[The Ultramariniest]

Actually thats the reason there is some problems with the rules.

 

4th edition was to be viewed as "3.5" really it was an updated 3rd edition.

 

5th edition is a totaly new game. Forget everything from 3rd and 4th and only read 5th.

 

Plus if we start using 4th edition as precedent then you end up on the slipery slope of 3rd edition precedent, then 2nd edition etc

 

Only use the rules we have NOW as they are the only ones that count.

 

 

I would argue otherwise since 5th has far more in common with 4th and 3rd than 3rd did with 2nd and 2nd with Rogue Trader. However I would agree that this thread is probably not the best place for me to go on about that. ;)

 

My (probably) last contribution to the thread would be this: If something that seems incredibly awesome is discovered because of one sentence, my advice to any player or group would be to take the cautious road when interpreting it. Unless the rule is crystal clear to ALL players, assume that the rule should be of the least benefit. If it changes if your favor later, good for you, if it doesn't, you're already playing it as it will be.

[SeattleDV8]

I must agree with Cale..are there any unsaved wounds (plural) from a pinning weapon.... then make a pinning test(singuar)

the big change in 5th is the choice to "pin" yourself...ie going to ground. although you could have to take pinning tests from different units.

[Playa]

Hey,

 

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

 

So semantically, "Wounds" plural, and "weapon" singular are specified to force "a" singular Ld Test.

 

[silly RAW]

Thus, if a Unit takes only one Wound, it doesn't Test, because a single Wound isn't plural! Or, does it just not Test "immediately"?

Also, if it takes one or more Pinning Wounds from multiple weapons - because "weapons" obviously isn't singular - it's safe too!

[/silly]

 

Come on, this 40k RB is no better written than the others, people. The scope for Silly RAW is just as wide.

A little further on in the same rule, is text approximating:

 

"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."

 

Evidently, Alessio forgot his own rule on p24 that g2g has to be declared *before* Saving throws are made.

In this case, Wounds from the Pinning weapon must already have occurred for g2g to even be an *option*!

That aside, was he afraid a player would voluntarily g2g in order to avoid being forced to ... g2g?

 

No, pretending these books are written by people that are smarter than the average gamer is a disservice to the average gamer.

After all, average gamers are writing GW's FAQs for them (which GW then delays publishing until it's quite convenient for them).

And any newb can overrule your most confident and insightful reading of the RAW with a roll-off.

 

At least, they can by Silly RAW . . .

 

 

Playa

[Gaz1858]

Ive got to say i agree that no matter how many shots came from a single unit then one test is taken if required. not 2 or 3 or 5 or whatever.

 

Someone said above that shooting happens simultaneously- so if two guys get shot at the same time the remaining unit will check morale to see if they will go to ground once as it happened at the same time. not twice cause two guys got taken down.

 

And an orbital barrage from a ships lance would be much much scarier than a unit of snipers!!!!

[Schrodinger]

Re. Exclusively multiple wounds:

This point stems from a misquote of the rule. Look it up in the book and you'll find that the wording allows for both singular and plural wounds but only singular weapon. Had GW meant for the weapon to also allow singular/plural then they only had to copy and paste the wording from earlier in that very sentence. We all know GW has mastered the copy/paste.

 

Re. 'First roll, Second roll':

Yes, I am well aware that all shooting occurs simultaneously. The section in the rules which declares this goes on to re-enforce that even though all 'to hit' 'to wound' etc. are to be rolled as a group, there may be times where it is important to distinguish what each individual weapon is doing. To this end, there are two options given: Use different colored dice to maintain individuality or Roll the dice in sequential batches. The example I gave with 'First roll' 'Second roll' etc. was utilizing this second method as allowed in the rules. This is an equally valid method as saying 'Blue die' 'Red die' etc. Indeed, for such a simple situation where each failed save must be from an individual pinning weapon, we could even roll all the dice in a homogeneous batch and count the number of required pinning tests as has been suggested.

 

Re. Simultaneous shooting:

The question I see is thus: Can one apply sequential (order dependent) games mechanics to events that are declared to be simultaneous? The argument against multiple pinning tests assumes that sequential effects cannot be applied to simultaneous events, therefore a single unsaved pinning wound is sufficient to provoke one test, and any further pinning wounds within the simultaneous 'batch' of a single unit's fire are irrelevant for the purposes of the pinning test. I would ask those who agree with this interpretation to tell me how they resolve the following situation:

A squad of 10 marines rapid-fire their bolters at a foul Xenos Vyper. The Emperor smiles upon them and they manage to glance 20 times resulting in 20 rolls of '5' for vehicle damage.

As all of the shots are glancing, you have just dealt 20 weapon destroyed results to the Vyper. There are rules which allow these results to be 'upgraded' to vehicle immobilized if the weapons are already destroyed, or to vehicle wrecked if the vehicle is also immobilized. If sequential effects may not be applied to simultaneous events, how can the 'second' shot notice that the 'first' one already destroyed the weapon? This interpretation of games mechanics would make impossible the destruction of a (previously undamaged) vehicle due to a single unit's glancing fire.

 

My interpretation of the rules allow for sequential mechanics to effect simultaneous events. As a result, a squad of snipers may provoke multiple pinning tests, and that Vyper would be dead, dead, dead! I, of course, understand that both interpretations are equally valid.

[Bobman]

Anyone want to be taught to such eggs?

 

Remember, as someone else mentioned, that these rules are written by average people. If they had to explain each thing in this much detail then it would've taken a 100 proof readers 1000 years to finish the largest book ever written.

 

Now I'm not going to insist that the version I believe is right, just that I'm going to allow myself a bit of common sense.

 

Your all clever people too.

[Cale]

A squad of 10 marines rapid-fire their bolters at a foul Xenos Vyper. The Emperor smiles upon them and they manage to glance 20 times resulting in 20 rolls of '5' for vehicle damage.

As all of the shots are glancing, you have just dealt 20 weapon destroyed results to the Vyper. There are rules which allow these results to be 'upgraded' to vehicle immobilized if the weapons are already destroyed, or to vehicle wrecked if the vehicle is also immobilized. If sequential effects may not be applied to simultaneous events, how can the 'second' shot notice that the 'first' one already destroyed the weapon? This interpretation of games mechanics would make impossible the destruction of a (previously undamaged) vehicle due to a single unit's glancing fire.

 

That's a good point, actually. That does seem to be an analogous situation in which I seem to have played the results as being sequential. I'll have to think about it. I still don't think you provoke multiple pinning tests with a single unit--but the question of whether you can kill a tank with multiple simultaneous immobilized/weapon destroyed results is pretty interesting, now that you bring it up.

[Nuntius]

"Common Sense is not Common." Having said that why is it so easy to accept rolling 5 dice for five weapons to hit and five dice for five weapons to wound, but not five pinning roles? If I fire a Tac Sqd with bolters I role 10 dice to see if each one hits. I then roll a number of dice equal to the number of successful hits. My opponent then rolls a number of saves equal to the number of successful wounds, (or goes to ground effectivly pinning himself.) Assuming he misses any of his saves and does not go to ground, why is it so far a strech to imagine each weapon also requires its own pinning check?

[rexscarlet]

Simultaneously that is a good question!

 

Schrodinger I blame you! lol ;)

 

Your; 20 shots “Simultaneously” fired at a vehicle example.

(How is that played 5th Ed. BTW? Another post perhaps)

 

Units Shooting Dice are rolled Simultaneously.

Units Wounds are rolled Simultaneously.

Units Armor Saves are rolled Simultaneously.

 

So, multiple Pinning Checks from the same one Unit are rolled Simultaneously?? <_<

 

5 pinning checks caused by/from one Unit, pick-up 2 each of five different colored dice and ROLL!

 

Viva le RAW Revolution!

 

FAQ is on the way, by the time the new Dark Angeles Codex comes out, lol

[Cale]

You know, Schrodinger, I've been thinking about this all day, and I think you're right. I was trying too hard, and I messed up. Each weapon causes a pinning test. As rexscarlet points out, simultinaety doesn't matter that much. The pinning test is a consequence of the weapon, just as hits, wounds, and casualties are.

[Praeger]

Ok.....so im in a bit of shock here :cuss

 

Whats the end conclusion for this then?

 

Each weapon causes a pinning test?

[HiveFleetEzekial]

For now, until/unless GW goes back and FAQs it to how it used to work in 4E. Yup, seems like that's the consensus now.

[Brother Marine Dreamy]

Hello, I was in the middle of preparing a rather large dissertation on the RAW implications of pinning. I was coming to some dodgey conclusions, and it was all pretty theoretical, so i'll just leave you with a line from the pinning section which I think is relevant. There is the now famous 'If a unit ... suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon it must immediately, take a pinning test' which has been... discussed here fairly thoroughly, but in the next paragraph is a gem which hints towards the spirit of the rule. "If the unit fails it's test, it is immediatly forced to go to ground .... as this unit has already taken it's 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) -- it's too late!'

 

This rule seems to have an interesting slant to it, it feels obligated to remind players that even tho a unit goes to ground as a result of the pinning fire, it doesn't gain the saving throw. Why is it important to note this? Because GW is aware that players don't roll all the saves at the same time**. They are aware that players will take the reading of the term 'immediately' to heart, and roll the pinning test after each wound. It seems to give permission for this sort of behaviour by describing a situation where a pinning test is failed while the squad has yet to finish firing. In fact, it seems to suggest that the weapon itself hasn't finished firing when the pinning test is taken. So while it recognizes the principal that all weapons fire at once, it seems to give credence to the principal that saves can be rolled after each unsaved wound. ***

 

*Because all saves take place at the same time, conceptually. If you had enough funky coloured dice, you would roll them all simultaneously.

** Page 18 says rolling all dice to hit at once would be ideal, but you can also roll separately for each individual group.

*** For expediencies sake, I would say that one simply roll all pinning wounds, and the required number of tests****

**** Yes, this actually suggests that weapons which fire multiple times, might be able to cause multiple pinning tests. I know i'm a bad man for suggesting it, but the strict RAW is still somewhat ambiguous take the test immediately after you suffer any wounds from the weapon. If it were ment to imply that pinning tests were done on a weapon by weapon basis, wouldn't it be 'once a unit has suffered all wounds from a pinning weapon, take a test for that weapon'*****

***** And yes I know, if it were really what I was suggesting the much simpler way to write it would be 'the squad takes a pinning test for each unsaved wound cause by pinning weapons.' but shush.

[hartnett]

hmmmm

it might be unethical or unsportsmanlike but wouldnt making sombody roll for every pinning wound work for your advantage and could change the course of a game hugely, i don't normally argue about rules or takes on rules that benefit me more than they do my opponent

[Trekari]

You only roll one pinning test per unit, despite the number of unsaved wounds caused by Pinning weapons. If they are shot at by a different unit that also causes Pinning wounds which are unsaved, you would be called upon to make another Pinning test (assuming you had passed the first one).

 

Key phrase: "If the unit fails the test,"

 

The test. Singular.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Aside from the gratuitus threadomancy(BMD. read a posts dates next time before you reply. this thread was nearly a year old already, and no doubt burried by many many pages. if it's more than 1-2 months old, start a new one.)

 

@Trekari: You do, ofcourse, realise units never take multiple tests at the same time. All are sequential. So that argument holds little ground. Yes they failed or passed 'the test' from one wound caused, guess what.. they've more tests to follow that, if they keep passing.

 

Again, till GW comes out and erratas the wording of pinning, now it's per wound a unit causes (multi-shot weapons not counting). In 4E, the wording was rather air tight. Such is not the case anymore. And, if they have any sense or practicality to their 'balancing' of rules, this, surely, is to counter the fact that all snipers now have to roll against their BS to hit, instead of a flat number. That other weapons cause pinning and end up benefitting from it, is just 'icing on the cake'.

[Trekari]

You do not take a pinning test for each unsaved wound.

 

Once you move beyond that point, everything else makes perfect sense.

 

The text of the rules is not "suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon it must immediately take a pinning test for each wound." If you suffer any unsaved wounds from a Pinning weapon, you make A test. Singular, just like the other section of the Pinning rules I quoted.

[Steelmage99]

If you suffer any unsaved wounds from A pinning weapon, you take A test. Singular.

If you suffer unsaved wounds from two pinning weapons, you take two tests. Simple.

 

Pinning tests isn't one test taken at the end of the Shooting phase. It is an individual test taken immidiately each and every tyime you suffer any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

The text of the rules is not "suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon it must immediately take a pinning test for each wound." If you suffer any unsaved wounds from a Pinning weapon, you make A test. Singular, just like the other section of the Pinning rules I quoted.

 

 

Yes, it doesn't say *that*. That would open up the floor to people wanting to argue that multi-shot or template, pinning, weapons would cause a test for each wound that that weapon caused. The way it is currently worded, for example.. a 10 man sniper squad, 10 wounds, with 10 failed saves, would be 10 tests )not likely for any squad to pass them all), yet a 10 man squad each firing ord barrage, can cause 1 wound minimum, each, but will still only result in 10 checks.

 

On the part of one wound per weapon, we agree.