5th Edition Pinning Test Rules

[ArmouredWing]

This is something that my gaming group have debated and, for us anyway, resolved.

 

We now take this rule as a test for each pinning weapon type rather than the weapon numbers. Not sure if it's RAI but it means we get through our game instead of wasting time.

[Isiah]

So double threadomancy now then.

 

A unit must test multiple times for pinning if it suffered multiple unsaved wounds from pinning weapons:

 

• The pinning test is taken immediately after any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon is suffered;

• And these carry on if needs be if the first test is passed yet it suffered more unsaved wounds from pinning weapons;

• The unit goes to ground at once if it fails a test and then it doesn't need to test for pinning further, even if it had more unsaved wounds from pinning weapons inflicted;

 

That sum it up?

 

Cheers

I

[Steelmage99]

From my point of view, yes.

[Legatus]

I will not be with my books for another week or so, but in previous editions every enemy unit firing at your unit could individually provoce one pinning test. You tested once after each "salvo" of pinning shots. Since armour saves for one "salvo" are still rolled for at the same time in 5th Edition (IIRC) that would be the same here as well. A unit of snipers fires at your unit, they lose two models. You take one pinning test. Another unit of snipers fires at your unit, it takes a few casualties. You take another pinning test.

[Steelmage99]

When you get to your books, you will notice the wording of Pinning have changed from 4th. to 5th.

[Isiah]

Well the source of the weapons causing the pinning tests isn't specified, and certainly a salvo isn't mentioned, nor that multiples of the same pinning weapon causes just one test. The critria is simply that the weapon must be a pinning weapon that causes an unsaved wound. As I read it that's any and all individual unsaved wound from such a weapon requires an immediate pinning test.

 

So using your excellent example Legatus, the unit must take a pinning test per failed wound from the snipers (2). If they pass those tests then they might need to multiple test again from unsaved wounds caused by the second unit of snipers (x) and so it goes on. If they go to ground after the first round of (2) tests then they gain the better cover save (if approprite) against the second and any subsequent unit's firing.

[Legatus]

I noticed the rule is quoted a few times in this thread. Very helpful.

 

Hm, "wounds" ba "a weapon"... how about this:

 

Imagine a unit of Spacer Marines got fired at by an enemy unit of devastators or havocs with laser cannons. They score three wounds with the laser cannons and four wounds with boltguns.

 

Now, obviously, this would be a correct statement:

 

"Three models are removed without rolling for a save, as those models were wounded by weapons with a high enough AP to ignore their armour."

 

BUT, would this statement also be correct?

 

"Three models are removed without rolling for a save, as those models were wounded by a weapon with a high enough AP to ignore their armour."

[DevianID]

Well, in both examples 3 models could be removed, but in your second statement you say that its from 'a weapon' but that is not accurate, it is from 3 weapons. Also, in your example, depending on the way the las cannons are allocated you may actually remove less models if wounds would wrap around back onto the same model, but thats minor.

[Grey Mage]

It says wounds' plural' in for in the case of any multi-shot pinning weapons. They do exist. And the wording, nomatter how much you may choose to refute it, says '..by a weapon'. Not by a squad/unit with pinning weapons.

 

The reason for it not to say by a squad/unit with pinning weapons is that a good number of squads are not armed identically, Id say most in fact. For instance a scout squad of five with four sniper rifles and a missile launcher- if the ML wounded, using the wording of a squad with pinning weapons then youd have to test for pinning from the krak missile. Or say from a Swooping Hawk squad with a sunrifle... and 18 other lasgun style shots. The other 75% of the squad doesnt have pinning and thus shouldnt get the benefit of the rule.

 

While its not official, the rules email does state that the pinning test is done only once per unit that inflict a pinning wound.

 

Well, in both examples 3 models could be removed, but in your second statement you say that its from 'a weapon' but that is not accurate, it is from 3 weapons. Also, in your example, depending on the way the las cannons are allocated you may actually remove less models if wounds would wrap around back onto the same model, but thats minor.

Actually be englished as spoken and written in america his statement was correct on both accounts. In each case the wound was caused by a weapon... thus the wounds were cause by "a" weapon. It doesnt imply that it was the exact same weapon, simply that the weapon(s) involved were identical, or nearly so. For instance a dark reapers reaper launcher is AP 3, and thus if you take five wounds from a squad of DRs you can say that you need to remove five marines from your squad as they received wounds from an AP 3 weapon wich therefore ignored their armor.

[Legatus]

So, on ein favour of the statement, one not in favour...

[nighthawks]

which is in favor?

 

I side with one test per unit (intended) But one test per wounding weapon (number of wounds>1 inconsequential) isRAW, as I see it.

[Legatus]

One in favour that the statement "wounds inflicted by a weapon" would be correct, even though it would technically have been several different weapons.

[SeattleDV8]

I concur with Nighthawks opinion.

[DevianID]

The problem with that opinion is that you are saying 'a weapon' does not refer to the singular weapon that caused the pinning attack, instead 'a weapon' is used in the generic sense as in 'a weapon' opposed to a 'patch of thin ice[dangerous terrain]' caused the unsaved wounds.

 

Since all shooting attacks are done by 'a weapon' then it should be obvious that GW did not need to make that distinction, thus 'a weapon' refers to a singular weapon not 'a type of tool used to injure others'

 

Also, were we to support the position that 'a weapon' refers to all weapons used against the unit that cause unsaved wounds, then you dont check for pinning once per squad, you check once per GAME!

 

Example using your logic: 2 squads of 5 snipers each fire at a target unit. All 10 become unsaved wounds. The opposing player makes a single pinning check from both squads because he suffered one or more unsaved wounds from 'a weapon.' Next turn, the unit suffers more unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, however he already made his check for suffering 'one or more wounds' and thus does not have to make the same check twice, since all the pinning wounds so far have come from 'a weapon.'

[Legatus]

Since all shooting attacks are done by 'a weapon' then it should be obvious that GW did not need to make that distinction

Ah, but in this case it is not just "any weapon" that is adressed. In my example it was specifically a weapon with high AP, and in the case of pinning rules it is specifically a pinning weapon. Models suffering wounds from a high AP weapon are removed without an armour save. Units suffering wounds by a pinning weapon have to test for pinning.

 

Also, were we to support the position that 'a weapon' refers to all weapons used against the unit that cause unsaved wounds, then you dont check for pinning once per squad, you check once per GAME!

No, since the test has to be taken immediately when the unit is suffering those wounds. So for every enemy unit firing and inflicting wounds, you would take a test immediately after having resolved the number of wounds.

 

Example using your logic: 2 squads of 5 snipers each fire at a target unit. All 10 become unsaved wounds. The opposing player makes a single pinning check from both squads because he suffered one or more unsaved wounds from 'a weapon.' Next turn, the unit suffers more unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, however he already made his check for suffering 'one or more wounds' and thus does not have to make the same check twice, since all the pinning wounds so far have come from 'a weapon.'

I don't follow. If the unit suffers pinning wounds, they immediately take a test. How would that be limited to a single time the unit suffers pinning wounds?

[DevianID]

I don't follow. If the unit suffers pinning wounds, they immediately take a test. How would that be limited to a single time the unit suffers pinning wounds?

Because the unit already made their immediate check when they suffered 'one or more wounds' they are immune to having to do it again, cause tthey already did it. Basicly, you say that only the first unsaved wound from the squad causes a pinning check, thus all subsequent pinning wounds from the squad are ignored... however per the same english you use you would not stop at ignoring the subsequent wounds of the squad, you would ignore the subsequent wounds for the rest of the game, thus the squad only has to make one pinning check per game.

 

Logically my point is that the argument that pinning checks are squad based and not weapon based fail. It has been pointed out several times that simultaneous events in 40k can be resolved sequentially... thus if a 10 man sniper squad simultaneously causes 10 unsaved wounds from a weapon, they immediately make 10 simultaneous pinning checks, which can be done by making 10 checks one after another if you dont have 10 different sets of dice.

[Legatus]

Because the unit already made their immediate check when they suffered 'one or more wounds' they are immune to having to do it again, cause tthey already did it.

I still don't know how you get there.

 

Rule: If the unit suffers any wounds from a pinning weapon, immediately take a pinning test.

 

Unit gets shot at by enemy sniper unit and takes wounds. They immediately take a pinning test. Unit gets shot by another enemy sniper unit and takes wounds, and... they immediately take a pinning test.

 

Basicly, you say that only the first unsaved wound from the squad causes a pinning check, thus all subsequent pinning wounds from the squad are ignored...

I am saying that if the unit suffers any number of pinning wounds in one go will cause a pinnig check.

 

however per the same english you use you would not stop at ignoring the subsequent wounds of the squad, you would ignore the subsequent wounds for the rest of the game, thus the squad only has to make one pinning check per game.

The rule is: "wounds are suffered -> immediately take a test". You are infering that this can only occur once, and not infact every time the unit suffers a set (as distinguished by being applied sequentially via resolving enemy fire unit by unit) of "wounds", but I don't know where you get that from.

 

It has been pointed out several times that simultaneous events in 40k can be resolved sequentially...

I found one example of vehicle damage table results which was applied incorrectly. It pointed out that you could take rolls on the table in a sequence, and that previous rolled results such as "weapon destroyed" may affect later rolls. But in fact it makes no difference whether you rolled two "weapon destroyed" results one after the other or both at the same time.

Another post interpreted a rule pointing out that "going to ground" due to a failed pinning check would not retroactively improve the saves the unit just took (since "going to ground" usually would have happened before the opponent rolled for his shots) as RAI indication that the rules would recognise an event they describe at different points to happen simultaneously to be played out as a sequence instead.

 

Taking 10 wounds to sniper rifles and then being asked to immediately roll ten pinning checks is a pretty exceptional occurance without any precedence in either any of the 40K editions or the also structurally similar WHFB game. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that is absolutely not what I am getting out of that rule.

 

What I am reading, and have been trying to adduct you to is that "suffering multiple wounds from a pinning weapon" would be a linguistical accurate, if a bit odd, description of a unit suffering a number of wounds which do not necessarily have to come from a single weapon.

[Grey Mage]

Why wouldnt it be written:

 

If a unit suffers unsaved wounds from pinning weapons immediately take one pinning test per wound taken.

 

The way its worded implies that any pinning weapon is capable of causing a pinning test by causing an unsaved wound. Not that multiple wounds from the same volley are cumlative. I can see how it can be interpreted that way though.

[DevianID]

(Emphasis mine)

I am saying that if the unit suffers any number of pinning wounds in one go will cause a pinnig check

 

My point is that your reading 'any number' 'in one go' means that you look at a group of wounds, where your number is arbitrarily choosen as an entire unit's firing-- when the group of wounds from weapons could infact be 'any number' of pinning wounds caused by weapons. You choosing your 'in one go' to mean one squad, I could easily expand 'in one go' to include one game--and since neither of us have a rule to spell out exactly what 'any number...in one go' would mean, my version of 'any number...in one go' is just as valid as your version of 'any number...in one go.' After all, if you cause 30 unsaved pinning wounds in the game, that is 'any number' (30) 'in one go' (one game).

 

The idea behind my argument is not to show you I am right, it is to show a larger example of your own logic that then invalidates your initial claim, as if the logic is faulty it is easier to see with bigger numbers than smaller ones.

 

If a unit suffers unsaved wounds from pinning weapons immediately take one pinning test per wound taken

The reason it is not written this way is because some pinning weapons have multiple shots (Telion's bolter) or Blasts (ordinance barrage). Thus a single weapon that causes multiple unsaved wounds only causes a single pinning check, regardless of how many wounds it inflicts.

[Legatus]

You choosing your 'in one go' to mean one squad, I could easily expand 'in one go' to include one game

And I claim you can't, because the pinning rules still demand that a pinning test is taken immediately upon suffering the "number of wounds". All wounds by a single enemy unit firing are inflicted simultaneously. Wounds by different enemy unit are inflicted one enemy unit after another. Wounds inflicted in different turns are separated even more distinctly. So if you have to take a test after every enemy unit firing, then you have a clear point at which you would take the test. If you were to take multiple tests because of the fire of a single enemy unit, there would be no specific point for an immediate single test, as the wounds are not inflicted one by one. That is why the "one test per enemy unit" fits well with the shooting/wounding rules, as it can be applied in a simple manner, and as I have tried to point out, if that was how the designer wanted it to work (which incidentally would be the same as it worked the past two editions) then he could indeed have clumsily phrased it as taking a test whenever the unit "suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon".

[DevianID]

If you were to take multiple tests because of the fire of a single enemy unit, there would be no specific point for an immediate single test, as the wounds are not inflicted one by one

 

So you are OK with rolling multiple saves at the same time but not multiple pinning checks at the same time?

 

I think your argument is a good one for the implimentation of a house rule among your gaming group--as the evidence of 2 prior editions and GW's history clumsy rule writing give you your opinion that the rules as written for pinning weapons are not balanced and need to be changed.

 

HOWEVER, to argue that the actual RAW support your position that 'a weapon' does not mean a SINGULAR weapon and the english actually means 'the squads multiple weapons' is not logical and I must oppose that statment.

 

As for game balance of which implimentation truely is more balanced, we can discuss the pros and cons of both, and that would be an interesting discussion with lots of supporting math--something I enjoy at least--but I dont think that is the point for this topic.

 

I suppose the problems I have are this...

Assume you have a 2 man tau gun drone unit, Drone A and Drone B. In the first shooting phase, Drone A hits and wounds with it's pulse carbine, drone B misses, and you fail your save. Take an immediate pinning check because you suffered one wound from Drone A's pinning weapon.

In the second shooting phase, Drone A misses, Drone B hits, wounds, and you fail your save. Take an immediate pinning check because you suffered one unsaved wound from Drone B's Pinning Weapon.

At this point both of us agree the above situations are correct, the following situation is where we differ.

In the third shooting phase, Drone A and Drone B both hit and wound, and you fail both saves. I say you take an immediate pinning check for Drone A from A's unsaved pinning weapon, just like the first shooting phase, and an immediate pinning check for Drone B's pinning weapon, just like the second shooting phase.

 

What do you say?

[WolfBitten]

I suppose the problems I have are this...

Assume you have a 2 man tau gun drone unit, Drone A and Drone B. In the first shooting phase, Drone A hits and wounds with it's pulse carbine, drone B misses, and you fail your save. Take an immediate pinning check because you suffered one wound from Drone A's pinning weapon.

In the second shooting phase, Drone A misses, Drone B hits, wounds, and you fail your save. Take an immediate pinning check because you suffered one unsaved wound from Drone B's Pinning Weapon.

At this point both of us agree the above situations are correct, the following situation is where we differ.

In the third shooting phase, Drone A and Drone B both hit and wound, and you fail both saves. I say you take an immediate pinning check for Drone A from A's unsaved pinning weapon, just like the first shooting phase, and an immediate pinning check for Drone B's pinning weapon, just like the second shooting phase.

 

What do you say?

 

Personally I lean towards the one pinning test no matter how many weapons interpretation.

using the above example...

 

Situation 1: Take a pinning test for suffering one or more wounds from a pinning weapon

Situation 2: Take a pinning test for suffering one or more wounds from a pinning weapon

Situation 3: Take a pinning test for suffering one or more wounds from a pinning weapon

 

But this argument is probably going to be one of those that will go on forever until (if) GW FAQS it. Going by how terrible most of their FAQs are, i won't hold my breath. Luckily, I don't play tournaments, so it can be easily resolved :)

[Legatus]

So you are OK with rolling multiple saves at the same time but not multiple pinning checks at the same time?

Yep. Taking a heap of LD checks all at once is absolutely unprecedented in all of the 40K or WHFB editions as far as I know. Rolling all hits/wounds/saves from on eunit or regiment together is common.

 

Assume you have a 2 man tau gun drone unit, Drone A and Drone B. In the first shooting phase, Drone A hits and wounds with it's pulse carbine, drone B misses, and you fail your save. Take an immediate pinning check because you suffered one wound from Drone A's pinning weapon.

In the second shooting phase, Drone A misses, Drone B hits, wounds, and you fail your save. Take an immediate pinning check because you suffered one unsaved wound from Drone B's Pinning Weapon.

At this point both of us agree the above situations are correct, the following situation is where we differ.

In the third shooting phase, Drone A and Drone B both hit and wound, and you fail both saves. I say you take an immediate pinning check for Drone A from A's unsaved pinning weapon, just like the first shooting phase, and an immediate pinning check for Drone B's pinning weapon, just like the second shooting phase.

 

What do you say?

I say in the third turn the unit suffered two wounds, both coming from a pinning weapon. Immediately after failing the saves (or after wounding if they cannot make any saves) they have to take one pinning test. I also say that the rule for pinning tests is not the best phrased in the book.

[Freakiq]

I know that not everyone of you considers John Spencer an official GW source but for those who do I recieved a mail today:

 

Hello,

 

You only take one test per squad firing at you. So, if a Space Marine Scout squad with 10 Sniper Rifles fires at you, you take 1 pinning test if you take at least one wound.

 

 

John Spencer

 

Customer Service Specialist

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Let's see the email that caused his responce.

 

Tell'm to actually look at the wording of it, compared tp 4E's, then give an answer, not just 'pull it(an answer) out of the air'.