5th Edition Pinning Test Rules

[Legatus]

Yes, unfortunately he does not explain it, but merely asserts how it is to be played, which obviously is not really that satisfying for our discussion.

 

But that is the answer I would expect to be given frequently, and hopefully included in an FaQ at some point. The 40K system simply does not require a unit to take five to ten leadership tests at once. The rule is an unfortunately rephrasing of the 3rd and 4th edition mechanic.

[Grey Mage]

He shows the proper use of the english language. Thats really all it is.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Which English would that be...? The Queens (considering he works for GW, a UK based company), or american (and all it's bastardizations of words)? :P

[nighthawks]

it is a sentence that may be read and interpreted correctly to either meaning. the rules of English allow for very precise statement, and they allow for the type of rules you see debated endlessly here in the -OR-. I don't think the current pinning rules are extremely clear at all.

 

I prefer the reading that suggests 1 test per unit shooting. just seems more balanced. however, you cannot force that reading upon anyone - it must be a 2-side agreement to play that way as the rule IS viable both ways.

[DevianID]

Going back to my example

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.

 

Lets say two models each have a pinning weapon. Both models hit and wound, and you fail your save versus both. As pinning is a weapon's special rule, like melta, you get the weapon's special effect for each. So in my first example, Drone A's pinning weapon meets the condition that it caused an unsaved wound, thus the unit needs to make a pinning check, per that particular weapon's special rule. Drone B's pinning weapon also meets that condition, so it also causes a pinning check.

 

Would you say that a unit with multiple melta weapons only gets the melta special rule for once for the squad? Of course not, the melta effect applies to each weapon with the melta rule. By the same token, the 'pinning' effect applies to each weapon with the pinning special rule. Both melta and pinning weapons are described in the same section, correct?

 

Also, what precedent is there that a weapon with a special rule (pinning, melta, rending, ect) has to check what the rest of its squad is doing to resolve its weapons special rules? Aka, in my example, Drone B's pinning weapon is obviously capable of causing a pinning check, as seen in example 2. Where in the rules does it say that this attack has to stop its resolution to check to see what the rest of its unit is doing before determining if the second pinning weapon special rule can be used? Or more precisely, if pinning is an individual weapon's special rule (which it is), why will it not apply to each weapon with pinning?

 

PS, yes you can read the statment under pinning 2 different ways IF it were in a different section. But if pinning is only a special property of some weapons, pinning only applies to those weapons; thus pinning is resolved on a weapon by weapon basis, not a squad by squad basis.

[Legatus]

Lets say two models each have a pinning weapon. Both models hit and wound, and you fail your save versus both. As pinning is a weapon's special rule, like melta, you get the weapon's special effect for each.

Special effects from different sources do not allways stack. Often the requirement is that a unit is affected by one (or more) of such items and will then suffer the basic effect, with additional items having no additional effect. These are often area or banner effects, but could also come from weapons.

 

Would you say that a unit with multiple melta weapons only gets the melta special rule for once for the squad? Of course not, the melta effect applies to each weapon with the melta rule.

The melta weapon can roll an additional D6 for it's armour penetration roll. It might be a different issue if a "vehicle hit by an XY weapon has the following effect".

For example Thunder Hammers. A model that suffers "a wound from a thunder hammer" (notice singular in both cases) has it's Initiative reduced to 1 untill the end of teh next player's turn. If that model was wounded by different Thunder Hammers (think Assault Terminators attacking a Hive Tyrant), it would still only be reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of teh next player's turn. The effect does not stack in any way.

 

Also, what precedent is there that a weapon with a special rule (pinning, melta, rending, ect) has to check what the rest of its squad is doing to resolve its weapons special rules?

I already mentioned the Tunder Hammer. Defensive Grenades also have a single effect, independently from how many models of the unit may be equipped with them. Units hit by the supteranean blast of a thunderfire cannon will move like in difficult terrain, and firing a second subteranean blast with a second thunderfire cannon at them does not have an additonal effect. The 3.5 Codex Chaos had a few harmfull effects that wouldn't stack, like Daemonic Visage or Nurgle's Rot.

 

Edit: I forgot to add the most importand precedent: That's how "pinning weapons" worked the past two editions.

 

Aka, in my example, Drone B's pinning weapon is obviously capable of causing a pinning check, as seen in example 2. Where in the rules does it say that this attack has to stop its resolution to check to see what the rest of its unit is doing before determining if the second pinning weapon special rule can be used?

The rules say that all shots by a single unit happen simultaneously. The pinning rules say that a test is required immediately if a unit suffered wounds from a pinning weapon.

 

Or more precisely, if pinning is an individual weapon's special rule (which it is), why will it not apply to each weapon with pinning?

Because you don't check whether your individual pinning weapon hits, wounds and kills, you check whether the target unit suffered any wounds from a pinning weapon.

[Race Bannon]

So, on the one hand, reading the rules makes pinning weapons truely amazing weapons - if you have more than one. On the other hand, we use a practice that has been in place, at least, since 3rd edition (making one test because effects on the squad force at least one to be made).

 

Is that what it boils down to?

[Grey Mage]

Aka, in my example, Drone B's pinning weapon is obviously capable of causing a pinning check, as seen in example 2. Where in the rules does it say that this attack has to stop its resolution to check to see what the rest of its unit is doing before determining if the second pinning weapon special rule can be used?

The rules say that all shots by a single unit happen simultaneously. The pinning rules say that a test is required immediately if a unit suffered wounds from a pinning weapon.

 

Or more precisely, if pinning is an individual weapon's special rule (which it is), why will it not apply to each weapon with pinning?

Because you don't check whether your individual pinning weapon hits, wounds and kills, you check whether the target unit suffered any wounds from a pinning weapon.

 

And this, in my mind, cuts to the heart of the matter right here. You dont check to see if they suffered "atleast one wound" but rather "any" wounds from a pinning weapon.

[DevianID]

Because you don't check whether your individual pinning weapon hits, wounds and kills, you check whether the target unit suffered any wounds from a pinning weapon

 

How do you resolve your melta weapon's fire without knowing if your weapon hits, wounds and kills? Im sorry, but pinning is an individual weapon's ability first, not a morale rule that a squad takes, thus if you have 1 pinning weapon out of a squad of 12, you ABSOLUTELY check to see if that individual pinning weapon causes an unsaved wound, just like you have to see if the other 11 weapons individually cause unsaved wounds. We only roll dice together in order to speed up play, any time you need to know what individual attacking models roll, you roll seperately or use different dice to seperate different kinds of attacks.

 

Each pinning weapon has the ability to cause a pinning check, of this we all agree. Yet then we disagree that pinning check's are a weapon's ability that each attacking weapon causes, versus a single defender's action that a squad takes once an attacker has resolved all its shots? The pinning rule is found and resolved under the rules for attacking special weapon abilities!

 

How can you resolve all the attackers shots without resolving all it's weapons special effects? By making only a single pinning check per squad, you are resolving the special rule of many individual weapons with the same roll and saying that is fine, the multiple instances of special weapon rules only result in a single instance of a result for the defender.

 

Remember, in the previous editions, you rolled pinning at the end of the shooting phase, right before morale, and units that got pinned did not have to take required morale checks. Pinning is COMPLETELY different now, the precedent set in the prior editions is void and null.

[Legatus]

How do you resolve your melta weapon's fire without knowing if your weapon hits, wounds and kills?

The melta weapon's special rule applies when you roll for armour penetration ("wounding" stage) with that melta weapon. The pinning weapon special rule applies when you have determined the number of enemy models that are removed (after saves).

 

We only roll dice together in order to speed up play, any time you need to know what individual attacking models roll, you roll seperately or use different dice to seperate different kinds of attacks.

No. We roll dice together because the rules tell us to and because they state that all fire from one unit or attacks with the same initiative happen simultaneously. It is quite the other way round, you only roll wounds or saves separately or with differently colored dice so you don't lose track of who is doing what. That is important if models have different weapons. 5 Sniper rifles are not different weapons, and you can just roll them all at once.

 

Each pinning weapon has the ability to cause a pinning check, of this we all agree. Yet then we disagree that pinning check's are a weapon's ability that each attacking weapon causes, versus a single defender's action that a squad takes once an attacker has resolved all its shots? The pinning rule is found and resolved under the rules for attacking special weapon abilities!

 

How can you resolve all the attackers shots without resolving all it's weapons special effects? By making only a single pinning check per squad, you are resolving the special rule of many individual weapons with the same roll and saying that is fine, the multiple instances of special weapon rules only result in a single instance of a result for the defender.

That is exactly how pinnig worked in 3rd and 4th Edition, so I can absolutely not understand where you see a problem with this mechanic.

 

Remember, in the previous editions, you rolled pinning at the end of the shooting phase, right before morale, and units that got pinned did not have to take required morale checks. Pinning is COMPLETELY different now, the precedent set in the prior editions is void and null.

No, pinning worked exactly the same in 3rd, 4th and 5th, actually. The 3rd Edition rulebook was not specifically clear on the point where the pinning test is taken, so it was clarified in the "rulebook clarification" pdfs GW was releasing throughout 3rd Edition. Those clarified that a pinning test is taken every time an enemy unit has made any pinning attacks against a unit. 4th Edition was a bit more specific then, stating that a test was required whenever a single enemy unit inflicted any pinning casualties on a unit, and that it was possible that one of your units had to take multiple pinning tests per turn. It is 100% the same mechanic I am advocating are in effect in 5th edition.

[DevianID]

5 Sniper rifles are not different weapons

 

5 sniper rifles are the same kind of weapon, but they are in fact 5 different incarnations of the same kind of weapon. The fact that they all have 1 attack each means that each weapon die thrown can be tracked, thus individual weapons remain distinct from one another. A barrage attack of 3 mortars, however, would potentially have very different numbers of hits per weapon, thus the damage for each mortar need to be individually determined.

 

If you have a 5 THSS termie unit with vulkan, you would seperate each termies attacks, because even though they are the same kind of weapon, the fact that each one has a special effect (MC) and each model has more than one attack means that the models individual rolls are important.

Also, if you have a unit of sternguard rapidfiring 2 plasma guns, some combi plasma, and the sarge's plasma pistol, you need to roll each guys to hit seperately, because each has a potential effect on the using model--yet the attacks themselves are all identical from the defenders point of view.

 

Finally, the whole issue is that you are reading the special rule for pinning weapons to occur after the units shooting has been completely resolved, but pinning checks are now part of resolving a units shooting attacks! As such, as part of resolving the unit with pinning weapons, the special condition of pinning weapons comes into play immediately after saves have been rolled but before casualties can be removed from the target unit. Each unsaved pinning weapon can independently fulfill the condition to cause a pinning check, and each wound is still distinct because you are still resolving the firing unit's attacks.

 

No, pinning worked exactly the same in 3rd, 4th and 5th, actually

So pinned units 'went to ground' and got a better cover save in each edition? Also, pinned units do not have to take morale checks in 5th edition? No, it is clear that pinning is different in 5th edition, like I mentioned, and precedent doesnt carry over.

 

Also, in 4th ed, wasnt pinning based on a unit taking casualties, not unsaved wounds? I admit I am not sure on that one though, and I have no 4th ed book handy at the moment.

[Legatus]

5 sniper rifles are the same kind of weapon, but they are in fact 5 different incarnations of the same kind of weapon. The fact that they all have 1 attack each means that each weapon die thrown can be tracked, thus individual weapons remain distinct from one another. A barrage attack of 3 mortars, however, would potentially have very different numbers of hits per weapon, thus the damage for each mortar need to be individually determined.

Every sniper rifle has the capacity to force a pinning test, but it is sufficient if only one sniper rifle of the firing unit causes an unsaved wound. You could roll separately for different mortars if you wished, but the wounds are still caused simultaneously as far as the rules are concerned.

 

If you have a 5 THSS termie unit with vulkan, you would seperate each termies attacks, because even though they are the same kind of weapon, the fact that each one has a special effect (MC) and each model has more than one attack means that the models individual rolls are important.

Good that you chose Thunder Hammers as an example, as that allows me to underline my point. having the master crafted Thunder Hammers grants a reroll to the model making it's attacks, so you would have to distinguish the rolls from that of other models. It is different with the effect the Thunder Hamemr has on the enemy model it wounds but doesn't kill. The wounded model will have it's initiative reduced to 1 untill the end of the next turn, and it is completely irrelevant how many of the Thunder Hammers have wounded it. A weapon being able to cause a certain effect does not mean that the effect stacks. It is the same with meltaguns. The meltagun shot rolls an additional die for armour penetration within half range, so if you fired 4 melatguns, each shot would roll the additional die. On the other hand there is the Subterranean Blast from teh Thunderfire cannon. An enemy unit hit by that blast gets a movement penalty during it's next movement phase. Shooting multiple different supterranean blasts at that unit will have no additional effect. There are several weapons that can cause a certain effect on enemy units. Using multiple such weapons increases the chance that one will hit or wound and then cause that effect, but if multiple such attacks hit or wound it will still only cause that basic effect, and don't cause any additional effect.

 

Finally, the whole issue is that you are reading the special rule for pinning weapons to occur after the units shooting has been completely resolved

At least after all of the wounds have been determined (i.e. having rolled for saves), which happens simultaneously according to the rules. All the pinning wounds from sniper rifles will happen at exactly the same time. You roll all saves at once, or roll separately for different weapons if you want, but they are still considered to happen at once. And if any of the wounds suffered were inflicted by a pinning weapon, the unit immediately has to take a pinning test. Whether you remove the casualties caused by that one particular enemy unit's shooting before or after taking the pinning test caused by that unit does not really make a difference.

 

So pinned units 'went to ground' and got a better cover save in each edition? Also, pinned units do not have to take morale checks in 5th edition? No, it is clear that pinning is different in 5th edition, like I mentioned, and precedent doesnt carry over.

 

Also, in 4th ed, wasnt pinning based on a unit taking casualties, not unsaved wounds? I admit I am not sure on that one though, and I have no 4th ed book handy at the moment.

You are right, good catch. Obviously, "being pinned" is now different than it was in 3rd and 4th. And the cause for a pinning test was indeed "sufferieng casualties" by a single enemy unit instead of wounds. I guess I have focused too much on the point where the pinning test is taken, which is what we were talking about, so my points are still standing. The mechanic you find so completely inconceivable, that multiple pinning weapons cause a single pinning test if any one of them causes a wound (or casualty, as it was) has been in place ever since 3rd Edition.

[DevianID]

You say that thunderhammers bringing a target down to init 1 only happens once, and I agree.

 

But for pinning, the end effect is forcing the enemy to go to ground. Going to ground the enemy can only do once, but CHECKING to see if they have to go to ground they can do many times until they either choose to go to ground, are forced to go to ground, or the enemy shooting phase ends. In the description for pinning it even says you can be forced to make multiple checks in order not to go to ground, but once you go to ground, no further checks need to be made. So your thunder hammer statements, while true that they only apply to an enemy model once (or perhaps more correctly, multiple thunder hammer effects do nothing further to a model already at init 1), do nothing to say that you only have to make a single check for pinning weapons.

 

In the example with 2 gun drones, when drone a's weapon causes an unsaved wound, you look at its special rules. Pinning, ok turn to the page that defines pinning, ok it says if you take an unsaved wound from a pinning weapon you take an immediate check. The enemy takes a check because the pinning weapon's conditions are met. Then, when resolving drone b's unsaved wound, you again look at the special rules for the attack, pinning, again see that drone b fulfills the conditions for the pinning special rule when an unsaved wound is caused by a pinning weapon, and again apply the effect, forcing a second pinning check to be rolled at the same time as the first one.

 

I remember at some point someone talking about how 40k can resolve simultaneous effects sequentially. You can simultanously meet the condition for a unit to take a pinning check multiple times, and then resolve each instance, just like you can simultaneously get 10 weapon destroyed results, and then resolve each one. We both agree that each weapon in a squad has the capability to cause a pinning check, so right now its just whether you apply the pinning weapon's special rule per weapon (and as I stated it is a weapons special rule) or per squad.

 

As a final example, lets assume an independant character has a pinning weapon, and a squad has a pinning weapon. You feel it is fine if the IC's weapon, when fired while he is out of the squad, can cause a seperate check, but when in the squad can no longer cause a seperate check from the squad. This is despite there being no different rule for pinning when he is in or out of the squad. If there was a rule ANYWHERE saying pinning was once per squad, then I would be on board, but with no such rule in 5th edition and all the other extensive changes to pinning, why are we holding on to how 4th ed handled pinning to explain how 5th does it?

[Legatus]

It is because the pinnig rules currently are awkwardly phrased, even if they can still be read to function as they did in 3rd and 4th Edition. If a unit was shot by Scouts and suffered 2 wounds from sniper rifles and 3 wounds from boltguns or a heavy bolter, then 2 of the wounds come from a pinning weapon. You would probably prefer to say that the wounds come from pinning weapons, which is probably the more commonly used form, but each of the wounds comes from a pinning weapon, so the unit suffered multipe wounds that come from a pinning weapon. It is a correct aplication of english.

 

If you can interprete the rule either way then you have to figure out what speaks for or against the two possible interpretations.

 

A: Each set of pinning wounds inflicted by a single enemy unit causes a pinning test.

 

B: Each single pinning weapon that inflicts a wound causes a pinning test.

 

Here are some arguments for A or anainst B:

 

- A is how it worked in 3rd and 4th Edition.

 

- B would require you to break up the wounding and save process for multiple barrage attacks (available to Imperial Guard, Orks, Eldar and Tyrands, so not exactly uncommon) or other pinning weapons that could cause multiple wounds, thus complicating the shooting process. With A you would proceed as normal and roll all wounds/saves together.

 

- It is completely unprecedented in all editions of 40K or WHFB to be required to roll multiple leadership tests for a single instance at once, and if a rule was introduced that would indeed require this from a unit I have no doubt that this very exceptional occurance would specifically be pointed out.

 

So B would be more complicated in execution and would be a unique new mechanic, without being described in a detailed way which was to be expected for such a exceptional new mechanic.

 

As a final example, lets assume an independant character has a pinning weapon, and a squad has a pinning weapon. You feel it is fine if the IC's weapon, when fired while he is out of the squad, can cause a seperate check, but when in the squad can no longer cause a seperate check from the squad. This is despite there being no different rule for pinning when he is in or out of the squad.

And if the IC has a "retinue" it cannot be attacked in combat. But if he merely happens to be with another unit, or was just incidentally fighting in the same combat, he could specifically be attacked. If the IC was with a unit and lost the fight the whole unit would suffer the "no retreat" rolls once. If the IC was alone and merely fighting at the side of that unit in the same combat, both the IC and the unit would each take the "no retreat" wounds. If the IC is with a unit, it has to shoot at the same target. If it was on it's own, it could shoot at anything it wanted. Such are the rules for ICs and units.

[Culsandar]

- A is how it worked in 3rd and 4th Edition.

That does not matter.

- A is how it worked in 3rd and 4th Edition.

That does not matter.

- A is how it worked in 3rd and 4th Edition.

That does not matter.

- B would require you to break up the wounding and save process for multiple barrage attacks (available to Imperial Guard, Orks, Eldar and Tyrands, so not exactly uncommon) or other pinning weapons that could cause multiple wounds, thus complicating the shooting process.

And?

- It is completely unprecedented in all editions of 40K or WHFB to be required to roll multiple leadership tests for a single instance at once, and if a rule was introduced that would indeed require this from a unit I have no doubt that this very exceptional occurance would specifically be pointed out.

Because it hasn't been done before it shouldn't be done at all?

And if the IC has a "retinue" it cannot be attacked in combat. But if he merely happens to be with another unit, or was just incidentally fighting in the same combat, he could specifically be attacked. If the IC was with a unit and lost the fight the whole unit would suffer the "no retreat" rolls once. If the IC was alone and merely fighting at the side of that unit in the same combat, both the IC and the unit would each take the "no retreat" wounds. If the IC is with a unit, it has to shoot at the same target. If it was on it's own, it could shoot at anything it wanted. Such are the rules for ICs and units.

Irrelevant.

"suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test." P31.

Tell me where in that sentence that the word unit (in referral to the unit shooting with pinning weapons, not the unit being shot at) is spoken, typed, referred to, or implied.

 

You can't?

 

That's because the pinning rule is on a PER WEAPON, not PER UNIT, basis.

 

I'm not trying to be a dick, but RAW is clear as day here.

[Legatus]

(...)

That does not matter.

 

(...)

And?

 

(...)

Because it hasn't been done before it shouldn't be done at all?

I listed arguments for why of two ways a rule can be interpreted one is favourable over the other.

 

Irrelevant.

The point was made that it was odd that the actions of an IC being with a unit would work out differently than when it would be alone, which I refuted by giving further examples where that would be the case and tha that is simply how ICs being alone or being with a unit work out in the game.

 

I'm not trying to be a dick

Appearently you are also not trying to understand the discussion. :D

 

Tell me where in that sentence that the word unit (in referral to the unit shooting with pinning weapons, not the unit being shot at) is spoken, typed, referred to, or implied.

"suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test."

 

The unit is shot at by a unit of snipers and suffers three wounds by sniper rifles. The three wounds are all coming from a pinning weapon. The unit takes a test. The conditions of the rule are met.

[Steelmage99]

The wording can easily be interpreted either way.

 

When interpreting the wording, I assign some importance to two things;

 

1. The wording was changed between editions.

2. The change of the wording moved away from a unit-basis to a weapon-basis.

 

Notice the difference.

 

4th edition.

 

"When the firing of a single enemy unit inflicts casualties with pinning weapons, the target must take a Leadership test...."

 

5th edition

 

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

 

I think it is perfectly clear, both from a literal interpretation of the wording and, more importantly, from an "intention" point-of-view.

Purposefully or accidentally, GW changed the wording and thus the way the rule works.

[Culsandar]

The unit is shot at by a unit of snipers and suffers three wounds by sniper rifles. The three wounds are all coming from a pinning weapon. The unit takes a test. The conditions of the rule are met.

 

No they are not. They are being shot by three pinning weapons. Each with there own special rule that states "suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test."

 

3 wounds caused. 3 saves failed.

First wound forces test, test is passed.

Second wound forces test, test is failed.

Third wound would force a test, but since the unit is already "pinned" (GtG), they don't have to take test.

 

That is not a new precedent. You can still only be forced to GtG once in a turn. How many pen checks it takes to get there is irrelevant and is not covered by "this squad shoots" and "that squad shoots" in the current rules format. Get over 4th.

 

Just like three hits with meltaguns from a squad gets 2d6 armor penetration. You have to roll the penetrations separately to find out their results, you can't just pick up 6 dice and say "this one and this one go together, then this one and this one."

 

You're lumping them into a unit basis when according to that sentence there is no call to do so. The only reason you're doing it is because you are trying to hold on to your 4th edition mindset.

[Legatus]

Notice the difference.

 

4th edition.

 

"When the firing of a single enemy unit inflicts casualties with pinning weapons, the target must take a Leadership test...."

 

5th edition

 

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

 

3rd Edition

 

"Units that suffer casualties from a barrage must pass a Leadership test to avoid being pinned down."

 

(In 3rd the rule was written for barrages first, and sniper rifles were then said to cause pinning like barrages.)

 

Note how the rule was written differently in 3rd than it was in 4th, yet they still worked the same. Also note how one very fundamental change from 4th to 5th (I omitted earlier) is that now "wounds" instead of "casualties"cause pinning tests, which may warrant a rephrasing of the rules.

 

And this are the credits for the 4th Edition Rulebook:

 

Games Design and Developement

Rick Priestley and Andy Chambers

with Alessio Cavatore, Pete Haines,

Anthony Reynolds, Jervis Johnson, Adam Troke

 

This are the credits for 5th:

 

Written by: Alessio Cavatore (main rules), Mat Ward, Andy Hoare, Graham Davey,

Phil Kelly, Gav Thorpe, Adam Troke, Robin Cruddace, Jervis Johnson, Jeremy Vetock.

 

(In 4th Edition they had separate credits for Background and the Hobby Section, in 5th they don't.)

 

Note how the two main writers from 4th editions were not involved in 5th. It seems this time Alessio has done most of the game design and rule writing.

 

I think it is perfectly clear, both from a literal interpretation of the wording and, more importantly, from an "intention" point-of-view.

And I think it isn't. I think a drastic change such as a player being required to roll 5+ pinning tests at once would have been specifically pointed out.

 

No they are not. They are being shot by three pinning weapons.

Yes they are. Each of the wounds was caused by a pinning weapon. The unit has suffered three wounds that come from a pinning weapon.

 

That is not a new precedent.

Rolling 5 or more leadership tests in a row at once is absolutle unprecedented in all of 40K or WHFB.

 

You're lumping them into a unit basis when according to that sentence there is no call to do so.

The thing is that "a test" is required immediately when the unit suffers "wounds". All of the wounds from a single enemy unit occur simultaneously, so at the point where you know that the unit suffers "wounds", you also know exactly how many of them come from pinning weapons. It is not the general case that a unit will be shot at by a single pinning weapon. There usually are several in a unit. It would be crucial to point out that the fire of 5 snipers could force a unit to immediately take 5 leadership tests at that point.

[DevianID]

The main problem with the argument that pinning is based on the squad is still unresolved by Legatus' argument...

 

Namely, pinning is an individual weapons special rule. Thus, it applies to all weapons with that special rule. While the wording 'unsaved wounds caused by a pinning weapon' can indeed be read to include multiple pinning weapons by refering to the defination of a weapon as 'any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting' that defination uses the common noun usage of weapon.

 

I (and a few others) believe that 'a pinning weapon' refers to the proper noun of 'the particular pinning weapon causing the attack', examples of which are a sniper rifle or a barbed strangler. Since we are talking about what individual weapon's special rules are in the section where pinning is found, I see no reason why we switch from proper noun usage to common noun usage for this one weapon special rule.

 

Or, in a nutshell, I think Legatus is using the wrong noun usage to explain why pinning is squad based.

 

This is all based on having to look up what nouns are, which revealed the following:

A proper noun is the name of an individual person, place or thing. A common noun is the name an individual object has in common with others of its class, as man, city, hill;

 

So the common usage of a carnifex's barbed strangler would be: a st8 large blast weapon that causes pinning. The proper noun usage of a carnifex's barbed strangler would be: The barbed strangler fires and causes 2 unsaved wounds. It is obvious that only proper nouns inflict wounds, because you need to know the individual model's ws, st, range, LOS, ect--aka each model fires individually, with its own LOS.

[Steelmage99]

Notice the difference.

 

4th edition.

 

"When the firing of a single enemy unit inflicts casualties with pinning weapons, the target must take a Leadership test...."

 

5th edition

 

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

 

3rd Edition

 

"Units that suffer casualties from a barrage must pass a Leadership test to avoid being pinned down."

 

(In 3rd the rule was written for barrages first, and sniper rifles were then said to cause pinning like barrages.)

 

Note how the rule was written differently in 3rd than it was in 4th, yet they still worked the same.

 

Come on, Legatus. I expected more from you.

 

Do you really believe my argument is that the sole fact that they used different words should change the rules?

I argue that the words themselves describe a different effect (ie. the rules have changed). Perhaps I should have said; "Notice the difference in meaning.

 

You can see the difference, right?

 

4th specifies "the firing of a single enemy unit".

4th specifies "pinning weapons".

 

 

 

 

And this are the credits for the 4th Edition Rulebook:

 

Games Design and Developement

Rick Priestley and Andy Chambers

with Alessio Cavatore, Pete Haines,

Anthony Reynolds, Jervis Johnson, Adam Troke

 

This are the credits for 5th:

 

Written by: Alessio Cavatore (main rules), Mat Ward, Andy Hoare, Graham Davey,

Phil Kelly, Gav Thorpe, Adam Troke, Robin Cruddace, Jervis Johnson, Jeremy Vetock.

 

(In 4th Edition they had separate credits for Background and the Hobby Section, in 5th they don't.)

 

Note how the two main writers from 4th editions were not involved in 5th. It seems this time Alessio has done most of the game design and rule writing.

 

And so what? You are actually lending weight to my argument now. New designers wanted new rules.

We know for a fact that GW still copypaste from their old wordings to their hearts contend due to the problems this sometimes causes. They didn't in this case. They changed the wording........to a new effect.

 

I think it is perfectly clear, both from a literal interpretation of the wording and, more importantly, from an "intention" point-of-view.

And I think it isn't. I think a drastic change such as a player being required to roll 5+ pinning tests at once would have been specifically pointed out.

 

And now you are making up numbers. It doesn't have to be 5+. It might just be 2. Don't be an alarmist.

10 Pathfinders kills max 3,33 Marines, forcing 3-4 tests.

This is of course assuming that ALL shots are AP1/2 and Marines aren't in cover. See? Don't cry to high heaven about 5+ tests, as that isn't likely at all.

Sure, if one chooses to stand his tactical squad, out in the open, in front of a bunch of Pathfinders it MIGHT be 5+ tests, but that is really ones own fault, isnt' it?

[Legatus]

Namely, pinning is an individual weapons special rule.

How about Thunder Hammers or Thunderfire Cannon Subterranean Blasts? Or how about Jamming Beacons (Land Speeder Storm)? Sometimes while any of the used items could force a certain effect, multiple of such items will not produce any mor ethan that one effect. And that's ok. That's how "pinning" weapons worked in 3rd and 4th, so I can still not really understand where you see a problem with that mechanic.

 

Come on, Legatus. I expected more from you.

I checked the 3rd Edition credits as well, and it turns out Rick Priestley and Andy Chambers helmed 3rd and 4th Edition, while Alessio Cavatore wrote the majority of 5th Edition. I would say that makes a rephrasing of rules plausible, especially if that rule was in fact altered in a lot of ways. Pinning is now caused by wounds, not casualties, and it will cause the new "going to ground" effect instead of plain "pinning".

 

As an example, these are the 4th Edition Thunder Hammer rules:

 

"any model wounded but not killed by it is knocked reeling, and will attack with an initiative of 1 in the next Assault Phase."

 

This is how it is described in 5th:

 

"all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn."

 

Only minor changes in how it works ("unsaved wound" is specified, initiative is reduced for all purposes untill the end of the next turn, not just attacking with Initiative 1), but you might notice that the condition for the effect to occur is phrased the same as for the 5th edition pinning rules.

 

"If a unit (...) suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon..."

 

X suffers "wounds" from "a weapon" of the type.

 

The conditions for the Thunder Hammer effect were rephrased, without being changed. The conditions for pinning weapons were changed just like them. The rules were not written by the people who did 3rd and 4th. That does make sense.

 

And now you are making up numbers. It doesn't have to be 5+. It might just be 2. Don't be an alarmist.

10 Pathfinders kills max 3,33 Marines, forcing 3-4 tests.

This is of course assuming that ALL shots are AP1/2 and Marines aren't in cover. See? Don't cry to high heaven about 5+ tests, as that isn't likely at all.

Sure, if one chooses to stand his tactical squad, out in the open, in front of a bunch of Pathfinders it MIGHT be 5+ tests, but that is really ones own fault, isnt' it?

Perhaps it is easy to forget on this particular board, but Warhammer 40K is not just Space Marines...

[Culsandar]

Namely, pinning is an individual weapons special rule.

How about Thunder Hammers or Thunderfire Cannon Subterranean Blasts? Or how about Jamming Beacons (Land Speeder Storm)? Sometimes while any of the used items could force a certain effect, multiple of such items will not produce any mor ethan that one effect. And that's ok. That's how "pinning" weapons worked in 3rd and 4th, so I can still not really understand where you see a problem with that mechanic.

 

Says who? The rules? That's not what the rules say. There is no rule saying that "further thunder hammer hits are ignored".

 

Thunder hammers specifically reduce I values to 1, not by any number.

 

First wound, I goes to 1.

Second wound, I goes to 1 (again).

Third wound, etc.

 

Nothing in the rules says that they target's Initiative can't be dropped to one 7 billion times. But since their initiative is now already 1, it doesn't matter how many times it is reduced.

 

When affecting a vehicle it states the crew becomes shaken (or stunned, I don't recall off hand). In the vehicle damage rules it SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THESE FURTHER EFFECTS DON'T STACK. I see no such disclaimer in the pinning weapons section.

 

The thunder hammer point is arguing for my side, not yours.

[Legatus]

It points out that there are in fact instances where multiple weapons with special effects will not each cause an additional effect, and that it is no problem at all to have such a mechanic. But in fact the strongest argument for this is that it was done so in 3rd and 4th Edition, so any complaint that it might be odd to "ignore" all the surplus weapons with speccial rules just because one of them already affects a unit is completely baseless.

 

This was one of the occasions where that complaint was made:

 

The main problem with the argument that pinning is based on the squad is still unresolved by Legatus' argument...

 

Namely, pinning is an individual weapons special rule. Thus, it applies to all weapons with that special rule.

 

But that's how it worked for two editions, so there is no point there. It is not a problematic rule mechanic, as it is made to be.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

But that's how it worked for two editions,

 

Doesn't matter how something did, or did not, work in other editions, Legatus. 5E is a whole new set of rules. Similarities do not matter and have no 'sway' from older editions. Throw out everything you used to know of the rules from those earlier editions and re-learn the new rules. Things change as the rules change, they don't 'stay the same though the wording may change'.

 

So, to use your own words..

there is no point there.

 

 

 

And things like thunderhammers and such only work once, because their effects are worded in such a way that it can only ever have any effect on the enemy once. As someone above pointed out, no matter how many times someone is forced to 'go last in the next round', they're still going last. One, unrepeatable, application of an effect. Pinning weapons is not worded nearly as air tight, nor as straight forward anymore.