5th Edition Pinning Test Rules

[Legatus]

Doesn't matter how something did

It matters since it proves that the rule mechanic works and has been officially used for a long time, so it means there is absolutely no ground to complain that this kind of rule mechanic might be odd or not work out.

 

The argument had been put forward that since 'pinning' is a weapon's special rule than means it has to have an effect for every single weapon that does damage. I point to two previous editions where 'pinning' being a weapon's special rule has absolutely not meant that every weapon neccessarily has to have that effect on top of all other such weapons.

[Steelmage99]

No, Legatus.

 

What goes before does not effect what comes after.

There is no precedent, only the present rule. This is a far cry from interpreting Law (which also work in a totally different way), this is a set of gamerules.

Trying to argue otherwise leads down a slippery slope.

 

GW has with all clarity told us that precedent is right out the window when it comes to rules.

[Legatus]

I will try it one more time.

 

The specific complaint was, that a "weapon's special rule" would have to apply for each and every weapon that caused a wound, and it would make no sense if only one weapon per squad would cause the special rule effect, while the others then wouldn't.

 

My refute is that since that is how it had been done in 3rd and 4th edition, the complaint that it "makes no sense" is no ground.

 

This is not about "that's how it was in 3rd and 4th, so it must work the same now". This is about "that's how it was in 3rd and 4th, so saying the mechanics make no sense is baseless". If such mechanics existed in earlier editions, then it is obviously a mechanic that is viable and applicable.

[nighthawks]

I do not believe that anyone is arguing the mechanic - it is clear to both side how the rules would work if it were proven that either side were correct. the mechanic MAY be abnormal - but this is not a good argument. all new things are abnormal for a time.

 

secondly, as has been said many times now, this rule is NOT clearly written. it can easily and defendably be read to support both sides of this debate. the key, then, is to find support for the reading you believe is correct. older revisions of the rules are not this support (though they might lend some RAI support, this is a RAW-based furum).

 

third - everyone take a deep breath before you type and remember the rules of the forum, I have seen some personal attacks creep up in here already - any more and this topic WILL be closed.

 

When impasses arise, remember "the most important rule."

[Legatus]

secondly, as has been said many times now, this rule is NOT clearly written. it can easily and defendably be read to support both sides of this debate. the key, then, is to find support for the reading you believe is correct. older revisions of the rules are not this support (though they might lend some RAI support, this is a RAW-based furum).

I was at that point on the last page of this thread, but my arguments for why one particular interpretation would be favourable have been taken as arguments why it had to be read that way, and have been attacked as such. Maybe I can try again now.

 

 

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.

[Steelmage99]

secondly, as has been said many times now, this rule is NOT clearly written. it can easily and defendably be read to support both sides of this debate. the key, then, is to find support for the reading you believe is correct. older revisions of the rules are not this support (though they might lend some RAI support, this is a RAW-based furum).

I was at that point on the last page of this thread, but my arguments for why one particular interpretation would be favourable have been taken as arguments why it had to be read that way, and have been attacked as such. Maybe I can try again now.

 

 

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:

 

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

 

2.- 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.

 

3.- 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.

 

I have put in some numbers for ease of reference.

 

1. Zero relevance. What has gone before does not affect what comes after. Several things works differently in 5th than they did in 3rd and 4th....this is one of them.

 

2. All other wording aside the pinning rules does tell us to take the test "immediately". That is a fact and not subject to differing interpretations. Wether you are supposed to take one or several tests, you must take them "immediately". The process isn't interupted any more or less. Ín the case of one-shot-at-a-time Pinning weapons (like Sniper rifles) there is zero difference. In the case of multi-shot/multi-wound Pinning weapons (like Mortars) , we are required to either use differently coloured dice (which isn't a big issue since most of us already do that in other cases) or roll the weapons in groups. The process itself hasen't been changed one bit.

 

3. Other things have been completely unprecedented before 5th as well.

 

So no, B is not more complicated (differently coloured dice shouldn't be), is not a new mechanic (but a tweak to an existing one) nor exceptional (been around plenty of time) and does not require a lot of wording (as it is just a tweak).

[Legatus]

1. Zero relevance.

The previous editions can be referenced as a possible indicator for Intent.

 

2. All other wording aside the pinning rules does tell us to take the test "immediately". That is a fact and not subject to differing interpretations. Wether you are supposed to take one or several tests, you must take them "immediately". The process isn't interupted any more or less. Ín the case of one-shot-at-a-time Pinning weapons (like Sniper rifles) there is zero difference. In the case of multi-shot/multi-wound Pinning weapons (like Mortars) , we are required to either use differently coloured dice (which isn't a big issue since most of us already do that in other cases) or roll the weapons in groups. The process itself hasen't been changed one bit.

Usually when firing a three mortar barrage you would count the models hit by each template, and then proceed to roll for all the wounds and tehn for all the saves. If it matters which mortar did the wounds, and which mortar's wounds are saved, then you have to roll separately for the three mortars to wound (or use three differently coloured types of dice), and you have to roll saves separately for the wounds caused by each of the mortars. That is breaking up the usually very straight forward process of rolling all wounds together and all saves together, and is making it more complicated.

(Personally, I use an older GW dice pack, so I have black and red dice...)

 

3. Other things have been completely unprecedented before 5th as well.

And such things are specifically pointed out or described in examples, or they are misunderstood, as was the case with the ambigous pinning rules in 3rd edition.

[Steelmage99]

1. Zero relevance.

The previous editions can be referenced as a possible indicator for Intent.

 

2. All other wording aside the pinning rules does tell us to take the test "immediately". That is a fact and not subject to differing interpretations. Wether you are supposed to take one or several tests, you must take them "immediately". The process isn't interupted any more or less. Ín the case of one-shot-at-a-time Pinning weapons (like Sniper rifles) there is zero difference. In the case of multi-shot/multi-wound Pinning weapons (like Mortars) , we are required to either use differently coloured dice (which isn't a big issue since most of us already do that in other cases) or roll the weapons in groups. The process itself hasen't been changed one bit.

Usually when firing a three mortar barrage you would count the models hit by each template, and then proceed to roll for all the wounds and tehn for all the saves. If it matters which mortar did the wounds, and which mortar's wounds are saved, then you have to roll separately for the three mortars to wound (or use three differently coloured types of dice), and you have to roll saves separately for the wounds caused by each of the mortars. That is breaking up the usually very straight forward process of rolling all wounds together and all saves together, and is making it more complicated.

(Personally, I use an older GW dice pack, so I have black and red dice...)

 

3. Other things have been completely unprecedented before 5th as well.

And such things are specifically pointed out or described in examples, or they are misunderstood, as was the case with the ambigous pinning rules in 3rd edition.

 

1. Not anymore. GWs new WISIWYG (What It Says Is What You Get) has done away with precedent. Stormshield...?

 

2. We already do that when firing heavy and special weapons. Is "White is bolter, Red is plasma, Green is heavy bolter" any more difficult than "White is mortar 1, Red is mortar 2, Green is mortar 3"?

 

3. Not the simple ones....like Pinning in 5th.

[Culsandar]

Bottom line is that both Steelmage and I have provided you with a RAW arguement, and your counter is a "it worked in 4th it should work now" answer.

 

I'm sorry, no.

 

Provide us with an argument from the 5th edition rule book instead of trying to apply past editions to the current ruleset, and this discussion can continue further.

 

There is no point to continue the "it worked in 4th" mentality.

[Legatus]

1. Not anymore. GWs new WISIWYG (What It Says Is What You Get) has done away with precedent. Stormshield...?

It is very difficult to interprete the new stormshield rules so that they would work like the previous version. :tu:

 

2. We already do that when firing heavy and special weapons.

We did not do it for multiple barrages. So by applying that kind of interpretation that process would then be more complicated.

 

Is "White is bolter, Red is plasma, Green is heavy bolter" any more difficult than "White is mortar 1, Red is mortar 2, Green is mortar 3"?

"3 white dice for mortar 1, 4 red dice for mortar 2, 4 green dice for mortar 3" is more complicated than "11 dice for mortars".

 

3. Not the simple ones....like Pinning in 5th.

This thread is testament to what that will lead players.

 

Bottom line is that both Steelmage and I have provided you with a RAW arguement, and your counter is a "it worked in 4th it should work now" answer.

I am not sure whether you are intentionally ingoring what I have said a few times in this thread. But I will explain it again for you personally.

 

I have demonstrated a few times that the new pinning rules can indeed be interpreted by RAW to refer to the situation where a unit suffers a number of wounds by multiple pinning weapons, not just a single pinning weapon. Like this:

 

The unit suffers 3 wounds from sniper rifles. You can say that all of the wounds come from "pinning weapons". But you could also say that each of the wounds comes from a pinning weapon. So you can say that the 3 wounds the unit suffered were all coming from "a pinning weapon". And that would then immediately require "a test".

 

The three points discussed in the last few posts are arguments for why I think that this interpretation is favourable over the one requiring a separate Leadership test for every sniper rifle of a unit that caused a wound. They are not arguments for why the rule had to be interpreted in this particular way, only why that would make more sense or would work better in the game.

[Steelmage99]

Resorting to desperate semantics now?

 

Yes, it is a bit more complicated in that specific case......but it is not more complicated the what we are used to from other cases.

 

Anyway, I give up. I wash my hands of this discussion.

[Legatus]

Resorting to desperate semantics now?

I have explained my line of reasoning a few times, so it can be a bit anoying if someone on the opposition side summarizes that as "your only argument is that it should be as it was in 4th edition". I believe that is called a "straw man argument". But maybe I am just not very good at explaining my position.

[nighthawks]

Looks like this one is done. everyone has made their point.

 

majority opinion: pinning tests are per pinning weapon which inflicts a wound - multiple tests per unit firing are possible.

 

minority opinion: test are by unit which inflicts a wound with pinning weapons, no matter the number of weapons - 1 test per firing unit. supported by GW's official rulez-boy by email.

 

Topic Closed. PM me or another mod if you have a reason for it to be reopened and we will consider it.