Question about 5th edition pinning.

[nighthawks]

it's really not THAT strong, as the wound probability before saves from 10 snipers is 2.5 - so against most units (5+ save) you get .83 - roughly 1 unsaved wound. there's a reason sniper rifles are now a no-cost upgrade for scouts. However, 10 pulse carbines vs. MEq. makes ~2 unsaved wounds, ~4 vs. T3/5+Sv "standard" infantry. that's a lot of pinning tests! best an artillery battery could do is 3 tests, unless someone knows of a barrage battery or unit with more than 3 weapons...

[WarpSpawn]

You might be right, though I'm still having trouble believing they would even create the possibility of 10 pinning tests from a single unit, regardless of the actual proability.

 

Also, disoncerting as sniper fire no doubt is, the fact that you would only take a single test if a very lucky ordnance weapon wiped out upwards of 10 models is stretching credibility a little.

 

(And yes, I am aware that non-ordnance weapons could do the same and cause none but I think it's fairer in this debate to compare pinning with pinning, not pinning with non-pinning.)

[nighthawks]

the shells make noise coming in - they have some degree of ability to prepare for them - no more noise, no more shells. and the RoF is low, typically. sniper fire is more frightening as you just watch guys fall down, not knowing from where, or how many more shots might come. (though it loosing something in the tabletop translation as we know already...)

 

see - fluff can be used to argue anything...

[nurglespuss]

RoF? sorry I do hate acronyms (when I don't know what they are, which is most of the time :rolleyes: ) Any chance of a ban on them please?

[boreas]

Rate of Fire...

 

Phil

[nurglespuss]

Cheers :> bloody things.

[WarpSpawn]

the shells make noise coming in - they have some degree of ability to prepare for them - no more noise, no more shells. and the RoF is low, typically. sniper fire is more frightening as you just watch guys fall down, not knowing from where, or how many more shots might come. (though it loosing something in the tabletop translation as we know already...)

 

see - fluff can be used to argue anything...

 

I know this has nothing to do with RAW either way but I disagree.

 

Whilst I confess I have no battlefield experience, I think the destructive power of such a shell alone would ensure that troops on the receiving end are not only likely to seek cover, but also keep their heads down until they are satisfied that there are no more coming.

 

However, this is a side issue. I remain unconvinced that they intend for you to take 10 pinning tests (if not more) from a single unit shooting at you. Perhaps they decided it would happen so rarely that it did not matter but I don't buy it. Even 3-4 from a single unit is rather a lot, which is far more realistic.

[nighthawks]

it is what it is. if we expect believable, water-tight rules for sci-fi gaming in a narrative tone, then GW is the answer, and the curse. their models rule, the game is fun, and who cares about pinning test, there's not likely to be more than 2 even with the 1:1 unsaved wound:weapon rule.

[Biggsthemedic]

I think it's a good thing that they rewrote pinning rules, imagine yourself in the receiving squad...I bet you would eat dirt too! Plus I dont see there being a whole ton of units out there with lot of sniper rifles, SM scouts and what...ratlings? Eldar rangers? Now those units might actually be useful for something! On top of all that they can only shoot at one squad at a time and are generally very vulnerable to attacks as it is. I say bring on you 10 sniper rifles, most armies that want to asault you are going to no matter how many you bring!

[ArmouredWing]

I actually know and play against the 'Tau Online' poster (Gone Fishin') and I also know that this is just another in a series of rules lawyering projects he'd got on the go at the moment (the other being flechette dischargers or as it's now being called 'Iron Kurtain').

 

I've read the rules for pinning pretty carefully and although it could be interpretted as such I believe the crucial element is where it firstly states (you'll have to pardon the paraphrase, i've not got the rule book to hand) 'any unit that takes unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon....must immediately take a pinning test'.

 

I believe if it was the intent to take as many tests as unsaved wounds it would have been written with 'tests' in the sentence rather than test. Also the fact tha you have to take the test immediately, to me at least, means that it's a single test for any and all wounds.

 

Believe me, these are the trick of a Tau player with both an elastic tape measure and a flexible understanding of the rules!!! (I'm looking at you Davies!!!! :P )

[nighthawks]

- a singluar "test" for a singular "weapon"

- lots of singular pinning weapons (those that are also barrage, blast specifically) can cause "wounds"

 

so the RAW works, to a degree, both ways. really, though, as noted before, this won't come up all that often, and if you and your opponent are fielding a rather large number or a particularly powerful variety of pinning weapons, you may want to have the conversation before hand as to how to play it.

 

Tau have this thing whereby all rules are bent "for the greater good" i.e. their victory. a lot of people seem to think that 5th rules hurt the tau - but I think they are plenty strong still - and they have a LOT of questionably written rules to test the observance and literacy of tau players and opponents alike. so as new lists are tried (the all suit list did loose soemthing in the edition change) expect new interpretations of often overlooked or unused wargear and rules. We all defiunately need to keep our eyes on the tau, and their "elastic tape measures."

[GoneFishing]

I actually know and play against the 'Tau Online' poster (Gone Fishin') and I also know that this is just another in a series of rules lawyering projects he'd got on the go at the moment (the other being flechette dischargers or as it's now being called 'Iron Kurtain').

 

Hi All - Im the Tau online player in mentioned in the above post <_<. Having read through the stuff on this thread I am pretty much inclined to believe that it is just one pinning test, rather than multiple tests.

 

To be fair however - if you look at the thread on Tau Online, not only did I not startI'm it but I didn't even post in it! (in fact I wasn't even a member of the site when the thread started) (The Flechette Discharger's - now that ones all mine!). I think with the advent of 5th edition pretty much every army with a non specific 5Ed Codex is going to have questions linking there Codex and the new rules - I don't think the Tau are anymore guilty of it than anyone else. The problems would be solved a lot easier if GW would actually get around to FAQ'ing a couple more things.

 

The Tau did take a hit with 5th ed - I am however of the opinion that we came out of it a lot better than most, although like all armies at the moment we are trying new ideas and new tactics. So expect to come up against new Tau lists - It's an evolution, changing the old tactics and strategies that have been rendered ineffective by 5th ed, and trying the new tactics that 5th ed has made possible. Also expect to come up against new SOB lists, or Tyranids etc etc. Trying something new is not cheating or bending the rules for your advantage - its simply working out what works best for you "WITHIN" the new rules. And any player who Say's that they haven't changed their list, or experimented with new ideas since the rules change is lying :)

 

Again on the subject of Pinning - this is not a Tau only subject, plenty of other armies have Pinning Weapons - in fact, if you read the first part of the thread on Tau Online - it states - "This is a discussion that I found recently on another forum and I'm not sure if has been submitted here so."

 

 

So Nighthawks - you keep a close eye on the Tau players, I'm sure they will be keeping an equally close eye on you.

 

And Armoured Wing - I shall await your apology for slandering my good name and character on the "Pinning" issue - Nothing to do with me! Or next time we play I shall be forced to beat you with my specially crafted elastic Tape Measure of Doom! ;)

[Stormcaller3801]

The best logic that can be applied, I think, is to look at the way that the rule is worded relative to other, similar rules where we understand their intent. This can provide an insight into what the thought processes were when the rule was written.

 

For example, let's assume that in the wound allocation for complex units, there was a bullet point for allocating wounds to all models with the same type of weapon prior to allocating wounds to other, differently-armed models. The wording used there could provide some insight into the intent of pinning weapons.

 

We are fortunate enough that there is a rule that can be used for comparison, making use of a similar situation and similar grammar: the Gets Hot! rule. Here we see that when Gets Hot! is used in conjunction with the singular 'weapon' as regards to blasts. This means that we have a parallel usage, and we should treat one the same way we would treat the other.

 

Assuming that we have four plasma cannons in a unit, would we expect that when firing the four weapons we only make one check, or would we expect that we would have to make four checks? My understanding based on play has been that four checks would be made, one per model. This is supported in the text as well.

 

The argument could be made that this is an exceptional case, due to the fact that blast weapons are resolved individually before moving on to the next weapon in the firing unit. However, we can also see that in the text regarding Twin-Linked weapons, weapon is used to represent a single individual weapon, rather than a weapon type. We also can see in the discussion of multiple blasts that weapon is used singularly even when referring to multiple weapons of the same type.

 

To that end, it would appear that the intent is to indeed cause multiple Pinning tests, one per weapon causing unsaved wounds, rather than one per weapon type causing unsaved wounds. This does make things like pulse carbines and sniper rifles more effective on the battlefield, but I think that it also represents a reasonable shift with regards to the role that the units carrying these weapons are expected to have on the battlefield: Scouts, Pathfinders, and similar units are expected to disrupt and delay the enemy's advance. In the past this has been primarily achieve by acting as something of a speedbump. Now they can fulfill that mission without it being a death sentence.

[nighthawks]

<_<

GoneFishing- A lot of that was tongue in cheek ;) . Of course every player should be paying attention to the space marines now, as there are a LOT of new items, rules, and combinations to be tried. that goes without saying . the current Tau codex is established and the old lists are well understood by most players. of course everyone adapts their lists to the new rules, but competitive tau lists I feel will be revealing more "new" units to those who play against them but do not study other races' codices. unit's that "didn't work" by popular belief in 4th will be tested again, and potentially be found useful. The Tau have, from my experience, a much larger number of these units than most races. I play against a very odd (by tourney standards), diverse tau list frequently (and usually loose) in 4th and 5th, and it seems to have gotten stronger, not weaker, so I don't think it will be too long before others start running similar lists. the point of my comments was to remind my power armoured brethren here at the B&C to keep their eyes on the ball - that tau have a lot of tricks that have not been well documented, and we need to understand those tricks just as much as you need to understand our new ones. Tau also have a VERY long armoury section and a lot of rules that lead to debates as they are often not particularly well written - like flachette dischargers. BTW, the "iron curtain" interpretation is based on a similar logic to the pinning test per weapon choice here. I don't know what side of that you take, however.

 

back on subject, though - all arguments I have read here so far in support of the single test per shooting unit theory focus on "wounds" and make the step that the intent is that these are wounds caused by pinning weaponry, without regard for their number. The statement uses the singular "weapon" and is followed by the phrase "the pinning weapon that caused the test" which is very obviously, to me at least, a reference to the test being PER WEAPON that causes UNSAVED WOUNDS.

 

again, this may or may not be overly powerful, depending on your point of view, but it IS the way the rule is written. one weapon, one test. multiple weapons (wounds unsaved) multiple tests.

 

Stormcaller makes a very valid comparison, as well, for anyone who questions the consistency of the word usage throughout the book, in particular the shooting weapons description section. welcome to the B&C, Stormy!!

[Roland Durendal]

it's really not THAT strong, as the wound probability before saves from 10 snipers is 2.5 - so against most units (5+ save) you get .83 - roughly 1 unsaved wound. there's a reason sniper rifles are now a no-cost upgrade for scouts. However, 10 pulse carbines vs. MEq. makes ~2 unsaved wounds, ~4 vs. T3/5+Sv "standard" infantry. that's a lot of pinning tests! best an artillery battery could do is 3 tests, unless someone knows of a barrage battery or unit with more than 3 weapons...

 

 

Yup a Vulture with 6 heavy bombs....mmm I miss my Elysians