Pinning per weapon?

[Voltaire]

I've been going through my 5th ed rule book looking for any loop holes within the rules, and discovered a rather horrendous rule applying to pinning.

Pinning, I've seen is caused per weapon from the squad causing pinning. So by this logic, a group of scout snipers could effectively pin a thirty man squad of orks or guardsmen in one turn of shooting.

 

 

Basically I've been told that it is actually illegal, and there are numerous counter-arguments to this, yet I still feel that it is the proper interpretation of the rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opinions?

[Rider-75]

don't see how that's a loophole. that's what they are meant to do. :P

[Voltaire]

But I've been told that it's pinning per squad, not per weapon.

 

 

 

Simply the target takes only one pinning test, regardless of the number of wounds suffered.

[rat of vengence]

I am missing the point here, I think?

 

RoV

[Starblayde]

But I've been told that it's pinning per squad, not per weapon.

 

Simply the target takes only one pinning test, regardless of the number of wounds suffered.

Think about it, if you've had one or more of your squad, however large, picked off by a sniper, then the rest of the squad gets their heads down before they're shot in the head too.

 

Whether it's one casualty, or five, that have been inflicted from a sniper squad, you take a pinning test. Not five tests for five different wounds inflicted from the five individual snipers.

 

The great combination for this comes from Imperial Guard with Ratlings and Primaris Psykers. The Psykers lower the units leadership with one of their powers (-2 per usage, I think) then the Ratling Snipers cause a wound or two and the pinning test suddenly becomes very difficult to pass.

[Voltaire]

But if they successfully pass the pinning test, wouldn't the squad be tempted to duck for cover again because of another casualty? In the sense that each sniper is shooting independently, not the entire squad shooting in one volley.

[Grey Mage]

And that is correct. The relevant passage is brb pg. 31, paragraph 2:

 

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

 

Note:

1) All shooting is done simultaneously.

2) All wound allocation is done together, there is no iniative order.

3) All casualties are removed immediately. The entire process occurs "as one".

 

Because of this.... it doesnt matter how many unsaved "wounds" a unit takes, you only take one test- because thats is exactly what the rule states. Note, its "any unsaved wounds" not "an unsaved wound". The fact the the source of these wounds must come from a pinning weapon is so bolters dont cause pinning tests.

 

The confusion seems to lie in the part where it says "from a pinning weapon". This is gramatically correct- any number of pinning weapons could do it, but only one is required to get the job done. If they said "from a squad armed with a pinning weapon" or "from pinning weapons" youd have a horrible abuse of the rules.

[thade]

I'm confused as to what the OP's confusion is.

 

My first thought was maybe the OP thinks that if my sniper team (with five sniper weapons) scores five wounds on a target...that they have to take five pinning tests? In that case, no..they only have to take one Pinning test.

 

Then I thought, maybe he thinks Pinning is per model and not per unit? In that case, no...it is in fact unit-wide. One guy gets shot, they all take the test.

 

None of these are exploits. Pinning is awesome and you should use it whenever you can. Don't forget that Ordinance inflicts pinning checks too!

[Zynk Kaladin]

Pinning on the ork mob is a no go. I seem to recall they get some mob rule thing which makes them immune to pinning. I haven't really seen pinning do much on my end. I mostly play against wolves and orks (aka my friend) and haven't really found much use for them. Sorry if I'm hijacking your thread, but is pinning really that great or am I doing it wrong?

[thade]

Pinning on the ork mob is a no go. I seem to recall they get some mob rule thing which makes them immune to pinning. I haven't really seen pinning do much on my end. I mostly play against wolves and orks (aka my friend) and haven't really found much use for them. Sorry if I'm hijacking your thread, but is pinning really that great or am I doing it wrong?

 

If Ork Boy units are large enough they become Fearless. The rule is like...their Leadership is no less than 6 or 8, but if they number greater than that, their LD is that. And if htey number 11, they're Fearless.

 

Fearless = autopass all morale checks, and Pinning is a morale check.

[Zynk Kaladin]

Pinning on the ork mob is a no go. I seem to recall they get some mob rule thing which makes them immune to pinning. I haven't really seen pinning do much on my end. I mostly play against wolves and orks (aka my friend) and haven't really found much use for them. Sorry if I'm hijacking your thread, but is pinning really that great or am I doing it wrong?

 

If Ork Boy units are large enough they become Fearless. The rule is like...their Leadership is no less than 6 or 8, but if they number greater than that, their LD is that. And if htey number 11, they're Fearless.

 

Fearless = autopass all morale checks, and Pinning is a morale check.

 

Yea, that's it. I can definitely see how pinning could work if a couple whirlwinds pounded a squad of orks, but snipers won't do much against that 30 ork mob :P

[Legatus]

Fearless = autopass all morale checks, and Pinning is a morale check.

Pinning is not a Morale test, but fearless units automatically pass Pinning tests as well. So it amounts to the same, I just wanted to be a smarta... I mean clarify that.

[Voltaire]

But if it says per weapon, then doesnt that mean the pinning check the target squad must take is itself a gramatical error?

Because I do not believe that they would have the addition of 'per weapon' unless they intended the multi-pinning-test situation.

The ruling stating that a 'unit that takes a wound from a squad with pinning weapons must, at the end of the turn, make a pinning test.'

 

 

That is the grammatical error, where test is singular instead of plural, hence the confusion.

[thade]

A grammatical error causing confusion in a GW publication? I'm shocked and alarmed...that you are shocked and alarmed. :lol:

 

Happens too often; that's why the OR forum exists. <3

[Legatus]

The rule does not say "per weapon". That would specifically mean one test for each weapon that had fired and wounded. The test is taken immediately each time the unit suffers any number of wounds of a certain type. And that type is "from a pinning weapon".

[edit]So if an enemy unit fires a number of pinning shots and scores a number of wounds, the wounded unit would only have to take one test, no matter how manny pinning wound it suffered from thet one enemy unit. They may have to take further tests forced by different enemy units.[/edit]

 

 

If a unit of 10 snipers fires and scores 4 sniper wounds, each wound comes from a different weapon, so the unit did indeed suffer wounds from multiple pinning weapons. But it is also correct to state that each of those wounds, individually, comes from a pinning weapon. Wound number 1 comes from Scout Sniper 3, so it comes from a pinning weapon. Wound number 2 cmoes from Scout Sniper 7, so it also comes from a pinning weapon. etc. all four wounds come from a pinning weapon.

[Agrab]

The rule states that at the end of the unit that caused the test's shooting, the unit shot must take a pinning test. If they fail, they go to ground and can be ignored. If they pass, you can cause them to take it again by shooting them with more pinning weapons (from a different unit)

 

as a person who runs 6 scout squads, this is important and fun

[thade]

Legatus: are you saying that if I score four wounds with four pinning weapons, the target unit has to take FOUR pinning tests?

[Legatus]

No, I am saying that the rules are gramatically correct if they intend to say that a unit has to take one test for a complete enemy unit's volley of pinning wounds.

 

Edit: Perhaps I should state the case I am trying to make more clearly.

[greatcrusade08]

i understand Legatus clearly and gree with his statement..

The rule itself may be gramatically unclear, but it is not in itself wrong, just could be worded better.

 

Any wounds caused by pinning weapon cause a pinning test, thats clear.

All shooting from the same squad happen simultaneously therefore only one test ever needs to be taken.

 

You guys can discuss wording until the sky turns green, but thats a pretty clear definition to me.

[gdeathlegion]

I suppose you guys have never had to deal with Dark Eldar Horrorfexes or Terrorfexes. Once the new DE codex arrives, people will have some serious problems with pinning. They are blast weapons with a low range, for every model they touch (no rolling to wound is required) they lower your leadership by 1, then you must immediatley take a pinning test. I can't wait to see if they include these types of weapons again in the new DE codex.

 

These types of weapons fall into the realm of having to deal with serious pinning problems, they are completely crippling to space marine armies.

 

Edit: Unless you include Lysander, Cassius, or chaplains of course.

[Chengar Qordath]

I suppose you guys have never had to deal with Dark Eldar Horrorfexes or Terrorfexes. Once the new DE codex arrives, people will have some serious problems with pinning. They are blast weapons with a low range, for every model they touch (no rolling to wound is required) they lower your leadership by 1, then you must immediatley take a pinning test. I can't wait to see if they include these types of weapons again in the new DE codex.

 

These types of weapons fall into the realm of having to deal with serious pinning problems, they are completely crippling to space marine armies.

 

Edit: Unless you include Lysander, Cassius, or chaplains of course.

Lysander would not do much good against Terrorfexes; the stubborn USR only applies to negative modifiers on morale checks, not pinning checks.

[Grey Mage]

But if it says per weapon, then doesnt that mean the pinning check the target squad must take is itself a gramatical error?

Because I do not believe that they would have the addition of 'per weapon' unless they intended the multi-pinning-test situation.

The ruling stating that a 'unit that takes a wound from a squad with pinning weapons must, at the end of the turn, make a pinning test.'

 

 

That is the grammatical error, where test is singular instead of plural, hence the confusion.

Thankfully it doesnt say "per weapon" the statment is gramatically correct. If they take any wounds from a pinning weapon they take a test.

 

That is not the same as saying If they take a wound from a pinning weapon they take a test.

 

Its esoteric, but accurate.

[thade]

Esoteric is fine. It had better be, as it describes a good portion of the rules. ;)

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Thankfully it doesnt say "per weapon"

 

And it nolonger states 'by a unit' like it did in the 4E rules. Quite a major change in wording. This all hinges more on ones definition/interprataion of 'a pinning weapon'. And both sides argue opposing definitions of that phrase. And if it said 'a wound by a weapon' you'd see people arguing for multiple tests from multiple wounds caused by multi-shot pinning weapons. That they listed 'any wounds' by a weapon, removes that possibility and limits its to the source causing it, and how many there were, not how many wounds they suffered in total. (and, honestly, several other things that happen 'simmultaniously' force us to spread them out and either roll them seperately, or use multiple sets of dice. This would be no different)

 

 

As many times as this will pop up it will never be 'closed' until GW get off their butts and handle it in an FAQ. So, just discuss it with your local group of players before running into this situation. (and save the forums the dead-horse-beating ;P )

[Grey Mage]

I find the whole thing incredibly suspect for several reasons, including the fact that its most grammatically correct as a one-test-per-salvo, but what really gets my suspicions up is that we heard none of this for almost a year after 5th ed was released, and then where does it come from initially?

 

Tau players, who decided that they would try to push the envelope so they could get upwards of 14 pinning tests from a single squad each turn. Even most of the tau players disagreed with this idea, but it was pushed far out into the limelight for a month or so and now festers. Ive seen repeated emails from GWs question email stating it doesnt work like that, but not one claim saying theyve endorsed the ruling. Ive also yet to see any instance of it in a battlereport- yes I know, neither of those sources is 100% reliable, but it shows a continued trend.

 

To pull from HFE's signature here:

as rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely the result of wishful thinking.