Pinning per weapon?

[greatcrusade08]

Yes.. I even cited the wounds example, myself. And doesn't matter the possible reasons behind it. A change is a change. Like it or not, 'by a unit' is nolonger in the rule, anywhere.

 

Nor does the rule say you take a test per unsaved wound.. which it would have to spell out had GW wanted to make such a drastic change.

 

im just surprised this argument is even going tbh.. i use 2 big units of snipers in my army, including Telion.. trust me when i say if you were right it WOULD unbalance thier sterngths, youd basically gaurantee a pinned unit every turn.

sniper have rending aswell dont forget, what mopre do you want?

 

whilst i agree wht wording is suspect, its no where near enough to 'interpret' the rules this way.. your seeing an inch and taking a mile.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Yes.. I even cited the wounds example, myself. And doesn't matter the possible reasons behind it. A change is a change. Like it or not, 'by a unit' is nolonger in the rule, anywhere.

 

Nor does the rule say you take a test per unsaved wound.. which it would have to spell out had GW wanted to make such a drastic change.

 

And I, nor anyone else here, ever said it was 'by wounds'. The argument is 'by weapon'. Heck, *that* is the title of this very thread. Pleease, read the whole thing next time. :) By wounds *would* be overpowered, specialy when taking into acount multiple wound weapons.

 

 

im just surprised this argument is even going tbh.. i use 2 big units of snipers in my army, including Telion.. trust me when i say if you were right it WOULD unbalance thier sterngths, youd basically gaurantee a pinned unit every turn.

sniper have rending aswell dont forget, what mopre do you want?

 

Yes, as i've stated. They could potentially force a single unit to be pinned per turn. Which, effectively locks them down as well, letting something else come up and deal with them.

 

I don't want anything, other than to have the rules clear (which they're not in this case) and for GW to get off their butts and handle the issue in an FAQ, properly.

 

 

whilst i agree wht wording is suspect, its no where near enough to 'interpret' the rules this way.. your seeing an inch and taking a mile.

 

The change, alone, is enough to make it 'suspect' of not working the way it used to.

[thade]

You're jumping to conclusions there Thade, assuming that absolutely every shot is not only going to hit, but also wound, and the armor save is failed. That's alot that needs to be taken into account. What's the avereage BS of the most prominent snipers? What's the average Sv of the most likely to run into them? What's the LD of the most common units in the game? Tha's an awful lot of 'stuff' that needs to happen, and be just right, in order for this particular take on pinning to be truely effective. Most things, have the armor and LD to shrug off most pinning wounds and checks.

 

Let's leave the value-based judgements of my conclusions aside, shall we?

 

I am not assuming every single shot will hit and wound, every time; I am posing a worst case. Worst cases are not out of the question and here would be extremely annoying and slow. If you wish an average case, that's fine...and still falls under my assertions.

 

How many wounds do you expect to land, unsaved, per salvo? Two? Four? I think those are not unreasonable numbers of unsaved wounds for a good round of rolling. Now, my opponent has to roll four dice pairs. Leaving aside the statistics of failure (which have increased significantly) and how over-powered this likely is (which I suspect it is), that's four separate times the opponent has to pick up two dice, separate them from other dice on the table, and roll them. It occurs to me that, as dice pairs cannot be rolled in batches easily and quickly (barring you owning lots of colored-pairs I suppose, I use only three bricks myself), the rules set would have been designed to not let this happen.

 

All other events for dice rolling in the game can be quick, once you are familiar with the rules: grabbing batches for shooting, wounding/penetrating, and armor saves, etc. Morale checks, regroup checks, leadership checks, psychic tests...these are the things you can't really roll in quick batches as you've got to single out pairs of dice and indicate what you're rolling. It's not terribly slow, but it is the slowest part of the system. I don't believe they'd belabor it any more than is needed.

[CaptinLoken]

I would like to mention there is a drastic change to morale rolls as well. Page 43 BRB refers to auto pass rule which could happen in this case of pinning Equally as rare but make it so moral check will be made even if they are negatively rolled down to the leadership of 2. Secondly If you fire a pinning weapon on a falling back unit they will AUTO pass the pinning test. I do favor that Only one type of weapon causes one test from each unit cases a test. The best example of this is Telion and a squad of scouts. Thou both Telion and his squad of snipers have pinning weapons they are different, and in this case could cause different rolls of removing wounds.

 

Lets say I have a squad of 3 snipers an Telion firing at a squad. The snipers roll well and cause 2 wounds. Telion rolls equally well and causes 2 wounds. The opposing player makes 2 rolls of saves from both weapons and saves 1 of each. 2 wounds from two different Pinning weapons. This would cause two tests. This is due to different weapons of pinning hitting the unit. Similar if in the crazy cause were I had a barrage weapon and snipers in the same sqaud. Not that we can find a good example of this in codex. This seems laggy of dice rolls but it is moderate of both making 14 leadership tests as well making it so that mixed units of pinning weapons are not mauled over and ignored.

 

This is coming in from a left door of things but I can imagine that being in the rules....as fun and agreeable.

 

Further reading over Going to ground rule I'm interested in reading how they made pinning and Ground over lap.

 

Page 24 brb. You make your leaderhip test for pinning before you make saves. So the above mention about variation of weapons would be based off one type of dice roll off.

 

Now I'm not GW in any way but just reading over how the phase of the turn of shooting would happen.

 

You shoot pinning weapons each type of pinning weapon from a unit deserves a test that caused a wound. If the unit is pinned they go to ground. Once the Shooting phase is finished if they also suffered 25% Casualties. They will fall back if they fail there Leadership test. They can not voluntarily fall back because the rules clear mention this. (I mention this because Marines have combat tactics which gives them the option to auto fail.)

 

These are mentioned in BRB page 24.

 

I imagine that this isn't drastically making it so that you auto pin an enemy unit but also makes it possible even if they survive the wound inflicted to the unit. If I hear a mortar coming down usually I will duck down. It doesn't matter if they are fired as a volley or a single shot the idea is that they got a pinning weapon and they have a fix on my unit. Fluffy understanding is that by the time the first sniper fires his shot the rest of his squad is going to try and pick off targets not in cover yet. They wouldn't have the same effect as two different types of snipers in a squad firing or pinning weapon types going off because they are all causing the same effect of pinning. I would like to see the rule changed that the more wounds caused by a pinning weapon modify the leadership but that the idea of having 14 leadership test I would just pick my models after that time wasted and leave.

[Legatus]

It is not one pinning test for a number of wounds caused by a type of pinning weapon. It is one test if a number of wounds by "a pinning weapon" are suffered. A Sniper Rifle is a pinning weapon. Telions Stalker Pattern Boltgun is a pinning weapon. If the unit causes wounds from snipers scouts and wounds from Telion, each of those wounds is coming from a pinning weapon. In the example above the unit suffered two wounds that both come from a pinning weapon, and after having rolled for saves would now have to make one pinning test.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

It is not one pinning test for a number of wounds caused by a type of pinning weapon. It is one test if a number of wounds by "a pinning weapon" are suffered. A Sniper Rifle is a pinning weapon. Telions Stalker Pattern Boltgun is a pinning weapon. If the unit causes wounds from snipers scouts and wounds from Telion, each of those wounds is coming from a pinning weapon. In the example above the unit suffered two wounds that both come from a pinning weapon, and after having rolled for saves would now have to make one pinning test.

 

Marshal Wilhelm likes this -_-

[Skalver]

Ok, firstly sorry for digging up an old thread but this came up again in a thread on the SW forum and rather than derail that I decided to bring this thread back to life. One thing nobody has mentioned here is that later in the same rule is the line:

 

As long as the tests are passed, a unit may be called upon to take multiple pinning tests in a single turn.

 

This line would seem unnescessary if the whole "all shooting happens in an instant" line of reasoning was followed through. The rules specifically state that multiple pinning tests per turn are possible and any line of reasoning that argues that this is an impossibility due to something else would seem spurious.

 

Before that there is also the line:

 

As the unit has taken its saves, going to ground does not protect it against the fire of the pinning weapon that caused the test (or indeed any other weapon fired by the same unit that phase) - it's too late

 

This is the same word, in the same rule, in a context that makes it incredibly clear they are referring to an individual weapon on an individual model and which also makes it clear that, at the time you make the test, there could still be other wounds, from other models in the same unit that are still waiting in line to be processed. This seems to very specifically use "weapon" to mean the individual weapon on an individual model.

 

The broadening of the term "weapon" to be more general is also not in keeping with how the word is used in the rulebook. Anywhere else where they mean "weapons" they use that word and "weapon" singular is always a single weapon on a single model. The "type of" argument is the same. If you want to argue "type of" then you can also argue that "Vehicles that move at cruising speed may fire a single weapon" means they can fire a single "type of" weapon, i.e. all lascannons, or all "heavy" weapons or whatever type you choose. What about a "Weapon Destroyed" result? Should that mean that all of a single "type of" weapon is destroyed. If you accept the "type of" argument in the pinning context you have to be willing to also accept arguments that anywhere it says "weapon" or "weapons" in the rule book it could mean "type of weapon" or "types of weapons". It is a very very inconsistent interpretation to try and argue.

 

You are arguing that a particular word, has a particular meaning in one sentence of a rule, that the meaning of the word in that sentence is not only different to the meaning of that word as it appears, literally three sentences later within the same rule but that the words meaning in that one place is uniquely different to the meaning that word has everyhere else in the rulebook. Not to mention that that interpretation renders another later part of the same rule both redundant and meaningless. That just isn't a cogent argument.

[nurglez]

As long as the tests are passed, a unit may be called upon to take multiple pinning tests in a single turn

 

this is covering if you shoot at my unit with 3 units that have pinning weapons/ unit a shoots, i pass, you now shoot with unit b, i also pass, you then shoot with unit c, and i fail. I have taken 3 pinning tests that turn.

[Legatus]

This line would seem unnescessary if the whole "all shooting happens in an instant" line of reasoning was followed through. The rules specifically state that multiple pinning tests per turn are possible and any line of reasoning that argues that this is an impossibility due to something else would seem spurious.

There will only be one test per enemy unit. But there can be multiple test per turn, each from a diffeent unit, as nurglez said.

 

If you do follow the written rules for rolling to hit, to wound and all saves simultaneously, you will end up with multiple pinning wounds all at once. You will not process the wounds the unit takes one by one.

 

Hitting

BRB, p. 18: "When a unit fires, all of its weapons are fired simultaneously, so you should ideally roll all of its To Hit dice together. Sometimes there will be different weapons firing, or firers with different BS in teh same unit, in which case we find it easiest to use different coloured dice, so that those shots can be picked out. (...) Alternatively, you can simply make separate dice rolls for different weapons or shooters, as long as it is clear which dice rolls represent which shots."

 

Wounding

BRB, p. 19: "Just like rolling To Hit, roll the dice together and, once again, use different coloured dice to pick out weapons with different Strengths or roll them separately."

 

Saves

BRB, p. 20: "You roll all the saves for the unit in one go"

 

Hits, Wounds, etc. from one single enemy unit are assumed to strike simultaneously, and teh suggested method is to roll all dice together. However, as an alternative it is suggested to roll separate for them instead, if you only have one colour for your dice. And that is the method I use, for example. None the less, all the casualties from the enemy unit are assumed to occur at the same time. So you would instantly have 5+ pinning tests on your hands if your unit was fired upon by a squad of Scouts or Rangers.

 

Instead, if a unit has lost five models to a single unit of Scout snipers, you can view it as five of your unit's models having been killed by a pinning weapon. I.E. if any of the unsaved wounds a unit suffered came from a pinning weapon, the unit now immediately has to take a pinning test. I think phrased like this it would have been a bit clearer.

[shatter]

Most unitS that can pin have weaponS that cannot pin as well. Eg 10 man scoutS with a ML, whirlwindS with HKS.

It's only the pinning weaponS that cause testS.

[Skalver]

Even if you allow that all of a units shooting happens simultaneously you still have to explain that "weapon" in that one single context means "weapons" or "type of weapon" which is totally at odds with how that word is used elsewhere within that rule and (as far as I am aware) everywhere else within the rulebook.

 

If you allow that "a pinning weapon" means "one or more weapons with the pinning rule" then you have to allow, in for example the weapon destroyed rule, that "choose one of the weapons" means "choose one of the types of weapon" or that anywhere else the word "weapon" is used it could mean "type of weapon".

 

Any argument that "where they said X what they meant to say was Y" is a weak argument. If you need to add an "s" or "type of" or any other qualifier to the rules for your interpretation to make sense then your interpretation hinges on changing the wording of the rules. The phrase "a pinning weapon" is one weapon with the pinning rule. You are trying to argue that in that one place they meant plural whereas weapon everywhere else in the rulebook is singular.

 

Most unitS that can pin have weaponS that cannot pin as well. Eg 10 man scoutS with a ML, whirlwindS with HKS.

It's only the pinning weaponS that cause testS.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that weapons without the pinning rule can cause pinning tests. The question is if for example, two scouts in a squad shoot with sniper rifles and each causes an unsaved wound does the unit take one or two pinning tests.

[Legatus]

Even if you allow that all of a units shooting happens simultaneously you still have to explain that "weapon" in that one single context means "weapons" or "type of weapon" which is totally at odds with how that word is used elsewhere within that rule and (as far as I am aware) everywhere else within the rulebook.

I am not sure I understand what you mean. As long as at least one of the unsaved wounds the unit suffered came form a pinning weapon, it immediately has to make a pinning test.

 

I.e. a unit consisting of squad members A, B, C, D and E. The unit is fired at by a unit of snipers, and after wounding and saves, two members (D and E) are removed as casualties. Member D was killed by a pinning weapon, and member E was killed by a pinning weapon. Since two of those wounds were inflicted by a pinning weapon, the unit now immediately has to make one pinning test.

 

You could say "these wounds were caused by pinning weapons",

 

but you could also say "each of these wounds was caused by a pinning weapon".

 

Both would be gramtically correct.

 

Similar rules like this are difficult to find ("if wounded at least once, then X..."), but the rules for the Devourer with Brainleech Worms in the new Codex Tyranids on page 81 are somewhat similar:

 

"If an enemy unit suffers one or more casualties because of a devourer and is required to take a Morale check at the end of the phase, it suffers a -1 penalty to its Leadership."

 

I would say no matter how many devourers cause casualties to the unit, all that matters that at least one wound was caused by a devourer. It will still only amount to a single -1 modifier at the end of that phase.

 

Similarly:

 

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

 

So you roll for the entire enemy sniper unit to hit, then roll for all the wounds and then all the saves. You get a number of wounds, and each of those wounds came from a pinning weapon. So the unit that was shot at now must immediately take a pinning test.

[thade]

Legatus is on the money here, as usual with his grammar analysis. =)

 

To sum up:

- Sniper Team 1 fires on the target. If the target takes any wounds from a Pinning weapon, it must take a Pinning test, whether it be one or many wounds.

- Sniper Team 2 fires on the target. If it is not Pinned (ie passed the Pinning Test from before) and it suffers any unsaved wounds, it must again make a Pinning check.

- Rinse, repeat.

[shatter]

Most unitS that can pin have weaponS that cannot pin as well. Eg 10 man scoutS with a ML, whirlwindS with HKS.

It's only the pinning weaponS that cause testS.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that weapons without the pinning rule can cause pinning tests. The question is if for example, two scouts in a squad shoot with sniper rifles and each causes an unsaved wound does the unit take one or two pinning tests.

 

I was being subtle. Plurals all over the place that encompassed totallity. Much like the way the pinning rule is written in the book.

 

*shrug*

[Skalver]

The rule does not say "pinning weapons" it says "a pinning weapon". "A pinning weapon" means a single, non-specific pinning weapon. The indefinite article is used for exactly that purpose. "A cow" is one cow, "a dog" is one dog. You are trying to argue that by use of the indefinite article they are somehow referring to "one or more pinning weapons" but that is not how the indefinite article works.

 

Whatever way you cut it, your argument hinges on "a pinning weapon" being interpreted as a collective noun which is not a correct interpration.

 

To braoden it a bit you are specifically arguing that "wounds from a pinning weapon" means "wounds from pinning weapons". Again that doesn't work, the wounds are directly tied to a singular pinning weapon, "wounds from a pinning weapon" is a collective noun but it is a very different collective noun from "wounds from pinning weapons".

 

 

Here is a little thought exercise. Imagine the wording was

 

"If a unit takes two wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test"

 

Would you then think you should take a pinning test from a unit of scouts firing and causing two wounds from two seperate weapons? Writing "wounds" is just shorthand for making a bunch of different rules for "one wound", "two wounds", "three wounds" etc. Once you write out one of those specifically the rule is very clear.

[Legatus]

The rule does not say "pinning weapons" it says "a pinning weapon". "A pinning weapon" means a single, non-specific pinning weapon. The indefinite article is used for exactly that purpose. "A cow" is one cow, "a dog" is one dog. You are trying to argue that by use of the indefinite article they are somehow referring to "one or more pinning weapons" but that is not how the indefinite article works.

I provided the rules for Devourers with Brainleech Worms, which is phrased similar.

 

"If an enemy unit suffers one or more casualties because of a devourer and is required to take a Morale check at the end of the phase, it suffers a -1 penalty to its Leadership."

 

compare to

 

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

 

The singular in that case is generic. And you can use plural or singular to refer to a generic item.

 

 

"If a unit suffers a number of wounds by weapons of type X..."

 

and

 

"If a unit suffers a number of wounds by a weapon of type X..."

 

are usually identical, and could be used in either form.

 

 

E.g. "Units suffering unsaved wounds by an Inferno Cannon have to take a Morale check at the end of the phase, no matter how many models they lost."

 

or

 

"Units suffering unsaved wounds by Inferno Cannons have to take a Morale check at the end of the phase, no matter how many models they lose."

 

The outcome is the same, no matter whether the plural is used or whether a singular is used.

 

Again, a unit suffers four wounds to snipers. All of those wounds were caused by pinning weapons. But it is also correct to say that each of the wounds was caused by a pinning weapon. It's just that each was caused by a different one.

 

A unit is fired at by a unit of Scouts, 9 of the scouts have sniper rifles and one has a missile launcher. The unit suffers 2 wounds to the missile launcher and 3 wounds to the snipers. So 3 of the wounds that the unit just suffered come from a pinning weapon.

[dswanick]

The rule does not say "pinning weapons" it says "a pinning weapon". "A pinning weapon" means a single, non-specific pinning weapon. The indefinite article is used for exactly that purpose. "A cow" is one cow, "a dog" is one dog. You are trying to argue that by use of the indefinite article they are somehow referring to "one or more pinning weapons" but that is not how the indefinite article works.

 

Whatever way you cut it, your argument hinges on "a pinning weapon" being interpreted as a collective noun which is not a correct interpration.

 

To braoden it a bit you are specifically arguing that "wounds from a pinning weapon" means "wounds from pinning weapons". Again that doesn't work, the wounds are directly tied to a singular pinning weapon, "wounds from a pinning weapon" is a collective noun but it is a very different collective noun from "wounds from pinning weapons".

 

 

Here is a little thought exercise. Imagine the wording was

 

"If a unit takes two wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test"

 

Would you then think you should take a pinning test from a unit of scouts firing and causing two wounds from two seperate weapons? Writing "wounds" is just shorthand for making a bunch of different rules for "one wound", "two wounds", "three wounds" etc. Once you write out one of those specifically the rule is very clear.

"If a unit takes wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a pinning test"

Quite a lot of word parsing going on here. Here's some more word parsing for you - what if I've taken one wound from one pinning weapon...I haven't taken wounds (plural/more than one) so by the strictest interpretation of each word, I shouldn't have to take a pinning test. For that matter, if I take one wound from three seperate weapons, I shouldn't either as I haven't taken wounds from a pinning weapon (ie more than one wound from each of the three seperate weapons).

Fortunately, that's not how the pinning rule is written :

PINNING

If a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test. This is a normal leadership test. If the unit fails the test. it is immediately forced to go to ground (as described on page 24).

The rule states that if any (ie. any amount) of unsaved wounds it must take a pinning test. So as noted earlier - the shooting phase happens, all the shots are rolled for, all the wounds are rolled for from the hits, all the armor saves are rolled for from wounds, and a pinning test is made if any of those unsaved wounds were caused by a pinning weapon. One pinning test is made for any and all the pinning wounds from a unit. The test is a YES/NO situation. Q:were any of the unsaved wounds caused by a weapon with the pinning attribute? If yes:take a (one/singular) pinning test. Now you move on to the next units shooting.

[greatcrusade08]

i think we need to step back and realise the writers of the rule are not college english graduates.. they are gamers..

mistakes due to wording are prevelant in the codex so we shouldnt try to garner too much meaning from the wording itself.

 

this makes it hard to seperate RAW and RAI in my eyes (in some cases at least)..

id have to agree that since a unit fires at the same time one wound or many doesnt matter.. only one test is taken per unit firing

[thade]

i think we need to step back and realise the writers of the rule are not college english graduates.. they are gamers..

mistakes due to wording are prevelant in the codex so we shouldnt try to garner too much meaning from the wording itself.

 

this makes it hard to seperate RAW and RAI in my eyes (in some cases at least)..

id have to agree that since a unit fires at the same time one wound or many doesnt matter.. only one test is taken per unit firing

 

^ This.

[Skalver]

Quite a lot of word parsing going on here. Here's some more word parsing for you - what if I've taken one wound from one pinning weapon...I haven't taken wounds (plural/more than one) so by the strictest interpretation of each word, I shouldn't have to take a pinning test. For that matter, if I take one wound from three seperate weapons, I shouldn't either as I haven't taken wounds from a pinning weapon (ie more than one wound from each of the three seperate weapons).

 

Your point is incorrect. The wording is "any unsaved wounds", any means "one or more" but it is in this case followed by the plural form of the noun. If the "any" was not there you would have a point, but yet again we come to the same problem, your interpretations always require selective editing of the phrase to make sense. "Any dogs" doesn't mean "two or more dogs" it means "one or more".

 

I admit I may have led you to that incorrect phrasing when I left out the "any" myself in my point but the word is there so your argument is moot.

[Legatus]

What I am mainly trying to say is that "any wounds from a pinning weapon" is gramatically correct if the author wanted to refer to any number of pinning weapons. What matters that some of the wounds come from a weapon that has the pinning rule. It is still not the best written rule, and is very ambiguous. However, what I am saying is that "each pinning weapon that causes wounds also causes a test" is not the only possible reading, and that "if at least one pinning weapon causes wounds it will cause an immediate test" is another legitimate reading.

What remains then is to point out that the first reading (each weapon causes a separate test) could lead to potentially having to roll ten or more pinning tests at once, depending on the unit firing, which I cannot imagine being the authors intention.

[thade]

I'm with Legatus et al, still. Possibly having to take ten back-to-back Pinning Tests from a single unit's shots is *ludicrous*; there's no way that's what it means. I'm perplexed as to how people might think otherwise; I'm guessing this is purely academic now for some of you?

[ShinyRhino]

Think of it like a logic problem:

 

IF a unit takes ANY unsaved wounds from a Pinning weapon, THEN take a pinning test.

 

IF is the qualifier. After unsaved wounds are tallied and casualties removed, ask "Did my unit take unsaved wounds from a Pinning weapon?"

IF Yes, continue to THEN. IF No, stop.

 

ANY is simply the word qualifier for the value, which has been pointed out as >0. It is actually the ANY that keeps it from being one test per weapon. Without that ANY, you have:

 

IF a unit takes unsaved wounds from A Pinning weapon, THEN take a Pinning test.

This would completely nullify Sniper weapons as causing Pinning, because they can only fire a single shot, and therefore only cause one wound! They can never qualify the "wounds" portion of the IF/THEN statement, and your equation can only be completed by weapons that can fire multiple times per round, or those that fire a template.

 

A single firing unit can only ever qualify the IF/THEN statement once per Shooting phase. Even if the unit contains both a mortar and a sniper rifle, you're getting ONE qualification of the IF statement. If the unit contains 567 sniper rifles, you get ONE qualification of the statement.

[ShinyRhino]

And to head off the "but it says 'wounds'" train at the station, it says "wounds" because that is grammatically correct when using the word any. "an unsaved wounds" is not correct English. In a logic statement, AN = 1. If you subbed AN into the equation, you'd get:

 

IF a unit suffers AN unsaved wound from a Pinning weapon, THEN take a Pinning test.

 

In this case, you'd only roll if you only suffered a single wound, ever. Take 5 unsaved wounds from sniper rifles? No test, as 5>1. Take 2 unsaved wounds from a mortar? No test; 2>1. Suffer ONE wound from a mortar? Test; 1=1.

 

See where we're going with this?

[Legatus]

That is not a very useful approach, as the rule does say, as Skalver pointed out, that it applies to units suffering "any unsaved wounds". "one" is included in "any".