Pinning per weapon?

[Skalver]

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.

 

Except that it isn't gramatically correct. If that is what he meant the gramatically correct form is to say "weapons". "Any wounds from a pinning weapon" means "one or more wounds from one pinning weapon", "a pinning weapon" is singular. It is non-specific in that it does not refer to any one particular weapon but it is incorrect to take that non-specificity and assume it can be used to cover a plurality. If it was a question then it could be inclusive but it is not. The question "Did the unit suffer any wounds from a pinning weapon?" could be answered "yes" whether it took wounds from one pinning weapon or more but in this form it is not a question, it is a conditional test. It states "IF condition_is_met THEN take_action" which is correctly interpreted as taking the action each and every time the condition is met.

 

Finally, if thats not enough look at where the pinning rules are in the rule book, they are within the weapon types rules, not within the shooting rules. There is no "take pinning tests" part of the shooting phase. Look at all the rules in that section, blast weapons, template weapons, rapid fire weapons, all the rules are explained as applying on a per weapon basis. If pinning weapons were unique in that all of a units pinning weapons should be lumped together into a single super-shot then don't you think the rules would say that very specifically. It would be so different from how every single other weapon type in the game works that it would be spelled out very deliberately. Even if you won't concede the grammer point the whole "all at once" approach only works if pinning was added as a rule at the end of the shooting rules. That is not where it is. It is explained in the rules for individual weapons, not as a follow on to the distribution of wounds in the shooting phase.

 

The argument for one pinning test per squad basically goes:

 

If we assume that where they used a singular form of "pinning weapon" it could possibly mean "pinning weapons" and we accept that that was the intended meaning and we accept that even though that would mean pinning weapon shooting was unique in so far as being dealt with on a per-unit as opposed to a per-weapon basis and we accept that even though this interpretation is so radically different from how every other weapon in the game is dealt with that no clarification or extra detail or allusion to that difference was made other than one subtle potential interpretation and if we take the rules for an individual weapon from where they are in the rule book and treat them as if it was, in fact, an addendum to the shooting rules and add from nowhere the interpretation that this rule should only be considered once, per unit, per shooting phase then we can accept that you can only cause one pinning test per unit per shooting phase.

 

I'm sorry but theres an awful lot of very big assumptions in there. Considering the alternative requires only the assumption that in the rules for individual weapons, where they say "a pinning weapon" in the pinning weapon rules they are, in fact, referring to "one pinning weapon".

[ShinyRhino]

The AN example was a straw man argument that I used to illustrate the validity of the prior post. My bad.

[ShinyRhino]

It states "IF condition_is_met THEN take_action" which is correctly interpreted as taking the action each and every time the condition is met.

 

Except that it does NOT state you check that every time the condition is met. You check that statement ONCE, after casualties are removed from the targeted unit.

The equation is:

 

IF wounds_from_a_pinning_weapon >=1 THEN take_pinning_test.

 

It is not:

 

IF wound = from_Pinning_weapon THEN take_pinning_test.

 

That would be the only way you could check the same condition over and over, by checking EACH WOUND. You check the set that = unsaved wounds, not the set that = each unsaved wound.

[Skalver]

It states "IF condition_is_met THEN take_action" which is correctly interpreted as taking the action each and every time the condition is met.

 

Except that it does NOT state you check that every time the condition is met. You check that statement ONCE, after casualties are removed from the targeted unit.

 

Look where the pinning rules are. They are in the weapon types rules, not as part of the shooting rules. Every other rule in there is applied per-weapon. Why would pinning weapons be uniquely applied per-unit? Even if you apply them at once you still have to argue that "a pinning weapon" is "one or more pinning weapons" and assume some unspecified restriction that a unit can not be forced to take more than one pinning test at the same time.

[thade]

Shiny's interpretation is, I feel, the cleanest and clearest one yet. It's very likely what they were going for. Forgive me for being stereotypical of us all, but a gamer who is expert in grammar is a rarity. A gamer who is experienced in computer programming is a much more likely occurrence. My suspicion is that the Warhammer rule writers - being gamers - probably have had more exposure to programming than to essay writing. My evidence? I think the rough and tumble nature of their written ruleset suffices there. <3

 

To be clear, it says: "If any unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test."

 

When do we suffer wounds? After failing armor saves.

 

So, the order is:

- Attacker rolls to hit.

- Attacker rolls to wound.

- Defender allocates wounds.

- Defender rolls saves.

- Defender suffers unsaved wounds, taking casualties from his unit.

- Has the unit suffered any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon? If the answer is yes, they must immediately take a Pinning Test.

 

This seems pretty simple. See Occam's Razor. <3

[dswanick]

It states "IF condition_is_met THEN take_action" which is correctly interpreted as taking the action each and every time the condition is met.

 

Except that it does NOT state you check that every time the condition is met. You check that statement ONCE, after casualties are removed from the targeted unit.

 

Look where the pinning rules are. They are in the weapon types rules, not as part of the shooting rules. Every other rule in there is applied per-weapon. Why would pinning weapons be uniquely applied per-unit? Even if you apply them at once you still have to argue that "a pinning weapon" is "one or more pinning weapons" and assume some unspecified restriction that a unit can not be forced to take more than one pinning test at the same time.

Which makes an IG heavy weapons team possibly the best 60pts in the game. 3X mortars (barrage also counts as pinning), going by the BRB, Pg.32 example of multiple barrages the target unit now has to take 9 pinning tests using your logic. A SM scout sniper squad costs 75pts and can only force 5 pinning tests in your example.

[Legatus]

Except that it isn't gramatically correct. If that is what he meant the gramatically correct form is to say "weapons".

No. Honestly, it isn't.

 

"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."

- 5th Edition Codex Tyranids, page 81.

 

"Any unit hit by a subterranean blast will move as if in difficult terrain in its following movement phase."

- 5th Edition Codex Space Marines, page 73.

 

Note the use of a singular weapon in both cases, yet in both cases the same result applies if the unit happens to be hit by several of these weapons.

[shatter]

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.

 

'Any dog' can be qualified by multiple typeS of dog.

 

It needed to say 'each dog' for there to be any chance of having to roll for torn pants for each one that scores a wound.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Shiny's interpretation is, I feel, the cleanest and clearest one yet. It's very likely what they were going for. Forgive me for being stereotypical of us all, but a gamer who is expert in grammar is a rarity. A gamer who is experienced in computer programming is a much more likely occurrence. My suspicion is that the Warhammer rule writers - being gamers - probably have had more exposure to programming than to essay writing. My evidence? I think the rough and tumble nature of their written ruleset suffices there. <3

 

To be clear, it says: "If any unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test."

 

When do we suffer wounds? After failing armor saves.

 

So, the order is:

- Attacker rolls to hit.

- Attacker rolls to wound.

- Defender allocates wounds.

- Defender rolls saves.

- Defender suffers unsaved wounds, taking casualties from his unit.

- Has the unit suffered any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon? If the answer is yes, they must immediately take a Pinning Test.

 

This seems pretty simple. See Occam's Razor. <3

 

 

( I try to keep out of this kind of argument (and that's what this is, again, boiling into), for sake of.. my own health. get enough headaches elsehwere. So I'll stick to just these two points. the rest hurts too much after the hundreadth time)

 

That is just plain wrong, and I'm sure you know it, Thade. (i've seen you adhere to other rules more strictly than that) You're skipping one of the integral parts of the pinning rules, just to fit that side of the argument.

 

We're told to take the tests "immediately if a wound is suffered. Not after casualties, not before wounds, but immediately after they suffer wounds. Yet you're jumping straight to the end, after removing casualties, to try and add some sort of.. finality? to that side of the argument. You hit, you wound, you save, then you take the test, then you remove any casualties. That's it. The old rule required actual casualties. This one does not. (which I think may be part of the problem here. Some want to hold to the older rules so vehemently, they just can't let the idea go. and for some, just haven't bothered to actually read the rule, despite it being posted here several time.) Think of units consisting of multi-wound models in it for instance. They can take wounds, but may not end in casualties. Which leaves the unit with other wounds that would require tests left to be checked for. If you jump straight to casualties, like your above layout is doing, and then check if 'any wounds' are done.. that's it, no more wounds left, done, Le Fin, over. Occam's Razor only fits the situation if things aren't skipped or shuffled about. That hardly makes for the 'simplest explaination'.

 

And, a good part of that side assumes that, if it were ruled this way, it would be just about the most absolutely game breaking thing ever. We've been over it before (here and elsewhere), but why not refresh it for the lazier folk who don't want to read back a few pages. Maybe get into more details.. Please, figure up the actual odds of such an occurance happening (10 tests in one squad's turn of shooting. or whatever the max may be). Take whatever unit it is, take the amount of shots they *could* fire at max, take into account their BS, the S, availability of that particular unit in the army.. Then the enemy's T, enemy Armour, enemy Ld., and do that for every target unit they could possibly stand any chance of effecting. Then ignore the shooting unit's worth in their army Vs the rest of the units that could be fielded instead of it (supposing you plaid against the absolute cheesiest player ever, for them to try and capitolize on this 'broken' ruling). I'm sure you'll find the odds of 'max' tests happening are actually quite slim, and all the numbers involved are rather self-balancing.

[Legatus]

We're told to take the tests "immediately if a wound is suffered. Not after casualties, not before wounds, but immediately after they suffer wounds.

Well, first of all, whether you first remove the models that just died and then take the test or first take the test and then remove the models that just died does not make any difference at all. It wont affect the outcome one bit.

Second of all, "suffering unsaved wounds" is part of the "Remove Casualties" description on page 24 in the rulebook, and according to that paragraph in case of single wound models you immediately remove one model from the table for each unsaved wound. So after suffering an unsaved pinning wound you are instructed to immediately remove a model and immediately take a pinning test. But as I said, which one you do first does not matter in the slightest.

 

 

Please, figure up the actual odds of such an occurance happening (10 tests in one squad's turn of shooting. or whatever the max may be).

A "guided" 10 man Eldar Ranger unit firing at a "doomed" squad will inflict 6.6 pinning wounds on average, which will often lead to 4-5 unsaved wounds against other Eldar, Imperial Guard or Orks, and can easily inflict 4 pinning wounds on MEQ units (with 13.3 rolls to hit there is a good chance for 2 penetrating hits right there, which will then inflict 1.5 unsaveable wounds, while the 12.5 rolls to wound will inflict another 2 unsaveable wounds).

If the Eldar player was to learn that he could stack up on pinning tests forced by a single unit he might use that combo more frequently.

 

4-6 dead enemy models and the same number in pinning tests is well worth the price of the Ranger squad.

 

 

But the issue is not so much that occasionally forcing an Ork player to roll 8 pinning tests (6.6 is just the average) would be horribly devastating to the Ork player, it is just that the concept of rolling 8 Leadership tests at once is ree-dee-culous.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

We're told to take the tests "immediately if a wound is suffered. Not after casualties, not before wounds, but immediately after they suffer wounds.

Well, first of all, whether you first remove the models that just died and then take the test or first take the test and then remove the models that just died does not make any difference at all. It wont affect the outcome one bit.

Second of all, "suffering unsaved wounds" is part of the "Remove Casualties" description on page 24 in the rulebook, and according to that paragraph in case of single wound models you immediately remove one model from the table for each unsaved wounds. So after suffering an unsaved pinning wound you are instructed to immediately remove a model and immediately take a pinning test. But as I said, which one you do first does not matter in the slightest.

 

In that kind of case, sure. We can remove the dead guy and take tests at the same time. But, to simply jump to the very end, removing all casualties, is still not the correct order.

 

Please, figure up the actual odds of such an occurance happening (10 tests in one squad's turn of shooting. or whatever the max may be).

A "guided" 10 man Eldar Ranger unit firing at a "doomed" squad will inflict 6.6 pinning wounds on average, which will often lead to 4-5 unsaved wounds against other Eldar, Imperial Guard or Orks, and can easily inflict 4 pinning wounds on MEQ units (with 13.3 rolls to hit there is a good chance for 2 penetrating hits right there, which will then inflict 1.5 unsaveable wounds, while the 12.5 rolls to wound will inflict another 2 unsaveable wounds).

If the Eldar player was to learn that he could stack up on pinning tests forced by a single unit he might use that combo more frequently.

 

4-6 dead enemy models and the same number in pinning tests is well worth the price of the Ranger squad.

 

 

But the issue is not so much that occasionally forcing an Ork player to roll 8 pinning tests (6.6 is just the average) would be horribly devastating to the Ork player, it is just that the concept of rolling 8 Leadership tests at once is ree-dee-culous.

 

Since when have GW been known for not making rediculous rules? And that is a decent example, but it's only one example. Even still, one unit locks up one unit for the turn, which kinda locks them up too, if they want to keep that enemy unit locked up. Which opens them up to be targetted by other enemy units and 'handled'. More self-balancing. Now, if the unit had some way of splitting their fire, like TAU, then it could really start to get painful. But, balancing itself out again sorta, that reduces the number of shots on each unit they could effect, reducing their chances of pinning either of them. (yet one more thing being 'refreshed' ;P )

[Isiah]

I can't believe this one has reared its head again :lol:.

Is there really anything new that hasn't already been chewed over?

[HiveFleetEzekial]

No.

[Isiah]

I thought not :lol:

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Sounds like it's time for a certain 'click' then.

 

Really, this didn't even need to be 'dug up', in the first place. A simple reference, and disclaimer about the argument being heated, would have sufficed (and usualy dooes) in other threads where the topic starts to arrise. Reference it, let people make up their own minds after seeing the arguments of both sides, and let it be.

[SeattleDV8]

My own view, both sides have a good argument.

that said , it this case we should default to the weaker point, one test per unit firing.

[thade]

That is just plain wrong, and I'm sure you know it, Thade. (i've seen you adhere to other rules more strictly than that) You're skipping one of the integral parts of the pinning rules, just to fit that side of the argument.

 

We're told to take the tests "immediately if a wound is suffered.

 

Immediately after is what I said. You roll your saves in batches, don't you? So do I. Ten tacticals have to take five saves from Sniper fire? I roll all five. Say I fail all five. (Such is my luck at times.) Well, I just lost five tac marines. I now Immediately take a Pinning check, as I have suffered wounds.

 

Do you perhaps believe that I should take a check each time I remove one of the models from the table? I'd say that's silly...but it's okay, as I grab all five of the models at once and remove them. =P If you see the level this is getting to here, you perhaps see why I've taken the stance I have. Rolling more than one Pinning check is silly. Five Pinning checks? Really? It's an obtuse amount of rolling, which you seem to agree with?

 

This argument is a weird one, as it seems most of the supporters of the "one Pinning check per wound suffered camp" don't think it should be played that way, but they think that RAW it is that way, unconvinced by Legatus's accurate grammatical analysis or Shiny's simple breakdown. The argument is valueless: it's purely academic. Reminds me of a few other tangos I've gotten myself drug into here. ;)

 

I don't think anybody in here is going to try and make their opponents suffer multiple Pinning checks from a single unit's round of fire in a single turn, so what are we on about exactly?

[Dan VK]

I do not accept the argument that the lack of plurality of a single word changes the meaning of rules stated clearly elsewhere in the BRB. All models firing the same weapon in the same unit at the same target roll To Hit at the same time, roll To Wound at the same time, and then the targeted unit rolls any identical Saves at the same time and casualties are removed at the same time. That is the progression of events according to the rules and unless there is a stated exception, like rules for Going to Ground which interject an action between the shooter rolling To Wound and the shootee (that is a technical term :) ) rolling Saves, that is what happens.

 

A grammatical judgment, questionable or not, does not change the fact that the rules for Pinning weapons lack a stated exception to the normal shooting rules. I do not believe a single grammatical point, no matter how ambiguous, is enough evidence to reinterpret an otherwise clear rule. If it I am incorrect, then models armed with Rapid Fire weapons may split their shooting attacks between separate targets (Models armed with a rapid fire weapon can move and fire two shots at targets up to 12” away. BRB pg28). Obviously the plurality of ‘targets’ does not challenge the validity of A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in close combat as its target, and may not split its fire among different targets. (BRB pg16)

 

The aforementioned argument is selective application of a standard that does not exist, mainly that poor grammar not only casts doubt on an otherwise clearly stated rule but may change the meaning of clearly stated rules found elsewhere in the BRB. Without further evidence, RAW is very clear: a single Pinning test is made by the targeted unit after wounds have been suffered by before another unit may act in the Shooting phase.

[Grey Mage]

Excuse me, but Id like to take this moment to note something.

 

The FAQ for the BRB, pg. 2, left hand column, bottom.

 

Q: How many Pinning tests can a squad firing multiple

Pinning weapons cause on the enemy it is shooting? (p31)

A: Each unit can only cause a maximum of one Pinning

test on each enemy unit wounded, per turn, regardless of

the number of wounds caused, unless specifically stated

otherwise.

 

I believe this is done now.

[dswanick]

Boom - head shot...

I keep finding reasons to remind myself - "check the FAQ first".

[Dan VK]

Thanks Grey Mage. I now know to check the FAQ every time, even if I read it the week prior.

[Grey Mage]

Yeah, they updated monday lol.

[thade]

Updated Monday?! ...No. No way they saw this thread and actually acted on it. That'd be like...a dream or something.

 

Oh, and Grey Mage, sir. You forgot to say it, so I will in your stead:

 

BAM!