Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.



The Pinning rules say (rulebook, pg 31): "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. . .As long as the tests are passed, a unit may be called upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn, but if a unit has already gone to ground, no further Pinning tests are taken."


Just for reference, the Pinning rules in the 4th edition rulebook said (pg 32): "When the firing of a single enemy unit inflicts casualties with pinning weapons, the target must take a Leadership test to avoid being pinned down."



QUESTION: If a unit suffers multiple unsaved 'pinning' wounds from multiple enemy models in a single unit, how many Pinning tests do you play that the unit now has to take?

Example: A unit of Eldar Guardians suffers 5 casualties from a Tau unit firing all Pulse Carbines. Do the Guardians now have to take five Pinning tests, or just one?



OPTION A. The RAW: Every weapon that inflicts an unsaved wound causes a separate Pinning test (which means I make sure to roll each Pinning weapon's dice separately if the weapon can possibly cause more than one wound, just to keep track of which weapons actually caused the wound). So in the above example the Guardians would now have to take five Leadership tests.


OPTION B. It is either an oversight on the author's part or it is written using the general term of a "pinning weapon", i.e. not specifically referring to each particular pinning weapon in a unit. Either way, as all firing from a single enemy unit is resolved at the same time, a unit only ever has to take one Pinning test from the casualties inflicted by a single enemy unit regardless of how many 'pinning' weapons the firing unit has. So in the above example, the Guardians would only have to take one Pinning test.


OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

A, because of RAW. Wounds from a pinning weapon (singular) forces a Pinning test (singular).

B: Because of RAW. Specifically "..any unsaved wounds.." = "..a pinning test." The plural of one = the singular of the other. This is to do with the instantenousness of a single unit firing all thier weapons at the same time (Mentioned by Yak, above)

My 2 cents.

I voted Option B as well.

While this may not be a point with solid ground to stand on, I just cant see someone purposefully slowing the game by forcing so many tests from one unit to another. Especially when at least 3 armies off the top of my head (Tau, Eldar, and Space Marines) can take whole Troops choices of models entirely equipped with these types of weapons.

However if A is the case, then Ranger/Pathfinder Eldar with Shadow Weavers/Vibrocannons or Tepest Launcher with Crackshot armed Dark Reapers are the new Spam Lists. I would hate to see how many wounds that unit can put on another one between being multiple templates, and Str4 AP3 with no Cover Saves allowed and re-rolls to wound due to Crack shot. Then make a pin test for all those wounds? Slows the game down way to much for me to get behind it being Option A.

I voted B for a RAW of 'unsaved wounds' and little RAI.

I voted B. Specifically because if you followed the way answer A works you get some funky things happening as well as slowing up the game. So if you have 5 unsaved wounds from pinning weapons and you fail the test on the first shot then technically you'd go to ground and get cover saves from the remaining 4 unsaved wounds. Once again it's just horribly written.

I voted for A, because of RAW and it works well in the game. For those who think their are funny circumstances that occur you are mistaken. It goes roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, now roll for each casulty until either you pass them all or fail one leadership test. Once a test is failed the unit is pinned and you are done. You don't roll the leadershpi test after each individual wound roll or failed armour roll, you do the leadership tests last for each unsaved wound suffered. So no the unit doesn't get the pinning save against anything from the shooting unit, because they don't go to ground until after there squads mates got shot to heck. Rymafyr's interpretation is incorrect and the situation he speaks of doesn't occur in the game.

Strimen wrote:I voted for A, because of RAW and it works well in the game. For those who think their are funny circumstances that occur you are mistaken. It goes roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, now roll for each casulty until either you pass them all or fail one leadership test. Once a test is failed the unit is pinned and you are done. You don't roll the leadershpi test after each individual wound roll or failed armour roll, you do the leadership tests last for each unsaved wound suffered. So no the unit doesn't get the pinning save against anything from the shooting unit, because they don't go to ground until after there squads mates got shot to heck. Rymafyr's interpretation is incorrect and the situation he speaks of doesn't occur in the game.

While I agree with your point that the situation would not occur, the fact remains that the test is taken immediately following an unsaved wound. Granted that may be prohibited due to rolling all the wound rolls simultaneously, it is possible to still occur if someone rolled each wound seperately. "If a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test." This however isn't really part of the issue for this thread so I digress.

Vote A ... It is an oversight on the author's part but that what we've got to play with ... GW books are full of broken rules and we still have to use them ... you've got to cause the unsaved wounds first which isn't always simple...

... If this was ment to make multi pinning weapons more powerful then i would expect some thing like "each unsave wound after the first -1 from the pinning test"

I voted with B. As having to take multiple tests from one unit would really bog down the game. As with 5th ed they were trying to speed up general gameplay. Why would they throw down a rule that would make it go at a crawl?

example. Unit 1 FW with PC fires at a 20 strong guardian, deals 5 wounds, that is 5 tests, then the only two squads of FW with PC are also firing on the same squad and each dealing 5 wounds a piece. You are now running 16 tests for one squad(15 pinning and 1 leadership). That would slow the game down so much it wouldn't even be funny.

I voted B as well, although I think A would make for a more interesting game, making sniper units better at dealing with units. (As opposed to primarily hunting high toughness targets.)

I think the RAW says A, but I play it B as it more reasonable, doesn't slow the game down and I believe it is what was intended.

As an aside, I've never seen anyone try to argue that it should be played A. I've seen countless of games with Tau, Eldar and Guard players that use these weapons and not once has it ever come up. I honestly don't think that the majority of people have noticed this little rules quibble until now.

Option B, as while A is closer to RAW, it just slows the game too much. Especially if you have a lot of Pathfinders or similar

Marius Xerxes wrote:I voted Option B as well.

While this may not be a point with solid ground to stand on, I just cant see someone purposefully slowing the game by forcing so many tests from one unit to another. Especially when at least 3 armies off the top of my head (Tau, Eldar, and Space Marines) can take whole Troops choices of models entirely equipped with these types of weapons.

However if A is the case, then Ranger/Pathfinder Eldar with Shadow Weavers/Vibrocannons or Tepest Launcher with Crackshot armed Dark Reapers are the new Spam Lists. I would hate to see how many wounds that unit can put on another one between being multiple templates, and Str4 AP3 with no Cover Saves allowed and re-rolls to wound due to Crack shot. Then make a pin test for all those wounds? Slows the game down way to much for me to get behind it being Option A.

You appear to not understand option A, within it, you make pinning tests PER WEAPON as the RAW seems to indicate that, not PER WOUND.

I see your point there drunkespleen but I see it as : Per wounds (the plural) from a pinning weapon. So the entire unit suffering any wound/s & as shots per unit are made in game terms simulatenously the wound/s is taken into account.

Unless, ofcource they mean (or are allowing for) weapons which could cause instant death but I think this is alot less likely.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Marius Xerxes wrote:I voted Option B as well.

While this may not be a point with solid ground to stand on, I just cant see someone purposefully slowing the game by forcing so many tests from one unit to another. Especially when at least 3 armies off the top of my head (Tau, Eldar, and Space Marines) can take whole Troops choices of models entirely equipped with these types of weapons.

However if A is the case, then Ranger/Pathfinder Eldar with Shadow Weavers/Vibrocannons or Tepest Launcher with Crackshot armed Dark Reapers are the new Spam Lists. I would hate to see how many wounds that unit can put on another one between being multiple templates, and Str4 AP3 with no Cover Saves allowed and re-rolls to wound due to Crack shot. Then make a pin test for all those wounds? Slows the game down way to much for me to get behind it being Option A.

You appear to not understand option A, within it, you make pinning tests PER WEAPON as the RAW seems to indicate that, not PER WOUND.

Ah I understand it, I just happened to mis read it. So my example of the Tempest Launcher, Shadow Weaver, and Vibrocannon is invalid, but the other examples of Sniper Rifles and Pulse Carbines still stands. Thank you for the emphasized clarification. Did you have anything else to add beside pointing out my mis reading of the topic?

C) I feel that each Pinning weapon( that wounds) causes a pinning test.

SeattleDV8 wrote:C) I feel that each Pinning weapon( that wounds) causes a pinning test.

As was pointed out to me, isn't Option A this exact same thing as you posted?

"OPTION A. The RAW: Every weapon that inflicts an unsaved wound causes a separate Pinning test"

I think that's making the assumption for the discussion that to make the test, the weapon causing the wound would have to be a pinning weapon. So its seems your option C and option A are actually the same thing. Unless my reading abilities have failed me again.

Marius Xerxes wrote:

SeattleDV8 wrote:C) I feel that each Pinning weapon( that wounds) causes a pinning test.

As was pointed out to me, isn't Option A this exact same thing as you posted?

"OPTION A. The RAW: Every weapon that inflicts an unsaved wound causes a separate Pinning test"

I think that's making the assumption for the discussion that to make the test, the weapon causing the wound would have to be a pinning weapon. So its seems your option C and option A are actually the same thing. Unless my reading abilities have failed me again.

no
a= wounded , rolled for save , and failed .
c= just wounded.

Then Option C is clearly irrelevant because the rules clearly say "unsaved wounds". So simply having been wounded does not cause a test for pining in the first place.

No idea, im just trying to interpret from the sentence :x

Yeah me neither. DV8 can you clarify what you meant?

I voted B. I honestly believe that we must take into account that all shots from a single unit are resolved at the same time or simultaneously (pg. 18 BGB).

I also believe that the author was generalizing the rule. Meaning "a pinning weapon" would = "any pinning weapons". I do realize this is RAI to the extreme to put words in the RB that aren't there. But, we must realize you can legitimately write like this and convey the same thought.

And as we all know, GW is renowned for ambiguous rules. This IMHO is defiantly worth a FAQ as it does lead me to accept that it is possible that it might mean a separate roll for each pinning weapon.

I voted for B, but the more I think about it, the more A sounds correct.

When a unit (say Crisis suits) has multiple weapons with varying stats, you roll to hit and wound with those weapons separately. The text for pinning weapons specifically notes that each weapon's actions needs to be individually accounted for. As such, you would need to roll each weapon separately to track its actions, the wounds that arise from it, and the pinning tests that come from it.

If I have a team of 3 snipers and it causes 2 wounds to a team of crisis suits that are equipped differently...you put one wound on the team leader, and a second wound on a drone. You roll the drone's save and fail. Rules as written here; you would then take a pinning test. Then you roll to save against the team leader, and fail that save as well. You take another pinning test.

1. The rule *specifically* calls out every weapon causing a pinning test.

2. It says, "As long as the tests are passed..." referring to a unit taking multiple pinning tests in a turn.

3. When you assign wounds to a unit, you're not actually just rolling a mass of dice; that's just a convenience taken when you have enough identical troopers to absorb the casualties. However, the wounds are being allocated per model,and since the weapon causing those wounds in this case is individually being called out in the rules, I would think that rather than rolling a mass of saves, this is a case where you need to allocate and roll separately.

A, due to RAW. Although I've always played it as B, there has been an obvious rules change since 4th edition that nobody picked up on. The rules for 5th are really quite clear, and although it makes for slightly longer dice rolling, there's no reason *not* to play it by the Rules as Written.

It seems sensible (to me at least ...) that a volley causing 5 pinning wounds would be more likely to pin a unit than a volley that only causes one wound. Therefore, Option A.

Marius Xerxes wrote:Yeah me neither. DV8 can you clarify what you meant?

Sorry I was a bit unclear.
What I meant was not each indivual weapon but each weapon type that have caused an unsaved wound.
for example Telion and 4 scouts with sniper rifles, all hit and wound. The unit fails all of it's saves.
we have 5 wounds from two types of pinning weapons, I would have the unit take two pinning tests.

Having read the original thread that caused this poll i must say that the mortars/pulse carbines/sniper rifles/whatever ALL hit at the same time on the suffering unit, with casualties being caused AT THE SAME TIME. So the survivors count their dead once and proceed with the battle (or running away). One Ld check per attacking UNIT in my games....

Going by RAW I voted for option A. It may slow the game down more but its not that bad of a time sink. It also makes a certain amount of sense. If a unit has multiple pinning weapons in it, it should have better chances to keep an enemy pinned. 5 Snipers are more likely to keep a target pinned then just one sniper. Whether this was GW's meaning when they wrote the rule I have no clue but they did change the wording quite a bit from 4th to 5th so its hard for me to say it wasn't intentional.

This poll has been corrupted because people are voting without actually understanding the options. We now have a number of people voting for Option A but meaning "1 Pinning Test per wound suffered" which is not actually what that option means.

As an aside, putting "(the RAW)" in the poll rather prejudices your results. Just because the poll starter has an opinion about RAW doesn't mean everyone is going to agree; for example I don't see the same meaning here. If you want to get good survey results, try not to skew the questions.