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.

Recently I have heard people saying that squads take pinning tests for each time they are wounded by a pinning *weapon*, meaning war walkers with 6 EMLs could potentially cause multiple pinning tests a turn.. Not to mention sniper weapons would cause a pinning test per wound caused.

But surely this is a misinterpretation. I have always played victim unit takes 1 pinning test per squad that caused a wound with a pinning weapon..

Any clarification much appreciated, as rolling 3-4 pinning tests is much more scary than just rolling 1!

Cheers,
Ibushi

One of those the rule says that ... but no one does it. In your example each you would only cause a pinning test if the wounds were caused by a different EML. So you would have to roll them seprately. wounds a, wounds b, wounds c, wounds d, wounds e, wounds f and then saves a, saves b, saves c, saves d, saves e, savse f before checking pinning Ld test a, Ld test b, Ld test c, Ld test d, Ld test e, Ld test f.

This is a big nightmare and time wasting excersize which i feel is why i, my gaming group, most people, Only take one pinning test per unit firing at the unit.

ibushi wrote:But surely this is a misinterpretation. I have always played victim unit takes 1 pinning test per squad that caused a wound with a pinning weapon..

If I may ask a serious question, why bother posting if you have a preconceived notion of what is correct and incorrect regarding your question?

The truth is, yes, By a Strict reading of the RaW, the situation Tri explains there is the way to play, and playing otherwise is breaking the rules, whether you agree with it or not.

That being said, very few people play it this way.

Gwar! wrote:

ibushi wrote:But surely this is a misinterpretation. I have always played victim unit takes 1 pinning test per squad that caused a wound with a pinning weapon..

If I may ask a serious question, why bother posting if you have a preconceived notion of what is correct and incorrect regarding your question?

Because some people realize that 'preconceived' does not necessarily equal 'correct', and post such queries in the hope that a case (for or against) will be presented in a incontrovertible manner.

Just to clarify since nobody has quoted the relevant rules yet.

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

This means, if there are two weapons in a squad with the pinning special rule, you will potentially be able to cause two pinning tests by RAW, but if you have a pinning weapon that fires 18 shots, you will still only be able to cause 1 pinning test, you will simply have more shots with which to wound and cause it to happen.

So basically a unit of snipers (seeing as sniper weapons have one shot apiece) causes pinning tests equal to wounds caused. That is not a dice-rolling nightmare, but it could certainly be a pinning nightmare.

As for another unit shooting multiple pinning weapons, such as firewarriors or EML-toting walkers, you could just keep track of wounds caused by each and note pinning tests accordingly. It would be a nightmare for all carbine-wielding firewarriors, but not a Huge hassle otherwise.

Thanks for the rules citation and clarification! I will be sure to play my war walkers with extra brutality ><

Gwar! As serious as your question may be, it seems foolish -- this is clearly an odd rules situation worth clarifying.

ibushi wrote:So basically a unit of snipers (seeing as sniper weapons have one shot apiece) causes pinning tests equal to wounds caused. That is not a dice-rolling nightmare, but it could certainly be a pinning nightmare.

As for another unit shooting multiple pinning weapons, such as firewarriors or EML-toting walkers, you could just keep track of wounds caused by each and note pinning tests accordingly. It would be a nightmare for all carbine-wielding firewarriors, but not a Huge hassle otherwise.

Thanks for the rules citation and clarification! I will be sure to play my war walkers with extra brutality ><

Gwar! As serious as your question may be, it seems foolish -- this is clearly an odd rules situation worth clarifying.

It's actually not a hassle for the carbine either, it only becomes an issue when there are multiple pinning weapons in a squad, each of which has the potential to inflict multiple wounds, because at that point, there's a difference between Weapon A wounding once, and Weapon B wounding once, compared to Weapon A wounding twice and Weapon B failing to wound.

How interesting that all RAW seem to hinge on the slightest particulars of the English language!

Had the rule not read "a pinning weapon" and instead read pinning weapons, then this thread would not exist.

GW is allowing a single alphabetical substitution to alter game play!
But seriously I have a personal question: How many of you actually play all RAW?

tsadkiel wrote:How many of you actually play all RAW?

Hai. You called?

GWAR! I should have known.
You must admit that some RAW are clearly unintentional or poorly worded forms of rules.
I know that the IG don’t get frag grenades per RAW, but they get them in all the games I play with my opponents as that is a clear they should. With some RAW it’s not so clear, Pinning weapons are a great example as the GW rules monkeys *may have* actually intended pinning weapons to work that way.
I know in this forum we are supposed to stay on one side of the official rules vs. friendly games rules fence, but there are occasions where this line can get quite blurry and I was curious if anyone actually played RAW without question.
Surely even the mighty GWAR must give some latitude?

tsadkiel wrote:Surely even the mighty GWAR must give some latitude?

It depends.

Did you Bring me Booze?

The answer to that is equal to the answer to your question!

Ha!
Of course I bring booze!
It’s one of the first rules in the book….written in crayon with poor spelling and shoddy handwriting.

cheers!

I play by RAW when it benefits me and RAI when the RAW would be to my opponents advantage, in the event that we would both benefit from RAW, I cite the GW E-mail Rules Service as saying that the RAW only applies for my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tsadkiel wrote:I know that the IG don’t get frag grenades per RAW

Since when?

Drunkspleen wrote:

tsadkiel wrote:I know that the IG don’t get frag grenades per RAW

Since when?

Since I pointed it out back when the Codex came out.

The Rules in the IG Codex state: "Frag Grenades: See the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook".

Nowhere in the rulebook does it list rules for "Frag Grenades". There are Assault Grenades, Defensive Grenades, Krak Grenades and Meltabombs. While Frag Grenades is given as an example of an Assault grenade, this is not sufficient as the rule is for Assault Grenades, not Frag Grenades.

Note also how in the 5th ed SM and SW codex it says "Frag grenades are assault grenades, as described in the
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.", Which is the correct way to ensure they work.

In reply to Drunkspleen:
I have played against “that guy”
It’s frustrating; but I always win. There is a seldom used rules clause: players unconscious due to hammer blows to the head forfeit!

As for the frag grenade headache…..what GWAR just wrote!

I Play RAW, RAI & UR*. I will stick with RAW and UR unless it does something very stupid (models unable to shoot because they have no eyes) in which case i switch to RAI

*Unwritten rules, these include things like deployment** where GW's design team has just gone of for to the pub and left the rules unfinished. Basically this includes anything that, though legal, is stupid and will cause the game to stop working or is not covered within the written rules.
**It should be noted that the only rules for deployment are place models within the deployment zone so as to be more then X" from the enemy/centre; which i feel require the following "place models as if they were moving there" so that you have unit in coherency, not on impassible terrain and things that shouldn't be on top of buildings aren't.

It might be RAI...

Consider this...

3 lonely guardsmen are patrolling a street, one gets his head taken off by a sniper, one pinning test.
Then again if two of those guardsmen were to die the remaining guardsmen would be twice as likely to hit the deck and wet himself.

But... A) I'm not gong to spend that much time firing each EML i have separately.
and... B) If i did this in my FLGS i'd get a slap, plain and simple.

just a quick question. I didn't really look over the posts and I don't have the current 5th edition rule book. Do sniper rifles still count as pinning weapons? just checkn

Yep. They are still pinners.

I could have sworn they faq'd this to only be 1 pinning test per unit.

I could have sworn this Thread is over a year old.

Reported for threadromancy.

You roll a pinning test for each squad that inflicts a casualty, not each model.

If 2 separate squads inflict wounds with pinning weapons, you roll two pinning tests.

Kommissar Kel wrote:I could have sworn this Thread is over a year old.

Reported for threadromancy.

Jesus Christ people! Quick alert the MOD-squad!!!

Every day I see posts telling the OP to use the search function because this has been done before. Yet, when someone does, and has something to add, you have some chode report you.

Dakka has become alot more immature in the last year or so; under the premice of maturity. Ironic, no?

Allow me to clarify:

The best practice for posters interested in starting a new thread is to:

(1) search as best they can for a thread that already exists about the same topic

(2) if there is such a thread but it is over three months old, start a new one

(3) obviously, if there is no thread you can start one.

Many times, a user will go ahead and post in an older thread even though there is a pop-up warning concerning thread necromancy now.

We moderators usually do not lock the thread when the necro actually adds to the discussion or when the necro reignites good discussion. I thought this example was acceptable and did not lock it.

Yes, it is probably better to start a new thread rather than resurrecting one that is older than three months.

BUT -- we moderators really appreciate all useralerts so please do not feel discouraged from using the little yellow traingle.

Thanks!