Switch Theme:

Pinning Tests: Da Final Call  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight





I have done quite a bit of searching and none of the pinning threads are conclusive, so here I will ask my question:

If you have 10 sniper rifles, 6 hit, 3 wound, 2 pass. Would the hit enemy take 2 pinning tests because they were hit by 2 pinning weapons?

Would they take 1 because its one type of weapon from one squad?


What about a IG command squad with a sniper and a mortar (hell knows why) that fire at an ork squad. The sniper inflicted 1 kill, the mortar kills 4.

Do the orks take 5 pinning tests? Or do they take 2 because of being hit by 2 different types of weapons? OR do they simpley take one from being pinned by a unit.

I am under the impression that multiple pinning tests may come from different units, so this thread is more concerning a single unit firing at another single unit without fearless.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

I'd say in the first instance it would be one pinning check.

In the second I'd say they take two, one for the sniper and one for the mortar.

I'm sure someone will be along to disagree shortly.

Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut



Vancouver, BC, Canada

"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."

Some people think this means that if your unit takes any unsaved wounds caused by a pinning weapon that they take one test and that satisfies the condition that the unit took a unsaved wound from a pinning weapon. This wouldn't matter how many pinning weapons hit (all from the same unit of course) and wounded one test satisfies those conditions.

Some other people think that takes a unsaved wound from a pinning weapon means that every pinning weapon that caused an unsaved wound requires its own test. This would mean that when you roll to hit with your pinning weapons you would have to roll for each pinning weapon and determine if it had cause wounds (10 snipers with one shot wouldn't matter but if you had 10 guys with 2 shots each you would really need to keep them apart). Then there would be 1 test per weapon that wounds. So under that interpretation you would have 2 tests in each of your example.
   
Made in au
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight





And theres our disagreement :*(

Shall I never find solace?
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut



Vancouver, BC, Canada

I personally think it is the first option. It is simpler and, to me, it doesn't seem to stretch the language to fit the argument.

What do the people you play with think? If everyone at your FLGS plays one way then there isn't much point trying to argue this.
   
Made in ca
Guardsman with Flashlight



Canada

I've always played with the first option. I cant imagine that it really makes any sense to take a pinning test for every unsaved wound.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

You'd only take one test in both cases, and here's why.

Taking a pinning test for every pinning wound or every pinning weapon would be like taking a morale check for every wound over 25%. By that logic, if you have a 10 man squad, and five of them die, you'd take three morale checks.

It increases the chances of failure to ridiculous levels.

So, when you get hit with a pinning weapon, regardless of the number of pinning wounds, you take one pinning check.

If you get hit by a second unit with pinning weapons, you take a second test, as normal, and so on.

DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






Pinning tests are not on a Per weapon, nor per Wound basis; they are on a Per attack basis.

Let me extrapolate: Squads A and B both have pinning type weapons. Squad A fires on enemy Unit X and cuases an unsaved wound on Unit X. Unit X now must take a Pinning Test, this test passes. Squad B then fires on Unit X, Causing 3 unsaved Wounds. Unit X then takes a second Pinning test. The outcome of that test does not entirely matter for this discussion, and if unit X is 20 models or less(in this example) it will also have to take a Morale test and may flee(breaking the pinning).

Also, OP: in your First example you imply that only 1 unsaved wound is taken by the unit so only 1 pinning test would be taken in any sense.(2 pass would mean 2 out of 3 models pass their save).

This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





This is the final conclusion;

It can be read either way.

-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot




San Diego Ca

On a similar point:
Your 10 man squad takes 4 unsaved casualties from a pinning weapon. You fail the pin check.
Now, you also took 25% casualties so you must take a fall back check.
What happens if you fail that check?
Fall back an repin yourself? ignore the fallback since your already pinned? Unpin yourself and fallback?

Life isn't fair. But wouldn't it be worse if Life were fair, and all of the really terrible things that happen to us were because we deserved them?
M. Cole.
 
   
Made in se
Malicious Mutant Scum



Dakka, the home of YMDC-idiocy and buttards

Another thing that supports the multiple tests/squad is the fourth section under "Pinning" on page 31.

"As long as the tests, are passed, a unit may be called upon taking multiple tests......."

The usage of plural form in this case, along with the "a pinning WEAPON (not squad) causes pinning test".

Although in the mortar case I believe only one test is taken, since it's only one weapon causing several wounds, and in the second section it only says "a" pinning test, for "any" wounds.
Giving 3 unsaved wounds from snipers=3 tests, due to 3 different weapons.
3 unsaved wounds from mortar=1 test, due to 1 weapon causing all wounds.

But we play it as only one test/pinning "squad". Easier and you won't have to spend half the night rolling leaderships

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/16 08:15:28


 
   
Made in pl
Kelne





Warsaw, Poland

dkellyj wrote:On a similar point:
Your 10 man squad takes 4 unsaved casualties from a pinning weapon. You fail the pin check.
Now, you also took 25% casualties so you must take a fall back check.
What happens if you fail that check?
Fall back an repin yourself? ignore the fallback since your already pinned? Unpin yourself and fallback?


Unit is pinned checks for morale if fails falls back and is no longer pinned if succeeds stays pinned down.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

^ Correct. Very clearly stated, though I can't cite a page.

DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut



Vancouver, BC, Canada

Alienfood wrote:Another thing that supports the multiple tests/squad is the fourth section under "Pinning" on page 31.

"As long as the tests, are passed, a unit may be called upon taking multiple tests......."

The usage of plural form in this case, along with the "a pinning WEAPON (not squad) causes pinning test".

Although in the mortar case I believe only one test is taken, since it's only one weapon causing several wounds, and in the second section it only says "a" pinning test, for "any" wounds.
Giving 3 unsaved wounds from snipers=3 tests, due to 3 different weapons.
3 unsaved wounds from mortar=1 test, due to 1 weapon causing all wounds.

But we play it as only one test/pinning "squad". Easier and you won't have to spend half the night rolling leaderships



That could be argued that they are talking about multiple units with pinning weapons targeting the same unit. Scout Sniper squad 1 tries to pin the biker boss and the boss passes. Scout sniper squad 2 then gets to try and the boss has now taken multiple pinning tests.


On page 24 in the going to ground sidebar bottom paragraph, "If the unit has to fall back, it will return to normal immediately." also on the top of 46 it says that "Units that are falling back may not go to ground and automatically pass Pinning tests."

Since pinning just causes you to go to ground if you have been pinned and then break you recover as per the gone to ground rules and then cannot be further pinned as per the morale rules.
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





It is good to see all these new arguments that are sure to sway peoples opinion......No, wait...It is all the same arguments being restated.

Sigh.

Let it go people. It isn't clear and nothing here is obvious. Write GW if you feel a need to write anything.


-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

It is one pinning test per firing unit.


the rules IMO are quite clear on this.


now, if you are shot at by a squad of snipers and take 2 wounds it is one test.

if you, however, are shot by a squad and take a pinning wound that is a test. and are then shot by another squad with a pinning weapon and take a wound you would take another test.

2 sniper wounds is 1 test unless each came from a different squad.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Guarding Guardian



La Crosse

^ agreed

honestly though what alien food said does make complete sense seeing as it does say pinning weapon, but then snipers would be completely over powered, I have 2 squads of Eldar pathfinders, imagine every wound they make they get a pinning test... that would be ridiculous.
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





It would also make a kind of sense that a bunch of sniper rifles have a greater chance of pinning a unit than a single rifle would.

Aside from that fluff perspective, the rules are not, in any way, shape or form, clear.
People can say it all they want. it doesn't make it any more true.

It Can Be Read Either Way.

Barring a FAQ from GW this issue will crop up on a regular basis.

-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in gb
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





York, North Yorkshire, England

BrockRitcey wrote:"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."


I'm no expert on the rules, however I am learning one thing and that is the wording is key, now I’m used to this thanks to the work I do, (architectural technician) and reading and having to conform to the British building regulations approved documents (the most confusing piece of literature I have ever read)

So using that basis, the rules above can be broken down to suggest that each unsaved wound made by each weapon causes a pinning test. So let’s set an example.

Squad A, contains 5 snipers, Squad B contains 2 snipers and a morta! (these are pure examples)
Squad X, Has 10 regular infantry.

Ok, so squad A fires upon squad X, causing two unsaved wounds...... so two weapons have caused wounds and thus immediately causes two pinning tests. let’s say they pass both.
So, Squad B fires upon squad X, causing 3 morta wounds and one sniper wound..... again two weapons have caused wounds and thus immediately causes two pinning tests.

I agree that this situation could cause a large number of pinning tests to be done on one defending squad, and that level could get exceptionally high, but as suggested before is that not the bonus for having so many pinning weapons?

This is one for the house rule book really. my above example is probably not what I would want to play, as the option of one pinning test per squad not weapon is easier to play, however I have to agree that the way the rules are written does suggest the per weapon argument is the correct one.

| Imperial Guard-1000pts | Eldar-1000pts | Space Wolves-1000ptsWIP|
--------------------------------------------
| High Elves-1500pts | Dwarfs-1500ptsWIP|
--------------------------------------------
| Trollbloods-35ptsWIP|
--------------------------------------------
http://projectpictor.blogspot.co.uk/ 
   
Made in us
Screaming Shining Spear





Central Pennsylvania

RaW appear to defend the multiple-checks per squad idea. I don't see how there is a way to disagree with it, unless GW comes out with a FAQ to change it.

The only way around it I could see is if you allocate all the 'pinning hits' from the firing squad to a single model. Then those saves are taken at the same time, and the conditions of 'taking wounds from a pinning weapon' would all come at once, and only be taken once? And if you allocate them to multiple models, each save set being done seperately would allow the 'immediate reaction of pinning' to be satisfied more than once on that unit.

I know this seems a little goofy in the explaining, but it's the only other way I could see it going as written.

Farseer Faenyin
7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc)
Record for 6th Edition- Eldar: 25-4-2
Record for 7th Edition -
Eldar: 0-0-0 (Yes, I feel it is that bad)

Battlefleet Gothic: 2,750 pts of Craftworld Eldar
X-wing(Focusing on Imperials): CR90, 6 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Interceptors, TIE Bomber, TIE Advanced, 4 X-wings, 3 A-wings, 3 B-wings, Y-wing, Z-95
Battletech: Battlion and Command Lance of 3025 Mechs(painted as 21st Rim Worlds) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

But you can't just allocate multiple wounds to a single model at will. If you have, say, a ten-man unit, you'd have to have taken two pinning wounds and nine normal wounds to make that work.

DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





I am sure Faenyin is aware of that.

Naturally (not to mention obviously) you cannot allocate the pinning wounds "freely" unless circumstances allows it.

-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in be
Regular Dakkanaut




Quit playing 4th edition, there is a reason why the wording changed from 4th to 5th. If it were meant as unit there would have been no reason to make the change to weapon.
That's all i'll say this topic been beaten to death more than often.

"If you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/17 15:50:00


"ANY" includes the special ones 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Los Angeles, CA


The wording for the rule is inconclusive. The only solace you can hope to find is to see how most people play it so that if you disagree with the majority you can be prepared to discuss things before the game begins.

Here's the thread I made before on how people play this issue:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/228162.page



I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in au
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight





Steelmage99 wrote:This is the final conclusion;

It can be read either way.


Its people like you....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I thought of a different way to play it: take one check, but minus 1 to leadership for how many pinning wounds you take.

Wouldnt that be easier?

10 sniper wounds = INSTANT PIN (coz it would) 1 sniper wound = LD (normal) check, each additional pinning weapon minus's 1.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/19 05:36:26


 
   
Made in us
Feldwebel





Jaon wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:This is the final conclusion;

It can be read either way.


Its people like you....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I thought of a different way to play it: take one check, but minus 1 to leadership for how many pinning wounds you take.

Wouldnt that be easier?

10 sniper wounds = INSTANT PIN (coz it would) 1 sniper wound = LD (normal) check, each additional pinning weapon minus's 1.


That's a pretty good idea
I might have to try that the next time I play (depending on what people say at my FLGS)
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





Jaon wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:This is the final conclusion;

It can be read either way.


Its people like you....




It's people like me.....that what?

-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut






Steelmage99 wrote:
Jaon wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:This is the final conclusion;

It can be read either way.


Its people like you....




It's people like me.....that what?


Jaon wrote:I much prefer a plastic alternative, metal is insuperior in every way.

"I already told you son, that milk isn't for developing bones. It's for developing character." - C&H 
   
Made in be
Regular Dakkanaut




Steelmage99 wrote:It would also make a kind of sense that a bunch of sniper rifles have a greater chance of pinning a unit than a single rifle would.

Aside from that fluff perspective, the rules are not, in any way, shape or form, clear.
People can say it all they want. it doesn't make it any more true.

It Can Be Read Either Way.


Do you really think they'll come out with a faq that says 'yeah look we changed this rule but really meant it to be the exact same thing as in 4th despite the obvious change in wording'.

I'll tell you why pinning was (marginally) boosted in this edition.
- It was crappy in 4th to begin with
- 5th ed codex throw fearless around like it's candy, further reducing it's impact on the game

I say marginally because it's nowhere near broken if you play it by weapon, i'd even say there's still some weaksauce sticking on it.
10 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds, 1 unsaved wound -> 1 pinning test
hmmm, on second thought it's exactly as crappy as before and might aswell keep playing 4th rule and avoid this inane argument.

My conclusion, pinning has never been able to consistently influence the outcome of a battle and it still can't despite the rule change of 5th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/19 08:51:59


"ANY" includes the special ones 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut






nostromo wrote:

My conclusion, pinning has never been able to consistently influence the outcome of a battle and it still can't despite the rule change of 5th.



Dark Eldar might want to disagree with you there.

"I already told you son, that milk isn't for developing bones. It's for developing character." - C&H 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: