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.

If a battery of 3 different artillery models all fire barrage weapons at a target, does the target take 3 pinning tests or 1?


Thanks

Explicitly covered in the Pinning rules. Check the index for the page number of Pinning.

At least give then the page number and a quick run down of what they might find.

The page is 40, it is in the middle of the special rule section. There is nothing in the rules which addresses multiple weapons fired but it does create an order of events as to when you make a pinning test. Given that this order of events tell you when to make the pinning test you can come to the conclusion on the number of pinning tests you are required to take based on that knowledge.

JinxDragon wrote:
At least give then the page number and a quick run down of what they might find.

Because the index was not a good enough reference?

I am not going to do the work for you when it is a clear rule that there is a question about. It is explicitly stated in the Pinning rules when you test.

JinxDragon wrote:
There is nothing in the rules which addresses multiple weapons fired but it does create an order of events as to when you make a pinning test. Given that this order of events tell you to make the pinning test after receiving all unsaved wounds, you can come to the conclusion on the number of pinning tests you are required to take.

Actually the rule is quite clear, and it does address multiple weapons fired from a single unit, you just have to read it carefully.

Just because they are asking questions about a simple rule doesn't mean they have not read the rule. If they are having problems grasping what it might mean, hitting them with the rule book and saying 'read it' is not going to help. The very least you can do is help them realize what is so obvious that they are overlooking. The best way to do this is to point them to the correct page where the rule is written and showing them how you came to the conclusion you came to through a simple paragraph explaining it.

After that point they probably are going to be slapping their foreheads over how simple it actually was.

I did point them to the correct page. The index has the page number for this rule...

Just a difference of philosophy here. You assume that the poster has not read the rule in question, therefore simply pointing towards it and saying 'go read' would solve the problem. I assume they have read the rule but are failing to grasp what it means, in which case a more detailed answer is required. Without more information both are assumptions, of course, as neither of us know for sure just what the purpose of asking this question was. I just like to be thorough and give them both the location of the rule and a possible explanation for it in case they simply don't understand the rule.

Honestly, I am probably insulting them more then you are.

If the OP does not spend the time explaining why he is confused by the particular situation (what in the rules is unclear), then the natural assumption is that they have not read the rule in question, or else if they have, then they should be taking the time to explain why they are confused.

So if they don't do that, then posting the location of where they can find the (clear) rule is totally sufficient and is actually probably the best way for people to learn.

In some cases, people don't have the relevant rulebook/codex and are simply posting the question to get the answer in lieu of having the book. That is not actually what this forum is for. This forum is for discussions about the rules (i.e. unclear rules). So if someone is simply asking for the answer to a question that is 100% clear in the rules, then telling them where to find the answer is proper.

Yeah that is fair enough, I do give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually have a rule book on hand. It just seems logical to me, if your going to play a game you should have the rules on hand. Particularly one as complicated as Warhammer where even experienced players get caught up in what means what. I will try and dig a little deeper into why they are asking the question in the future when it seems the answer should be simple enough.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I did point them to the correct page. The index has the page number for this rule...

DarthReaper, I would prefer that you don't reply to any more of my posts (or other folks) with these types of explanations.
They don't add value and generally just cause more confusion and more posts. I would suggest that you stay out of the You Make Da Call forum, as I have seen this behavior out of
you in the past.

Thanks everyone else.

"This behavior" is the safest way to post about rules without risking GW shutting Dakka down.

I have heard they can be real **** about that, is it true?

Relic07 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I did point them to the correct page. The index has the page number for this rule...

DarthReaper, I would prefer that you don't reply to any more of my posts (or other folks) with these types of explanations.
They don't add value and generally just cause more confusion and more posts. I would suggest that you stay out of the You Make Da Call forum, as I have seen this behavior out of
you in the past.

Thanks everyone else.

Prefer it or not my answers are the safest way to answer. As HoverBoy noted "This behavior" is the safest way to post about rules without risking GW shutting Dakka down."

It does add value as it forces you to think, and possibly remember where you found that information the next time one of your opponents asks a similar question. In this case you will have the experience of looking it up yourself

All of this is spelled out pretty clearly in the BRB. Do you not have one?

This forum is not a replacement for not owning the BRB or a particular codex, it is meant for discussions about rules that people have access to but are still unclear about.

Your question is clear in the BRB.

Teach a man to fish is a better way of addressing queries.

In this case you posted a question with a clearly written answer in the rulebook. Where to find the rule was given, and you then get to do some work in reading the rule and seeing if you are now happy.

If you still dont understand you can come back with a better, more detailed question showing your basic understanding is there, and we can then discuss the precise wording that has issues.

As Yak pointed out, this is one of the best ways of using YMDC, and DR was exactly right in their response. WHile we dont always "get on" in here, their response is the best way to answer that type of question.

JinxDragon wrote:
I have heard they can be real **** about that, is it true?

Yes sites with less vigilant mods have been shut down for lengthy periods in the past.

It is like they have not heard of fair use acts before....

More like refuse to hear of it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Relic07 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I did point them to the correct page. The index has the page number for this rule...

DarthReaper, I would prefer that you don't reply to any more of my posts (or other folks) with these types of explanations.
They don't add value and generally just cause more confusion and more posts. I would suggest that you stay out of the You Make Da Call forum, as I have seen this behavior out of
you in the past.

Thanks everyone else.

Prefer it or not my answers are the safest way to answer. As HoverBoy noted "This behavior" is the safest way to post about rules without risking GW shutting Dakka down."

It does add value as it forces you to think, and possibly remember where you found that information the next time one of your opponents asks a similar question. In this case you will have the experience of looking it up yourself

All of this is spelled out pretty clearly in the BRB. Do you not have one?

This forum is not a replacement for not owning the BRB or a particular codex, it is meant for discussions about rules that people have access to but are still unclear about.

Your question is clear in the BRB.

Don't talk down to me, I won't tolerate it.

I own every published GW book, and have read the BRB book no less than 10 times. With that being the case, I still have to look things up as I am getting older and don't have
a photographic memomry.

With that being said, I bet I would repeatedly table you in a competitive environment. I am often on vassal (id Relic) if you want to put your money where your mouth is.

Does that answer your question? If not, I don't care. But I don't like your attitude or your tone. The "lets be afraid of GW, can't discuss rules" is balarky, and is craven if you honestly
believe it.

Relic, just out of curiosity - let's say you are in the middle of a game and a rule query comes up. Which do you think your opponent is more likely to believe

A: The answer is "X" because I asked online and was told so
B: The answer is "Y", it is found on this page, in that section.

Now, if my opponent said he asked online and was told the answer, I'm definitely going to demand that the time be taken to look up the rule in question. If my opponent can point me exactly to where the rule is, I'll still most likely look it up, but it will take significantly less time and the game can continue.

Relic07 wrote:
The "lets be afraid of GW, can't discuss rules" is balarky, and is craven if you honestly believe it.

It's not up to him to believe. It's up to the owner of the site that made the rule and the mods that enforce it.
He's not talking down to you, you just seem to have a bad attitude.

Relic07 wrote:
With that being the case, I still have to look things up as I am getting older and don't have
a photographic memomry..

Then why exactly are you getting cranky over somewhen pointing out how to locate the rule...?


Where a question is answered by pointing out the relevant rule in the rulebook, posting the location of that rule is the easiest and quickest way to resolve the issue. The response you received was perfectly in line with this concept and with the principles under which this forum operates. YMDC is here to discuss areas of the rules about which people are unclear, not to hand out rules that can be obtained by looking in the rulebook.