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.

So, we all know what the skyhammer formation is...

My question is about the ability to pin a unit down by the devestator squads.

The wording makes it sound like you don't have to hit the target, simply target them and shoot. Even if you miss. The unit has to take a Pinning Test?

This what you guys believe to be true?

Rules as written, there is nothing to argue

Don't think of it as Pinning, as may lead to confusion with the Special Rule of the same name.
It is a unique Moral test, one that triggers on being targeted, with different outcomes depending if the Unit passes or fails.

Funny thing I'm noticing. If a unit can't go to ground, they want to fail that test. Because a fail means they go to ground and a pass is they can't fire Overwatch, with no clause saying that they can't fire Overwatch if they are unable to go to ground on a failure...

Humorous indeed.

Since we are discussing that rule, i'll add in a question:

If the targeted unit elects to GtG, they were not grounded by effect of the the devastators rule and so assault marines do not get the bonus to melee attacks, right?

They can only GtG having been wounded, so you have that hurdle to cross, firstly

Secondly nothing states you still dont take the test, so you oculd still be told to GtG through the test.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They can only GtG having been wounded, so you have that hurdle to cross, firstly

Secondly nothing states you still dont take the test, so you oculd still be told to GtG through the test.

Even if you are already on ground? You can go to ground while on ground?
I don't have neither rememeber the wording for the skyhammer rule

Spoletta wrote:
Since we are discussing that rule, i'll add in a question:

If the targeted unit elects to GtG, they were not grounded by effect of the the devastators rule and so assault marines do not get the bonus to melee attacks, right?

the assault marine rule specifically requires the unit go to ground because of the devastator rule, by the RAW if you gtg by choice when targeted, you did not go to ground because of the special rule and the assault rule for skyhammer does not work.

But as pointed out, you choose to go to ground once wounds have been allocated, not when targeted, which is when this rule takes effect. So you can't avoid it.

Also if you are a bike, etc., which cannot go to ground, then I believe you automatically pass this test and cannot overwatch.

Lastly, there was a funny one when skyhammer devastators targeted my warp spiders, who flickerjumped out of LOS, but then became pinned because of this rule.

 ibushi wrote:

Also if you are a bike, etc., which cannot go to ground, then I believe you automatically pass this test and cannot overwatch.

You don't automatically pass the test because it's not a Pinning test. It's a Morale test that forces Go to Ground but is never called a Pinning Test. So a unit incapable of Going to Ground but fails the Morale test gets no effect. They can still fire Overwatch.

Does a Fearless model pass the Morale Test automatically though? There is a pass and fail outcome but I'm confused on the difference between Morale Check and Morale Test wording.

 ibushi wrote:
But as pointed out, you choose to go to ground once wounds have been allocated, not when targeted, which is when this rule takes effect. So you can't avoid it.

Also if you are a bike, etc., which cannot go to ground, then I believe you automatically pass this test and cannot overwatch.

Lastly, there was a funny one when skyhammer devastators targeted my warp spiders, who flickerjumped out of LOS, but then became pinned because of this rule.

the skyhammer go to ground happens at the end of the shooting phase. You can choose to go to ground before you roll your saves[this is before the end of the shooting phase...] and then you cannot be made to go to ground at the end of the shooting phase from this rule. So you can totally choose to avoid it the go to ground from the supressing fusillade which will negate the assault special rule.

However it does not seem that going to ground it required to lose overwatch, so they would still lose overwatch.

Since 7E you can't overwatch if you GtG.

blaktoof wrote:

 ibushi wrote:
But as pointed out, you choose to go to ground once wounds have been allocated, not when targeted, which is when this rule takes effect. So you can't avoid it.

Also if you are a bike, etc., which cannot go to ground, then I believe you automatically pass this test and cannot overwatch.

Lastly, there was a funny one when skyhammer devastators targeted my warp spiders, who flickerjumped out of LOS, but then became pinned because of this rule.

the skyhammer go to ground happens at the end of the shooting phase. You can choose to go to ground before you roll your saves[this is before the end of the shooting phase...] and then you cannot be made to go to ground at the end of the shooting phase from this rule. So you can totally choose to avoid it the go to ground from the supressing fusillade which will negate the assault special rule.

However it does not seem that going to ground it required to lose overwatch, so they would still lose overwatch.

Please provide a rule quote stating that, when I take the test and it tells me to go to ground, I cannot do so because I have chosen to go to ground already that phase.

page and graph please.

Or, as I pointed out, nothing prevents the rule from triggering again, meaning you went to ground for two reasons - and the condition attached to the AM rule still trigggers (it does not require that I ONLY went to ground due to the Devastators rule, just that I did)

Please, none of the usual bluster. Page and graph supproting your stance. Mine is supproted through a ) the devastators rule requiring you to go to ground and b) the lack of a rule stating that I am unable to go to ground more than once per phase / other time period

(...)If an assault squad from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force charges a unit that has Gone to Ground as a result of the Suppressive Fusillade special rule, that Assault Squad can re-roll failted to hit and to wound rolls in the ensuing assault phase.

So, the unit require to have gone to ground DUE TO Suppressive Fusillade

There, if it has gone to ground willingly, does not confer that bonus. RAW

You still have to test for it tho. I'm fuzzy on my 7th but I would wager:
1: devs target a unit this forces the special morale test end of phase.
2: shots are rolled to hit/wound
3: defender can now "choose" to goto ground, improving cover save.
4: saves are rolled, casualties removed
5: end of phase take your special check. If it's passed but already on the ground, who cares. If it's "failed" then you've failed the check mentioned In the rule, wich as a specific rule would override the general brb rule - allowing the am rerolls. I would argue this happens even if a unit goes to ground voluntarily because it's a specific set of if then conditions. If targeted then check. If check failed then gtg. If gtg then am rerolls. Simple imho

Wallur wrote:

(...)If an assault squad from the Skyhammer Annihilation Force charges a unit that has Gone to Ground as a result of the Suppressive Fusillade special rule, that Assault Squad can re-roll failted to hit and to wound rolls in the ensuing assault phase.

So, the unit require to have gone to ground DUE TO Suppressive Fusillade

There, if it has gone to ground willingly, does not confer that bonus. RAW

DOes not answer the question I posed, so no, "not" RAW

If You go to ground willingly, AND has gone to ground as a result of the SF special rule, have you fulfilled the requirement to have font to grtound AS A RESULT of the SF special rule?

Yes.

RAW. Actual raw this time, as in I havent made up a special exclusionary term out of whole cloth

To both:

Yes, you can take the test again, if you pass it, you can't overwatch (anyway, you are on ground so you can't overwatch). I you fail it you gtg, but you are on ground, the state is not changed, the marker for "on ground" is not chagned. You can't change A for A, you just stay A, you stay on ground, but the reason you went to ground was willingly, not for the test. You failed the test, but the rule says "if it went to ground because of the Suppressive Fusillade" it does not say "if you failed the the test".

You can't go to ground if you are on ground.

If you are shot again while you are on ground, can you choose to go to ground? answer is NO, because you are forced to stay on ground until X happens. So, if you are on ground and take a pinning test do you go to ground? NO, because you are on ground. If you fail a test from Suppresive Fusillade, do you go to ground? NO because you are already on ground.

If the rule said "failed the test from Fusillade" then YES, you get the benefit even though you didn't go to ground.

Page and paragraph please.

I have "gone to ground" willingly
I have "gone to ground" as I failed the test.

Prove the second isnt true if the first is true. Page and graph.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Page and paragraph please.

I have "gone to ground" willingly
I have "gone to ground" as I failed the test.

Prove the second isnt true if the first is true. Page and graph.

page and paragraph that you have permission to force an unit to go to ground when it is already gone to ground.

permission has to be shown to do something, not to not do something.

I have failed the test, I now go to ground

Show that I cannot go to ground. I have shown permission to go to ground in general. Nothing restricts this permission

Or, how about you show me permission to deploy on the 2nd storey of a 3 storey ruin 6" inside my deployment zone. Oh look, general permission requires specifc restrictions to deny, not specific permission to continue. Basis of the game and all that.

So you beleive an unit that can go to ground can go to ground again while its already gone to ground because nothing anywhere says they can't.

great.

tell me about the other stuff players can do in 40k that is not listed in the rules so therefore they can do it.

Awesome. Please abide by the tenets and support your argument

It is currently rebutted, so if you have nothing further to add, ruleswise, I presume you accept that status.

Edit: oh, and I never said that "nothing anywhere says they cant". I said I have general permission to go to ground, and nothing removes that permission.

Subtle difference. Well, not actually subtle. Utterly obviously difference to those arguing honestly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Awesome. Please abide by the tenets and support your argument

It is currently rebutted, so if you have nothing further to add, ruleswise, I presume you accept that status.

Edit: oh, and I never said that "nothing anywhere says they cant". I said I have general permission to go to ground, and nothing removes that permission.

Subtle difference. Well, not actually subtle. Utterly obviously difference to those arguing honestly.

I love how you quote the tenets often but have yet to actually quote a rule.

Where exactly is the quote that you can force a unit to go to ground, that has already gone to ground? Or that units that have gone to ground, can still be made to go to ground again?

or

the quote that says you can do things unless you are told you can't?

Yeah they have general permission to go to ground, can they go to ground again when already grounded?

I have general permission to embark, can I embark when embarked?

general permission is one thing, making up rules that don't exist to modify rules is another thing.

 DarthSpader wrote:
You still have to test for it tho. I'm fuzzy on my 7th but I would wager:
1: devs target a unit this forces the special morale test end of phase.
2: shots are rolled to hit/wound
3: defender can now "choose" to goto ground, improving cover save.
4: saves are rolled, casualties removed
5: end of phase take your special check. If it's passed but already on the ground, who cares. If it's "failed" then you've failed the check mentioned In the rule, wich as a specific rule would override the general brb rule - allowing the am rerolls. I would argue this happens even if a unit goes to ground voluntarily because it's a specific set of if then conditions. If targeted then check. If check failed then gtg. If gtg then am rerolls. Simple imho

Please keep your reasonable and logical interpretations to yourself. This is YMDC.

 doktor_g wrote:

 DarthSpader wrote:
You still have to test for it tho. I'm fuzzy on my 7th but I would wager:
1: devs target a unit this forces the special morale test end of phase.
2: shots are rolled to hit/wound
3: defender can now "choose" to goto ground, improving cover save.
4: saves are rolled, casualties removed
5: end of phase take your special check. If it's passed but already on the ground, who cares. If it's "failed" then you've failed the check mentioned In the rule, wich as a specific rule would override the general brb rule - allowing the am rerolls. I would argue this happens even if a unit goes to ground voluntarily because it's a specific set of if then conditions. If targeted then check. If check failed then gtg. If gtg then am rerolls. Simple imho

Please keep your reasonable and logical interpretations to yourself. This is YMDC.

unfortunately it is not logical.

the issue are the if/then statements.

the assault rule doesn't work IF the unit has gone to ground, THEN it gets the assault rule.

the assault rule works IF the unit goes to ground from a specific rule, THEN it gets the assault rule.

if an unit has already gone to ground, did it go to ground because of another rule that happens after it went to ground is already gone to ground? no.

reasonably you could say the assault rule still happens, but by the rules as written it does not as it specifically requires you to go to ground from suppressing fusillade, not fail the test, not take the test, and not be a unit that has gone to ground.

So, you accept youra rgument was refuted? You yet again failed to show a single rule.

I have permission to "go to ground", that is given. Nothing removes that permission if I am already in state "go to ground". That is proven. (By absence - YOU have to prove this rule exists, not I)

Over to you. Prove your restriction exists. Page and graph. 3rd time of asking, and I'm going to bet 3rd time you will refuse to support your position. Business as usual.

From Pinning Special Rule (the only rule on the BRB that makes a unit go to ground against their will)

Pinning wrote:
(...)If a unit has already Gone to Ground, no further Pinning tests are taken.

I know this is not a pinning test but is the closest rule I could find since both are rules that could make a unit go to ground, and it says what happen when the units takes a Ld check (since pinning is a Ld check) to go to ground while already on ground.

No further pinning tests are taken != the unit cannot be forced to go to ground for any other reason, however.

It may give some form of "intent" to the idea given above, but just as much "intent" weight can be given to the idea that it is quite gamey to deny the reroll rule through pretty poor attempts at rules lawyering (poor because it uses no rules)

Why would Pinning need such a clause if a Unit that has Gone to Ground can not be forced to Go to Ground again?
I have several answers for it, some which are uncharacteristic for Game Workshop Rules, but I want people think more on the interesting point of view put forth by Nosferatu1001.