There has been a lot of discussion about the new found life of markerlights with 5th ed. These discussions mostly focus on reducing cover, increasing BS or combining both effects most effectively. One thing I see lacking is discussion about Ld for pinning. I believe Ld is the place that markerlights have the most effect.

Leadership is an odd stat math hammer wise mostly because it involves 2d6 instead of 1. This table summarizes the possibilities.

chart shamelessly stolen from here
The possibility that a unit will fail Ld(minus any modifiers) is the sum total of the possible permutations above it. So assuming base Ld of 8 the likelihood of a failure is 10/36 or 27.7%. If we expend 2 markerlight hits and reduce that to a 6 the likelihood changes to 21/36 or 58.3%. That is by far the single largest modifier we can gain out of 2 markerlight hits. More counters obviously will increase that margin but the return diminishes below 6.

On the flip side of this equation are the probabilities that 2 or 3 won’t be rolled because they’re the extremes of the available results that could pass. I'm not a statistics guru so can't dive into this one, although if anybody would like to expand this I'd be happy to hear it.

There are a lot of new dynamics with 5th edition and I believe that forcing a unit down will become a tool more of us will apply as we add markerlights to the armoury.

** edit **
A recent FAQ ruling has stated that units will only test once for pinning regardless of how many wounds were caused by another unit's shooting. What this means for us is that in order to force multiple pins we need more markerlight counters and other units with pinning weapons. It also means that it isn't very useful to have a squad completely armed with carbines. One or two carbines in a squad of firewarriors should be enough to cause pinning while the rest of the squad can retain rapid fire capability.

There's just one hitch to the stats you posted: Since 2 dices are rolled at once, the order they are rolled in is irrelevant. A 4+3 is the exact same as a 3+4, making for 21 possible combos instead of 36. So:

2 = 1/21 (4.8%)
3 = 1/21 (4.8%)
4 = 2/21 (9.5%)
5 = 2/21 (9.5%)
6 = 3/21 (14.2%)
7 = 3/21 (14.2%)
8 = 3/21 (14.2%)
9 = 2/21 (9.5%)
10 = 2/21 (9.5%)
11 = 1/21 (4.8%)
12 = 1/21 (4.8%)

But you do need to count both permutations, since they're both possibilities. They just have to be counted as 4+3 and 3+4 (separate instances). There are 36 possibilities, not 21 - the order DOES matter, even if the resulting total is the same.

Any statistician will agree that there is more chance of rolling 7 (due to the having the highest number of permutations on a d6) than any other number, but your chart says that it's equal for rolling 6, 7, and 8. This is incorrect. 7 is the most common number to roll on 2d6.

Glory for the Greater Good.

Akiosama

P.S. - Technojunkie, I think that the original chart would be better served by showing the probability of rolling either higher or lower than the target number, not the chance of hitting exactly the target number desired. Rarely are we (in this game) trying to hit 7 exactly, we're more often looking at hitting 7- (i.e. Ld 7 check), for instance, which would have a probability of 58.33% success.

This also illustrates why MathHammer is more difficult in some other games out there than in 40K - it's due to the lack of multi-dice results in 40K.

P.P.S. - This also illustrates why the value of a single -1 Ld Markerlight shot is greatest from Ld 7 to Ld 6 (a loss of 16.67% chance) and the least around the edges Ld 4 to Ld 3 (Ld 3 to Ld 2 is worthless unless you're shooting for auto-fail, since it's still a 3- in both cases) or Ld 10 to Ld 9, which are both a loss of 8.33% chance.

It's not exactly my chart I accidentally left off the citation and have edited the original post accordingly. That was the first graphical result I found depicting both dice, and give the large range we work with thought it would be appropriate.

Thank you for the efforts you've gone to in your post, TJ. I must confess though that my ability with maths, statistics and whatever is almost completely non-existent so I'm a bit lost when you maths geniuses put this sort of thing up!

The Tau's problem with pinning things lies as far as I can tell in two areas though: 1) many of our opponents' armies are fearless and 2) the requirement for the Pinning Check to be initiated is that a wound must be occasioned by a weapon which causes pinning. We have only two such weapons: the AFP and the Pulse Carbine.

The AFP will get a minimum of 5 shots per game. How many of these will be worthwhile will depend on it not scattering either off the target completely or causing only a few, if any, wounds due to a smaller scatter. In the latter case the lower number of wounds caused increases the likelihood that fewer saves will be failed (depending on the type of army and unit being targeted, of course). In other words, it is not a Pinning weapon upon which much trust can be placed due to the vagaries of the scatter and the coherency distance used by the opponent in the target unit.

However, with the using of Deep Strike in all standard missions in 5th Ed, the grouping of the DS'ing unit would make a rather nice target for an AFP shot, so perhaps considering the use of MLs with regard to Pinning might be worth doing in this case.

The Pulse Carbine is available in greater numbers in a FW unit, but will we be seeing more FW Carbine units in 5th Ed rather than the more commonly used Rifle ones? We shall see.

E.

Now now we can't forget the rail rifle, and the two units that can take them happen to have markerlight carriers.

Don't forget rail rifles E!

Doh! Absintheminded beat me to it.

I agree with you, E. I think what the game really needs for pinning to be effective would be a modifier based on number of casualties taken from the pinning weapon(s). As for fearless troops, they're supposed to be fearless, so they shouldn't pin - though I would have some reservations about letting fearless troops go to ground - that doesn't necessarily seem right - though fearless <> reckless.

Just a question, how do you all handle pinning tests? Do you roll one test for all pinning weapons (i.e. it doesn't matter if you have 1 casualty or 5 from a single squad of pulse carbines), or do you roll one test for each casualty?

The reason why I ask (this was brought up elsewhere but was never really resolved) is that the BRB states on p. 31 under Pinning:



So, that would seem to say that as each pinning weapon causes an unsaved wound, that you immediately roll a pinning test for that weapon, and examine the results. And then repeat for the next unsaved wound from a pinning weapon, and so on, until a test is failed and the target Goes to Ground. (Though a single pinning weapon (read: ordnance) can only cause one pinning test per shot.)

What do you all think?

Glory for the Greater Good.

Akiosama

Hmmm, good question. You could interpret that to mean multiple separate units could force pinning tests. However there is one plural in there that makes it look like you roll a test for each unsaved wound...



EDIT: Yeah... nevermind. That doesn't have to mean there are multiple tests as a result of one unit firing... the actual wording in the BRB looks a bit different.

That's true. But what I was asking was if one squad of pinning weapons could cause multiple tests. I already figured that multiple squads of pinning weapons could cause multiple tests.

Example: A squad of 10 Carbine FWs cause 4 wounds on an IG squad. Do they take 1 test for the squad, or 4 tests because 4 pinning weapons caused unsaved wounds?

I hope it's one test per weapon. It's the only way, under the current rules, for pinning weapons to have a chance of making any difference given the average leadership in this game.

Glory for the Greater Good.

Akiosama

P.S. It looks different? I typed it exactly out of the book - the only part I snipped was the part on the effects of failing a test.

This is something I want to know too...

RAW say yes, you take a test for each wound, so you take that test 5 times if they failed 5 saves.

This also reflects "real life" IMO, you are more likely to be effected by the shrapnel jumping around if you also see your buddies dying left right and centre...

Given that I was planning to use (stealth) markerlights in conjunction with multiple fish mounted FW squads armed with carbines in my as of yet unstarted cadre with the intention of inflicting much frustration upon opponents by pinning their units left right and centre, this would help greatly in that cause!

Pinning ATM is considered a little of a joke, given high Ld as standard for most squads, one pinning test simply doesn't cut it, Tau are the only army who can fairly reliably strip Ld down (actually so can nids with psychic powers) and this would be a very "fun" tactic to use wholesale IMO.

To further back this up, the wording between 4th and 5th editions has changed significantly, in 4th it specifically talks about the squad, in 5th it has dropped down a level and talks about the specific weapon. Intentional? I see no reason why they would change it if this wasn't!

4th BGB:


5th BRB:



See my point?

Since when does the AFP get pinning? It would be amazing, but it only gets a large blast and ignore cover.

but its barrage, I am fairly sure all barrage weapons have pinning

Its a guess range weapon meaning you can fire out of line of sight, not a barrage weapon which would mean when firing multiple times each extra shot scatters off of the first, like mortars (which do say barrage in their entry), so no pinning.

Guess range is a barrage type, under barrage entry in 5th edition rulebook.

So it became pinning in 5th then? I wish I would have known that tonight then! My bad!

Anyways, I'm full of it ;p As a reference for the future its located on page 32 of the rule book, I got excited after you guys were talking about it and had to look it up. Fear the AFP!!!

Hehe! I edited a copy of the table's original HTML to more appropriately represent what we look for. Thanks for the suggestion akiosama.

@eiglepulper - Aside from tyranids and synapse I'm unaware of complete armies that are fearless, sure most armies have a selection (or few) that are fearless, but across the board not so much.

I used to confuse ATSKNF with fearless, until a SM player pointed it out to me.

I would also opt for the multiple tests from one squad. As it clearly says "unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon". This meaning that a 12 man FW squad with carbines could force your opponent to make 12 such test (if all hit maybe some help from markers). If this gets overruled then you could better use the markers for LD then for BS.
Now I didn't do the math on this but I am fairly certain (mathammer guys have fun) that pumping up your BS is better then pumping down the LD if you get multiple test. In the other case it's fairly obvious that pumping down the enemy's LD is best.

***Standing by for changing to Pulse Carbines***


Greetz

PS: I'll try to do it myself but then you'll have to wait until tomorrow evening

You'd be surprised how often it comes up. I'm from a chaos background and all our cult troops (noise marines, beserkers etc) are fearless, all except 1 HQ are fearless (sorcerer isn't, but is still ld10), Lesser and greater daemons, obliterators and possessed are fearless. Even the basic marines have LD9 and a standard that allows a re-roll on failed ld tests. It's not hard to get an entirely fearless army.
DA have the Ravenwing and Deathwing, who are fearless and can make up an antire army.
Orks can be fearless if there are enough of them, due to their mob rule.
Eldar have the embolden psychic power allowing re-rolls of failed tests.
I thought commissars conferred either fearless or a re-roll but double checking that, they don't.

Okay, so not as many as I thought when I started the post. but still a fair few armies can bolster the majority of their troops up to fearless, or allow re-rolling failed tests. Even reduced to 50% chances of a fail (between LD 6 and 7), a re-roll gives them a 75% chance to succeed in total!
Where I've always played pinning as one test per firing unit, and the high LD and quantities of fearless I've always considered it low priority when planning armies. Knowing now that I would force a test for each wound cause, I may look into it further. If only I didn't play so many Meqs!

Thanks for the info Dr. Insanity. Like most of our tools this one has a time when it is appropriate, and many when it isn't but like all of the tools in our box it's good to know it's available. Tonight when I get home I'll add the fearless info to the original post..

@pisces_808...
On the topic of switching to carbines, you may want to consider a mixed unit. I've always believed one test per group of pinning shots, so have been planning my lists with 2-4 carbines per 6-12 warriors. sure you lose 2-4 shots depending on range, but with the Ld modifier you don't need lethality as much.

I'm certainly waiting with bated breath for a ruling about multiple pinning tests, hopefully either a FAQ or some standards will trickle out of GT.