Topic at hand :
I am in the camp of one Pinning test from one firing unit, although I would've liked to see multiple ones. My reasons are as follows, with support in the actual Pinning rules:

• BRB - Pg. 31 wrote:
  If a unit... suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test.
• Notice the words "wounds" and "weapon." A unit can take multiple wounds from a Pinning weapon in a single turn. This can be because of a pinning blast weapon (one weapon) or multiple single-shot pinning weapons (which are one type of weapon and are thus grouped together).
• The unit will take one Pinning test (also singular in the rules) after the firing of the unit is completed and pinning wounds are taken as casualties. As unit firing is simultaneous, a unit suffering multiple wounds or one wound from a pinning weapon will not matter, as the rules call for one Pinning test.

I've read through this discussion, and most posters were ignoring the fact that the rules say a single Pinning test is made after pinning wounds are taken as casualties (from a single firing unit). I think that is pretty unambiguous. The reason that the rules mention multiple pinning tests in one turn is that a single unit may be shot at by a few different units with pinning weapons (such as a Gun Drone squad and some Carbine Firewarriors), with each unit causing a maximum of one check.

SpartanTau: While I'm re-evaluating my position, I do have a question as to the following:



Can you give me a rules quote specifically stating a single Pinning test is made after pinning wounds are taken as casualties from a single unit? All I've seen are statements that don't exactly say that, but if there is specific wording that clear cut, that pretty much closes the door on any argument.

Barrage weapons do pin, so multiple wounds from one pinning weapon, but carbines and rail rifles are multiple weapons each causing individual wounds, and there are multishot pinning weapons the eldar have. Again the last example would only cause one pinning test under your interpretation, but using the same interpretation carbine and rail rifle equipped squads can force multiple pinning checks.

Bored1 :
Yes I can. Take a look lower down in the Pinning Weapon rules, paragraph 3:

As firing by a unit is simultaneous, as shown somewhat in this quote, casualty removal occurs after all saves have been rolled for the unit, and Pinning tests come after unsaved wounds from pinning weapons, the single Pinning test (from paragraph 2) is taken after all firing from the unit has been completed. They only way that I can see a unit taking multiple pinning tests from a single firing unit is if two different pinning weapons were fired from that unit.

Absintheminded :
Yes, a squad (such as a mixed Pathfinder unit) could cause two Pinning tests (one from the Carbines and one from the Rail Rifles). I mis-wrote by saying "a maximum of one check," as I did not include different Pinning weapons in the same unit. That is my mistake, as usually only one Pinning test will be made due to the firing of each firing weapon. The multi-shot Eldar (and others) pinning weapons will cause one Pinning test for each unique weapon, even if a single weapon causes two or three wounds.

Here's one way to think of it.

If it really were the case that a unit took one pinning test per unsaved wound, don't you think the rule would have been something like:

"If a unit takes unsaved wounds from weapons causing pinning, the unit makes a Ld test per wound".

In order to argue that a unit takes one pinning test per wound, it's necessary to undergo some mental gymnastics, and generally if that's necessary, it's likely that the interpretation is wrong.

Besides which, this goes even worse for us...at least with a Ld7, we'll succeed at least 1/2 the time.

I have a question related to this pinning test discussion. Does a "fearless" unit have to take a pinning test?

Sid'Vektor

SpartanTau: While I think I'm agreeing with your conclusion, I think it's important to point out that you're going through a lot of interpretation there. My point was that there is no clear cut statement that says:

"A unit must take a pinning test for any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon from an enemy unit. Note that multiple enemy units may cause multiple pinning tests, but each enemy unit may only cause one pinning test"



Logically, this statement is misleading as that is the point of contention (I was saying there are multiple, not single Pinning tests), so using that to build the argument doesn't work.

All that said, I think that it is just one test at this point. I've re-read it a few times now (wow, I'm really bored), and I think that the wording is such that the interpretation is grouping all wounds from "a Pinning Weapon" together per unit makes the most sense, and has the most smooth gameplay.

sidvektor: refer to the first sentence on p75, under "fearless".

Bored1 :
For mental gymnastics, good thing I'm in shape then. I've always had trouble with back handsprings, but maybe the Olympics will help get me out of my rut...

Yes, my interpretations are kind of widespread, but they do come from combining different rules within the framework of the Pinning weapon rules. It would take way too long to quote all of them and would probably make my points even more convoluted. Yes, I agree that there isn't a single quote like you said, but there also isn't one that says, "A unit will take one Pinning test for each wound caused by a pinning weapon," leaving us to interpret the rules and figure out which one is more correct as the case may be.

I will now try to just go through the rules (along with the relevant rules in other sections) to show what happens when a unit is shot at by pinning weapons (including all of the things not directly related to pinning weapons, just to get the full picture):

• A unit of Firewarriors (all with Carbines) declares an approaching unit as its target (Pg. 16), checks range, and rolls to hit (Pg. 17).
• All of the passed To Hit rolls are then rolled again to wound (Pg. 19). Both of these steps are performed using all of the shots from the unit (in case some Rifles are also included, for example), as all shooting by a single unit is done simultaneously (Pg. 18).
• The successful wounds are then put up for being saved, either by cover, armour, or some other method (Pg. 20-24).
• All failed saves are removed as casualties, taking care to specify which cause a Pinning test and which do not, in the case of mixed squads (Pg. 24).
• If any unsaved wounds are caused by the Carbine-totting Firewarriors, the unit must immediately take a Pinning test (Pg. 31). Notice that the "unit... suffers any unsaved wounds" (meaning that at least one wound must be suffered but more than one can) causes "a Pinning test," which is singular. Ignoring the use of the singular weapon in the rules for now, this means that a single test is taken if any unsaved wounds are caused by shots from a single unit with pinning weapons.
• The unit passes the test, so it does not go to ground. "As the unit has already taken its saves" for all of the shots by the weapon, meaning that all shots were rolled to hit, wound, and save before any Pinning tests were made, multiple pinning weapons (of the same type) will only cause one Pinning check, as it will most likely be impossible to differentiate which weapon caused which wound (Pg. 31).

The more complex case of different types of pinning weapons within the same squad should be what this discussion is about, as the rules point to both sides (multiple or single checks) because of the ambiguity of the singular "weapon." This has been a troublesome discussion in its own right, and hopefully this short walk-through has helped to clear it up (in the case of a single type of pinning weapon).

I think the question when rules lawyering is whether to consider the word weapon in the "...unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon..." clause refers to a single weapon fired by a particular model within a unit, or weapon type within a unit. If considering the former, each model's shot(s) has a chance of forcing a pinning check. If the considering the latter, than each salvo from pinning weapons within a unit, per pinning weapon type, forces a pinning check. Since the wording is "...a pinning weapon", I infer that the wording means a particular shot( shots in the case of eldar pinning weapons, etc) from each weapon which is classified as pinning. In either case, the AFP would only force one pinning check, although multiple casualties are possible from one shot. Some thing else that may need to be addressed are the fact that in some cases, drones are considered members of the squad, while others they are merely wargear. Generally, they are considered wargear with exception of determining shooting casualties, but not whether it can regroup. The 50% VP and determining whether it is still a scoring unit rules are obsolete as of 5th edition. Considering they still are armed with pulse carbines with the same profile as FW/PF carbines albiet twin linked, I would assume no distinction is made between footslogging carbines and beeping, buzzing, humming ominously carbines.

So let's give an example. A pathfinder squad with 3 rail rifles, 5 carbines/markerlights, 'Ui with HWDC and 2 Gun Drones

They all fire at the same target, the carbines being selected to fire.

2 Rail Rifles hit and wound.
3 Carbines from the PF hit, 2 Wound.
1 gun drone hits and Wounds.

Considering the ubiquity of MeQs, let's say this example the target was a Tactical Squad. The results were a little higher than typical, as one rail rifle and PF wound were unsaved, so 2 casualties.

Now, it really matters what the ruling would be on the interpretation of the clause quoted above. In any case, only 2 pinning checks would occur. In a more generous example, where say all the wounds went unsaved, it could be 1,2 or 4 pinning checks.

Consider the ludicrousness of debating the definition of the word "a" in this context, I would suggest just agreeing with your opponent what your verdict is until it is clarified.

I would agree with this, if it did not rely on ignoring a portion of the text (reference to "a weapon")


I think this is being toted as proof, when IMO it is just trying to clarify that the unit goes to ground as a result of the pinning weapon/s shooting, not part way through the units shooting.
So if you have to take 3 pinning tests and fail the second, you don't retrospectively take cover saves *scratches head*

Basically taking the stance that multiple pinning weapons fired cause multiple tests represents the fact that it is more frightening to have more sniper rounds/deadly shrapnel flying around, not that the troops are going:
BANG
"Oh go what was that, what was that??? Its ok guys, we're trained supermen, calm down! Hang on John's down!"
-test one-
BANG
"Oh go there's another one! calm boys, Jeff, you Ok mate?"
-test two-
BANG
"Alex! - crap get down!"
-test 3-

That is silly, the shots are not resolved one at a time, but all at once, IMO it goes more like this:
BAANNNGGG!!!
"Crap lost three guys, get down boys"
-Taken all three tests and failed one, the more casualties means you have more likelihood of failing, not that each shot is individual.



Finally I keep pointing out that the OLD rules clearly stated that only one test was taken for each UNIT's pinning weapons, while 5th ed makes this ambiguous.
Why would GW change the wording if not to change the way it plays? - there are plenty of other section that have stayed the same, the books are not written from scratch

A rearless model will always pass morale and pinning tests.

you learn something new every day, I used to think it was all Ld based tests.

To be fair, a rearless model has bigger problems to worry about than being pinned.

wouldn't it be true that if GW wanted players to take multiple tests per unsaved wound from each pinning weapon, that they would clearly state it in the rules? rules have always been open for "a little bit" interpretation, but in this case I think GW couldn't have overseen this one. indeed, maybe wait for a FAQ, but in the mean time.
if players want to play with pinning as their main tactic, take more pinning units!

Absintheminded :
Good descriptions, and especially with the example that you used, trying to pin a squad can become quite complex. I've bean searching through the rulebook looking for precedence between using the singular "weapon" to mean an actual single weapon or a single weapon type, but to no avail. The only things close that I could find are on Pgs. 25 and 18:

These quotes, one of which is just an example of the rules, are of course nothing to go by. The incoming fire in the second example isn't even known; if it were, it would be slightly easier to tell whether or not "weapon" means a single weapon or a single type. Looking at the first example is a little clearer, as the distinction between weapons (in the example, bolters, a plasma gun, and a lascannon), which are taken to be types, and shooters, which would be individual weapons even if there are multiple of the same types, is made. Of course, this is nothing to base the pinning rules on, but I feel that "weapon" on page 31 refers to type. Otherwise, as pointed out early, the rules would have called for a Pinning test for each casualty or some other distinction. The Podcast referring to the design philosophy behind the rules does say that anything not in the rules is not in the rules, and using the singular "Pinning test" and the lack of a "for every wound" clause, to me at least, would call for a single check. The pinning rules do say "any unsaved wounds," which to me would mean that no distinction would be made between shots from a similar type of weapon or even multiple types.

P.S. - Why does everyone keep saying that Victory Points are out the window in 5th Edition? They are included on Page 300 and are used when the game is a draw based on objectives. While we don't have to worry about them as much, they could still come into play.

EDIT FOR SUBSEQUENT POSTS
You know, when you describe it like that (and with yet another read over of the pinning rules), I do now think that is the correct way. The passage in the rules that turned me over is the little mention after going to ground/being pinned, and how it "doesn't protect it [the unit] against the fire of the pinning weapon that caused the test." While GW did change the wording, they also made it ambiguous when they were trying to make all of the rules less so, which is pretty strange... The "any unsaved wounds" still is a problem.

I will be calling to get this cleared up (as they mention on their sight that rules queries should be handled by phone), and tomorrow I will be posting up what they tell me. Hopefully that will settle things.

Ack! terrible logic. GW has never written rules well. I've been playing a long while. Rules-writing is not their thing. Rules are there to spur model sales. While they've gotten better over the years I think (especially in Fantasy), every single rulebook, army book, or codex has featured some spectacular mistakes.

SpartanTau:


I wouldn't bother. While it's on their flow chart, there is a reason it is so low. The people that answer the phones are sales people that happen to know the game, not rules gurus. Their opinions are as good as the guy at the table next to you, or your opponent (nothing against them, just the truth). Plus, if I'm playing you, I'm not going to agree to a ruling you got over the phone. The closest you can get to an official answer is on dakkadakka. Yakface (the name that is thanked at the end of each of the new FAQs), is a mod over there. A quick search reveals (what I should have done before) that he feels that it is only one test per opposing unit. Note he does not directly address the issue of multiple types of pinning weapons in the same unit.

Bored1 :
Well, I didn't read your response until after I got off the phone (Keith said that it was only one test for multiple wounds from multiple pinning weapons, such as carbines). Of course, I did forget to ask about multiple types of pinning weapons in the same squad...

@Bored 1
While I agree with you about the finality of rules rulings from sales staffers, it isn't entirely useless to call them as the flowchart says they'll forward legitimate oversights back to the rules authors. If that's true any feedback we generate can ultimately only be positive for us. While I won't go to a game and say 'GW told me this over the phone' I would at least feel better that someone there knew about the ambiguity.

@Spartan Tau
Thanks for taking the initiative on calling GW about this. While I was hoping for a favorable answer from them I anticipated they would ultimately say what you heard.

One would think that given the status of ATT and Tau online that we'd have been able to cultivate direct relationships to the studio for gameplay and rules issues. I realise GW is tight with their IP, and I respect that , but just to have a line of communication whereby we can send in our biggest questions and concerns would probably make us all feel a lot better about the solidity of the ruleset. Heck, I would be happy if we could arrange a 'top issues' thread and nagged a staffer to read it
After all the FAQ came out 2 days after release... WTF?!? How were those questions frequently asked? except by the same few folks who playtested each army with rudimentary understanding of the way the army is actually played; not to mention that their minds get stuck in the box when it comes to creative application. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bagging on the studio guys; they bring me a lot of happiness. But even as a player of 3 armies, I can only play two of them to their strengths, Tau because of ATT, and Necrons because they're dirt simple.

Well, regarding how a FAQ could be created 2 days after the release of a codex, I would say that a) you do have a bunch of people out there playing based off the preview copies sent weeks before the release to the various stores, and b) the final version sent for publication is created weeks before printing, and if any questions/errors come up between the submission of the final version and the release, those won't be taken into account either in the released version.

So, I'm glad to see that the FAQ for a Codex could come so soon after the initial release - I just wish they'd see the FAQs as an indicator of things they need to tighten up in their playtesting and editing, rather than a given.

Glory for the Greater Good.

Akiosama

Likewise, wouldn't it be true that if GW wanted the rules to be identical to 4th, they wouldn't have changed them, just like so many other rules that were copy-pasted from 4th? Similarly, if they meant "weapon type", wouldn't they have just said so?

Maybe I'm biased because of my sniper scout team in my SM army as well as the Pulse Carbines, Rail Rifles, and AFP, but reading the text for what it is, without trying to read between the lines it seems pretty clear that a test is required for wounds caused by each weapon. The word "type" is conspicuously absent, and the firing unit is not mentioned at all (as in one pinning test per unit with pinning weapons): the ruling is based on the weapon.

This can be totally immaterial or horribly overpowered, depending on the unit with the pinning weapons. We'll just have to wait and see if it gets FAQd. It's been a week since the last one (for WH of all things), time for another one. I haven't seen one for the rulebook itself yet... maybe it's requiring more work than a codex so is taking longer.

I realize we are in another he said/she said word circle here, just like the seeker gets cover and target lock needs proiority fun elsewhere, but I will add my 2 cents.




I will, as I am in this camp too.

People are thinking like we all have $50 worth of dice but some people might be rolling a single D6 for each wound. It does say "in one batch" for alike models rolling saves, so each group of alike models is rolling to save "together" even if I only have one dice. This is the minimum entity which may suffer a causality and force the unit to take a pinning test for our purpose. Even if it was all fire from Carbines, each batch may fail a save and force a test.(I know the above example is only one batch)

So, at the very least, it is about batch's of alike models, and for each batch there is a possibility to fail a save and require a pinning test. I still feel for each single model that "fails to save", a test is required, but that is harder to squeeze out of the RAW due to the "in one batch" phrase.



p 31, BRB, under "Pinning"
1.


First of all, it says "any" and then "immediately". "Any" means both "a" or "a single", but it does also mean "all" as "every" and that can not be ignored, as written. "Immediately" obviously refers to the broken out way we roll saves for various models separately, even as the shooting is occurring at once.

2.


again, "tests" referring to the various different pinning tests being taken for different models failed armor, cover, or Invl. saves that they choose to make from the pinning weapon, or for each batch of alike models suffering a failed save and rolling their test's.




again, implying there are more wounds to roll saves for. Since going to ground must be done voluntarily BEFORE rolls to save start but after the "rolling to hit to trigger's a wound save roll" has occurred, this phrase is specific to prevent people from trying to get a +1 bonus on the rest of their rolls for cover saves. In other words, this phrase is not about the batch's but about the specific place you must go to ground to get the +1 bonus.

It does say "the pinning weapon" lending value to the argument that it has to do with the weapon, and that weapon refers to type not a single models.

with regard to "Fast Rolling With Different Weapons", p18, BRB
3.


"Ideally", is the key GW word here. Maybe I spent my cash on models and the BRB and only have 1 D6, or at least not enough to roll all at once. It really doesn't matter though because the shooting doesn't cause the test, it is the failing a save that does.