O'DeepView, you've just pointed out something that all of us have apparently forgotten: The Wound Allocation Rules. And you're completely right. There are going to be multiple tests, depending on how many wounds are caused, and there could very well be multiple wounds across different types of models in the same squad. So, in that case, you'd take multiple pinning tests per type of model. Wow. Just, wow.

Heh. I thought I covered that possibility in my earlier post with the four interpretations? Back on Page 2?

Anyhow, given how GW's trying to simplify the game, I'd say sure, everything's simultaneous so there's only one test, but then if all the saves are taken at the same time (even if they're rolled separately) for a single unit, then why all the confusion regarding the 'timing' of the pinning effect and how it affects the other shots by the same squad? There would be no confusion if it was clear that all firing and results of firing happen simultaneously, as has been suggested before...

Hmm..

Anyhow, I don't think there is a singular clear interpretation at this point... It's something that will need to be asked about before the game starts, I guess. (And damn, I was really pulling for pinning in this edition.)

Glory for the Greater Good.

Akiosama

.....and I have only actually played 1 game!

You did indeed, Akiosoma, and you have my apologies for not catching your post. This whole thing could've been a lot shorter (even if it was civilized).

No apologies necessary. I know it got lost in the lengthy discussion - I just thought it funny, since I put a bit of time into writing that interpretation post.

I think the point that confuses me the most (and this has been pointed out before) about the presentation of this rule is why, if the execution of Pinning tests hasn't changed much (despite the effect changing some) did they feel the need to rephrase the execution of the Pinning test portion of the rules? Not changing that portion of the rules, alone, would have kept all this from coming up, should they actually not want that part changed... (and given GW's 'simplification' of dice rolling (with the exception of Wound Allocation stuff) I'd figure it should probably be the one roll idea, as much as I'd like pinning to have a bit greater impact on the game)

[And to think, when I brought it up originally, I just wanted to see what everyone else was doing, not spark a 3-page debate. ]

Thanks for the excellent input, everyone.

Glory for the Greater Good.

Akiosama

Sometimes it takes a fresh pair of eyes, ODV. Thanks again for pointing that out, along with Akiosama

So, the pinning rules can be interpreted in numerous different ways, concerning different types of pinning weapons in a single shooting unit, the variety of their target. One ruling concerning variety of the shooting unit, another their target, both of which are indepedent of one another.


I think it should be noted that the 4th edition rules for pinning required a casualty, while 5th only requires an unsaved wound. This changes how pinning weapons affect multiwound models. That change alone would let one infer that a change to pinning was intended, although the scope of that change is the debate at hand.

Nice observation. I didn't even pick that one up given that I was more concerned about how many tests you get with one squad of weapons. That's cool. (Just imagining pinned XV-8s now... )

Glory for the Greater Good.

Akiosama

sorry for my earlier response, where I said that you roll saves in one batch.
in the rulebook, it states that you roll dice together for models with the same profile and settings. and then for unique models (like vet sgt's and heavy weapons).
so maybe if different pinning wounds are allocated to different sort of models, each unsaved one can call for a pinning test.

Even though you are rolling seperately for different models, they are still part of the same overall unit right? Im sure it says one test per unsaved wound per unit that can pin. My friend has the rule book atm but from what I remember it is only one pinning test per unsaved wound per shooting unit. Not how many seperate saving rolls it makes.

To me I'd make people take a pinning test for every unsaved wound. 3 Unsaved wounds, 3 Pinning tests. Each of those unsaved wounds is a pinning weapon so why not? It makes sense to me, but then nearly every army would moan because LD9/10 fails too often...*cough cough*

Pinning is a very few and far between occurance - when it happens, its bloody great - stopping a whole unit from doing ANYTHING their turn is great. Plus they only get "going to ground" on the same round they are pinned, NOT your NEXT turn of shooting (when they are still stood still/haven't fired).

While this is true, I don't believe this is RAW. RAW to me say that each unsaved wound causes you to need to take a pinning test where the weapon is different.
So IMO each (unsaved) wounding carbine would cause a pinning test in a unit with multiple carbines (for example).

This is backed up on Warseer (though not fully discussed as yet):
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158339

Reading over my 5ed rulebook yesterday I found something I'd missed. The rules for pinning say a test is taken for each unsaved wound inflicted by a weapon. I don't have a 4ed rulebook on hand but I distinctly remember pinning causing a test per unit that inflicts an unsaved wound. . .

This to me is huge, and I'm quite baffled that I havn't read anything on the forums about this already, unless I'm incredibly mistaken. So if I'm completely wrong let me know, it is early and I may be being optimistic. A quick search found me nothing.

However, this is going to cause three things to happen in my army (at least for a game or two of testing)
1. At least some of my fire warriors are now going to be toting carbines as that extra 18" range allows a more successfull fish of fury (albeit less fury) with no chance of being charged by foot sloggers. The ability to move 6" while firing is invaluable. I know statistically a squad hitting MEQs will only kill 1-2 but if I'm not being assaulted after, that's not bad. The same squad with rifles in rapid fire would only kill 2-4 and would be assaulted after. I look at most tau shooting as minimal on it's own against the hardiest of foes, but that is why we must bring down the full strength of our armies on a single target to ensure it's dead.
2. Bring more gun drone squadrons. There are many excellent articles floating around on these bad boys and I'll leave it at that.
3. More stealth suit squads, maybe 3suits, a ML, and 6 carbine drones.

The markerlight entry allows a markerlight hit to reduce the LD of an enemy squad by one for ALL pining tests caused by a unit. This means if I can get 2-3 tests on a unit, reducing lets say a MEQ squad to 7or 8 improves my odds of pinning them drastically, especially with increased wounds caused by higher BS.

I already run and have since 4ed, a PF squad and a skyray so I have good ML support, I'm just wondering if pinning will come into its own now with how I interpret the rules.
edit: Also in apocalypse games with the strategic assets for free markerlights, this makes this even more possible to ensure a big scary isn't getting to you (barring the ever present fearless)

Any comments or suggetions or things telling me I can't read? haha

Sorry to spoil your fun, but I think you misread this rule. BGB p 31 "If a unit [...] suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon,..". The test is not taken per wound, it's still taken per unit firing. Plural "wounds" suggest that you must test after taking one or more wounds. You take wounds after resolving shooting from a unit.

The difference between 5th and 4th edition, is that "wounds" replace the "casualties", which is still a huge change, but not that huge...

I think that some people had similiar ideas when we discussed in long 5th edition thread, but were disappointed.

But where it says wounds per weapon, to me that means a barage weapon inflicting 5 unsaved wounds is one test, 5 unsaved wounds from 5 different fire warrior carbines is 5 tests. 5 different weapons caused a wound each. At least that's what I'm reading, as it doesn't once say unit.

edit: I looked over that old leaked 5ed rulebook PDF, and it says Unit much like 4ed, so if all of those old discussions were based of people reading that rulebook wishlist, then you can't go off that.

Theambit :
It was kind of discussed here, and it goes on for another couple of pages. My response to it can be read here, but basically each weapon type in a firing unit that causes a wound will force a pinning test, so we could force two tests by using a mixed Pathfinder squad, but that's kind of it...

If you feel this thread has been already discussed at length, go ahead and lock it up I don't want to reopen a can of worms. I do however disagree with your assumptions in that other post. No where does it say weapon type. With RAW, I can't see any indication that one test per weapon type is taken. I just can't imagine forcing this ruling into a 1 moose or 5 moose type of reading.

A) A fire warrior squad has x weapons
B) X weapons can inflict an unsaved wound
C) Each unsaved wound from a weapon causes a pinning test.

Lets be hypothetical and say that a carbine was assault 2, then it would make for a lot of terrible dice rolling as each carbine could still only cause one test even if it inflicted 2 wounds. As is though this isn't a problem for our squads.


edit: Also using the subsiquent paragraphs which describe how to handle units that fail a pinning test, and wording there, should not be used as proof of how inflicting these tests is done. That goes from RAW to RAI. Mind you I know you phoned on the issue and I hope you'll do that on further issues I'm supporting , but I don't trust the kid that answers phones at GW for minimum wage to be an outright expert on the subject, especially when I feel it's contradicting the rulebook. Shadowwalker and a few others also seemed unconvinced, but I guess that thread died without new blood.

Anyway thanks for the quick response.

Theambit :
No problem, and it's a lot easier to search for a discussion if you've taken place in it! That's actually one of my little secrets to quick-thread-locating... Shh... Don't tell anyone... I do think that bringing it up again is a good idea, but I'm not so sure if it should be in a separate thread. I may merge them at a future time.

I read through a little more, and I don't think that we ever came to a conclusion. I especially took an extra look at my subsequent responses where we started discussing the difference between weapon and weapon type and it's implications on the pinning rules, rules queries on different forums and to GW, all that good stuff. I'm glad that you also took a look as well. Let me grab my rulebook one more time...

So, we need to determine if "pinning weapon" means a singular firing weapon from one model, or a singular weapon type that may be carried by multiple models. Unlike last time, I'm going to just look in the Weapons section of the rulebook, just for consistency. If you look at the first page of that section (quoted above), a weapon like a Pulse Carbine has a profile that may include " additional characteristics that define the way they work." Well, here we see something; singular weapon with plural they. I don't know if it's just a small grammatical error, but we are going on RAW, right?

If the rulebook describes a weapon, then says that additional characteristics may be present for how they (group of weapons, while still under the name of "weapon") work, I feel that any time weapon is mentioned, it means a weapon type. Of course, I'm not GW, and my feelings should not be taken just because they're my feelings.

You can also look at the pinning entry, using our above ruling of "weapon = weapon type": If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test. Ok, so we have a unit suffering wounds which forces one pinning test. Multiple wounds, one test. Any number of wounds, one test. One wound, one test. Eighteen wounds, to me, one test. One fish, two fish...

Of course, I am always open to other interpretations!

I agree that if it's interpretted as weapon type, then it's a singular test like in the last edition. The problem with that is, it requires interpretation, as said you had to go looking around other entries to draw that conclusion, and while I feel you're interpretation is just, it's not RAW.

My second issue, is that if they wanted it to stay the way it was, why would they change the entry at all? They could have simply left it unit instead (agreed the rail rifle carbine issue wouldn't be there and I'm unaware of this mixed weapon type mattering anywhere else). So the fact that they reworded it to me, and now as written, says weapon, of which the squad has upwards of 12, would mean multiple tests can be forced.

I don't want to argue GW's intent one way or another, but as written, I think I'm right. I also highly doubt GW proof reads it's books, nor do I think one person on their own writes the whole thing, thus leading to inconsistancy in grammatical reference to weapon & type.

Note: threads have been merged. - ST

Theambit :
You can also say that, as the pinning entry does not say, "make one pinning test for each unsaved wound," then we can't interpret what it does say to meaning the above statement. This is kind of what happened in the [now-merged] old thread. Honestly, I think that a revised FAQ for the rulebook may be needed for this, especially with seemingly the only ambiguous wording in the whole book. Of course, pinning doesn't come into play much, and I've actually forgotten about it in some games because of its ineffectiveness.

Determining the Expected Outcome of a Pinning Test-Inducing Situation
Definition of any (taken from Dictionary.reference.com): in whatever quantity or number, great or small; some
We can state that the any used in the pinning rules refers to this definition, as a unit can take some number between one and one less than the number in the squad of wounds and be forced to take a pinning test.

I guess, topic at hand, I can't get passed the fact that the unit is taking more than one wound and that causes one test. Now, in the case of Pulse Carbines, each firing model can only cause up to one wound. If, for example, three Firewarriors with Carbines score two unsaved wounds on a unit (If a unit... suffers any unsaved wounds), we need to determine if this is one or two pinning tests. We have two firing models shooting the same type of weapon, but two physical weapons are firing.

Each physical weapon causes a pinning test - We take the singular "weapon" in the pinning rules to mean a single firing model with weapon in tow. If this model causes any unsaved wounds, the unit will take a pinning test immediately, interrupting the firing sequence. If all the rolls are made together, as they should be, the firing sequence is interrupted (use of the word "immediately" in the pinning rules) after the unit has taken all of their saves. Two saves are failed, and now the unit takes, as per RAW, "a pinning test." You have to roll for each individual weapon separately in order to force multiple pinning checks in this case, which is blatantly abusing the rules for your advantage.

BRB - Page 18 wrote:
When a unit fires, all of its weapons are fired simultaneously, so you should ideally roll all of its To Hit dice together.
While this is referring to shooting (I don't have the rest of the actual quote; I'm in class), the rest of that entry basically states that, for ease and speed, identical rolls should be made at the same time. This idea of combined rolling is also supported in the "Wound Allocation" example, where all of the saves on the standard Marines are taken at the same time.

Each weapon type in the firing unit causes a pinning test - With the Firewarriors, they only have one weapon type (Pulse Carbines), so no matter the number of wounds they inflict, the target unit will take one pinning test.

Now, in this case, both outcomes are exactly the same; one test for two Carbine wounds. If each Carbine had two shots and pinning, then the first case becomes even more complicated. The 5th Edition Rulebook was streamlined to make playing the game quicker and more enjoyable, mostly through omitting ambiguous rulings, inconsistencies, and the like. Would you want to play a game where every single model resolved all of their actions one at a time? Me neither, especially as it is against the rules.

What happens if you only have one die, as Dr._O'DeepView pointed out earlier? Well, all of the saves are considered to be taken at the same time. As such, the interruption of the normal sequence of events takes place immediately after a single portion of the sequence causing the test (failing one or more saves) happens. Interruptions in the middle of something, be it moving, shooting, or assaulting, is not really allowed, hence the reason why we can't fire our Hammerhead's Railgun at a tank, see if it dies, fire another unit, then go back to the Hammerhead for its SMS. Individual actions cannot be broken up, and taking saving throws is one of those actions.

Following this, it actually doesn't matter for a firing unit with multiple pinning weapons but a single type which ruling we use; they both come to the same conclusion. We can even make up a third case for the potential ruling on pinning tests, but for a unit with one weapon type causing multiple wounds, one check is made.

Well, essay over, I think I'm going to compile all of my ideas on this topic tonight and see if I reach ten pages...

I would argue that by imediately, they just mean right after all the saves are made or failed, you take those pinning tests. This would be different than a unit suffering 25% losses and taking a moral at the end of the phase.

Also the reason the other entry states that the pinned unit will not be protected from the weapon or any other weapon fire by the unit is only so that people do not try to gain a 3+ cover instead of lets say a 4+ cover it would have had before going to ground (caused by the pin). This shouldn't have even needed to be stated, but just reinforces the fact the entire unit or vehicle fired all of it's weapons at once.

I'm not disagreeing in any way about all weapons firing at once. I think your big essay there didn't really say anything

edit: the reason it says "any" is because a barage weapon can inflict multiple wounds, therefore only one test. We agree on this.