question about pinning

[StrikerFox]

unforuntately i have to agree with everyone else on here in saying that its a weapon type that pins, not individual weapons of that same type.. i do have to agree however, that if there are different TYPES of pinning weapons (ie. a barrage weapon + a sniper weapon, or a sniper scout squad lead by tellion) in the same squad, it would require multiple pinning checks (as tellions weapon is different from a sniper rifle) if that weapon type causes any unsaved wounds during that units round of shooting.. in this example two.

another example is a chaos sorc. with lash leading a squad of noise marines with a blastmaster. lash doesnt cause any wounds, but would still have to take a pinning check at the end, while the blastmaster if it causes any unsaved wounds, would have you take another pinning check. would you agree you would have to take two pinning checks? i would..

atleast thats how i see it and would rule it..

[Abominable Plague Marine]

BuFFo

This is not 4th edition, and whether people like it or not, the rule HAS changed. Pinning is not listed as being triggered by a unit anymore. This is 5th edition, and pinning has changed. Pinning is now forced by each individual weapon, not unit.

You may want to have a read of 4th ed again in that case, because, besides the bit in the 4th ed book about 25% Moral and the bit in the 5th ed book about Going to Ground, the passage reads word for word exactly the same.

StrikerFox

another example is a chaos sorc. with lash leading a squad of noise marines with a blastmaster. lash doesnt cause any wounds, but would still have to take a pinning check at the end, while the blastmaster if it causes any unsaved wounds, would have you take another pinning check. would you agree you would have to take two pinning checks? i would..

So I would have to disagree with you there. They both cause the same effect at the end of the firing units phase..............

Ive never in 4th or 5th ed seen it played any other way or had it questioned during a game, the only time it has ever come up is in forum where people try to sway the opinion of others by reinterpretting the rules.

[Xai]

This is a bit of a sticky rule, because if you go verbatim it does state weapon as a singular cause to the effect. That would mean that multiple weapons, no matter their source or order fired, would cause one test per wound(s) by a single weapon.

Now in regards to the same unit firing and causing multiple tests, in a game fluff/partial mechanics view, this doesn't really make sense. If I get wounded simultaneously by 1 sniper rifle or 40 I'm going to consider hitting the deck as one thought process, not contemplate each individual shot that struck me at once. "I'm fine with getting hit with 13 shots at once, but anything over 13 at once is just too many" Really? I don't think so... You either react to the one whole instance of incoming fire from a single source, or you don't. Mind you this is purely from a logical standpoint in my opinion.

So, in summary, should you take multiple pinning tests from 1 unit? - From what the rules state you probably should.

I, however, am going to make it a house rule that you don't. Granted, this has never even come up in the hundreds of games I've played, but just in case

[BuFFo]

Let me fix your equation here

1: Did the unit suffer any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon?

Yes it did.

2: take a pinning check per weapon that caused any amount of wounds.

Alright!

One pinning check per weapon that caused any unsaved wounds.

A pinning weapon triggers a pinning test. This is no different than if 4 melta guns from a unit hit a tank, or 2 plasma guns 'got hot' in your unit.

I fail to see why other weapon's special rules stack, but when it comes to a pinning special weapon, all of a sudden its ability does not stack with other pinning weapons....

[StrikerFox]

So I would have to disagree with you there. They both cause the same effect at the end of the firing units phase..............

true, and i normally would have agreed with you, however, after re-reading the rules for pinning, i would only have the justify that different weapon types ie. lash and blastmaster, are two different types of pinning, although caused in the same instance from the same squad. i see the logic behind it, but if im just trying to take that "middle path" then i would think this is just that.. i know its all coming from one squad and or volley of shooting, thus only one pinning check, but per whats written (and trust me i roll my eyes as i type this) it does say "a pinning weapon"... i wouldnt go as far as saying "per number of pinning weapons do you have to take that many pinning checks..." it just gets rediculous..

but yeah, normally it doesnt get questioned either where i play, but this just is a VERY interesting topic... kinda like our "immobilization" topic our group had before RTT.. XD

[mkerr]

@BuFFo: I can understand the confusion, but that's not how pinning works. I don't suffer any unsaved wounds until your unit has completed it's shooting. After I remove my casualties, I determine if any were caused by a pinning weapon. If so, I make a pinning test. That's it.

Let's jump into the Shooting Sequence for an example:
3. Roll to Hit
4. Roll to Wound
5. Take Saving Throws
6. Remove Casualties

At this point (just after #6), I determine if any of my unsaved wounds were caused by pinning weapons (answering the "Did the unit suffer any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon?" question). If so, then I make a pinning test.

Yes, my unit can take several pinning tests in the Shooting phase, but never more than one per unit that targets it. Why? Because I only check ONCE for unsaved wounds caused by pinning weapons.

-- MKerr

P.S. Even if there was a typo in the rulebook that made it 100% clear that your interpretation was vaid (which is not the casee), it really wouldn't matter. No gaming group or tournament would let it stand. So you might get an advantage if you found a poor sap that agreed with you, but all you'd end up doing is changing the game balance to support a "lots of Pinning" (or "lots of Fearless") game. Which falls into the "Meh. No fun" category.

[BuFFo]

@BuFFo: I can understand the confusion, but that's not how pinning works. I don't suffer any unsaved wounds until your unit has completed it's shooting. After I remove my casualties, I determine if any were caused by a pinning weapon. If so, I make a pinning test. That's it.

Oh don't get me wrong, I totally see the other side of the coin here.

The issue I have is that in this game, as in most games, there is a cause and effect of which the game's rules run off of.

The cause is "any unsaved wounds from "A" pinning weapon.

The effect is "take a pinning test".

What I don't understand from your side of the coin is that if five different pinning weapons in a single unit caused any unsaved wounds per weapon, why you are only triggering one pinning test, and discarding the other four?

Where in the book are we told to ignore multiple pinning tests? Should I ignore multiple melta effects as well? Or multiple 'gets hot' effects?

Let's jump into the Shooting Sequence for an example:
3. Roll to Hit
4. Roll to Wound
5. Take Saving Throws
6. Remove Casualties

At this point (just after #6), I determine if any of my unsaved wounds were caused by pinning weapons

No sir, this is where you have it wrong in my opinion.

The rule clearly states "Any unsaved wounds from "A" pinning weapon". Not multiple pinning weapons at once. You are missing the "A" in the rule. The pinning test is triggered from a singular pinning weapon, not multiple pinning weapons clumped together.

(answering the "Did the unit suffer any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon?" question). If so, then I make a pinning test.

Yes, as per the rule, for each pinnign weapon you took any unsaved wounds from, you take a pinnign test. The rule does not state "take a pinning test from a pinning weapon, but ignore all tests after the first".

Yes, my unit can take several pinning tests in the Shooting phase, but never more than one per unit that targets it.

Yes, further in the pinning rules we are told a unit can take multiple pinning tests during a turn. There is zero limitations to when you have to take them stated anywhere. As far as the rule is concerned, 'any amount of pinning tests' can be applied to both 'one million tests at once' or 'one million tests spread out during a turn'.

Why? Because I only check ONCE for unsaved wounds caused by pinning weapons.

I understand your point of view, but once again, there is no rule forcing you to only take ONE pining test and disregarding the others.



-- MKerr

P.S. Even if there was a typo in the rulebook that made it 100% clear that your interpretation was vaid (which is not the casee), it really wouldn't matter. No gaming group or tournament would let it stand. So you might get an advantage if you found a poor sap that agreed with you, but all you'd end up doing is changing the game balance to support a "lots of Pinning" (or "lots of Fearless") game. Which falls into the "Meh. No fun" category.

Never make blanket worldy assumptions.

My gaming group/store plays as the rule stands, which is multiple pinning tests at once. And the preliminary 'Ard Boyz I was at played it the same way.

So saying "Well everyone across the planet does one thing it must be right. First, you don't know that, and second, should I even bring up the 'world is flat' argument?

When you get down to it, the rule allows for multiple pinning tests. What tourneys do is no more a 'standard' than what my friends do. Each GT location has its own set of 'house rules'. In 40k, there is one standard, and that is the books you buy coupled with online erratas and faqs.

This is one thing you would need to discuss with your opponent before hand before things get out of hand

I have already said my peace, and I will just start to repeat myself on here if I keep responding. I will keep reading the thread so I can see other people's opinions to help broaden my point of view, but I won't respond in it much anymore. I don't want to turn this into Warseer.

Personally, if we played together, we could play it either way. I don't really care. Whatever it takes to get the game going, keep everyone happy, and the gaming experience as fun as possible are my only goals when gaming.

Love,

BuFFo

p.s.

XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

[StrikerFox]

yeah talked it over with my gaming group, and although they do see the points being made, still, its per unit shooting, not per weapon. even tho i tried to go the middle path (different pinning weapons cause multiple saves) they would still say its from the same unit, coming in one volley of fire.. and i agree with them..

but i do see your point buffo, its just the wording is a bit ambigious.. as most rules are.. :P

[Abominable Plague Marine]

Not to throw fuel on the fire.............

Buffo, if you look at Barrage weapons without needing to include Ordinace Barrage weapons and multiple barrages into the equation (do so if your not convinced), can you see why it is only one pinning test per unit and not per source inside the unit?

[nojinx]

Funny thing: this board, since its inception, has had its rules section dominated by the same ol' debates that have saturated the bigger boards over the last two years. It's like a "Who's Who" of the Most Contested 40K Rules Debates.

This one is a case of people latching onto a grammatical status of use - in this case, the singular case of "a pinning weapon" - and assigning that usage additional meaning that is not inherent. Use of the phrase in that sentence as written does not necessitate a one-to-one relationship between the instance of "a pinning weapon" and the test involved. I have yet to see an argument that supports that relationship.

The literal and logical meaning of the sentence we are discussing does not impose multiple checks.

Sometimes, when you read something and think you see multiple meanings or logical interpretations, it is best to read the sentence as a question, leaving the significant clauses intact. Put it as an interrogative you present to yourself or your opponent in the situation:

Did my unit suffer any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon? If so, it must immediately make a pinning check.

In all the examples of the previous poster, the above statement literally and logically functions with no lack of clarity. In each case, the unit must make a pinning test because the unit suffered an unsaved wound from a pinning weapon.

The key hear is to recognize that the rule is satisfied by the single test. Recognizing that, we have no reason to go further, to seek out some other possible meaning or "Easter Egg", as they say.