question about pinning

[mkerr]

That'd be a good example if the wording wasn't so vastly different. For the 25% casualties, its a simple check - Did the unit lose 25% or more in a single turn? Yes - Morale. The "or more" rules out the need to take multiple checks.

His example is actually a very good one and I think illustrates the danger of treating the rules like tax code. A single unit CAN take 25% casualties SEVERAL times in a single phase.

For example:
1. A 10-man squad of Tactical Marines loses 3 Marines to Unit A's shooting (that's more than 25%).
2. The now 7-man squad loses 3 more models to Unit B's shooting (that more than 25% again).
3. The now 4-man squad loses 2 more models to Unit C's shooting (more than 25% a third time).

Does the unit take a single Morale check at the end of the phase? Or does it take 3?

I can't find anything in the rules that SPECIFICALLY says that a unit can never take more than one Morale check for casualties in a single phase. Can you?

I suspect that careful reading will reveal hundreds of rules that can be interpreted in the same manner.

-- MKerr

[Nabterayl]

The trigger there is ending a phase with 75% or fewer of your starting strength. That's the difference. Every time you end a phase with 75% or less the strength you started the phase with you do indeed take a test. For pinning, the trigger is a pinning weapon causing any number of wounds. Every time a pinning weapon causes any number of wounds, you take a test. It's just a question of clearly identifying the actual cause of the test.

[mkerr]

The trigger there is ending a phase with 75% or fewer of your starting strength. That's the difference.

That would make a lot of sense if the rule said that, but it doesn't.

Here's what it says: "A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check a the end of that phase, or else it will fall back." (BGB, p 44).

I can easily argue that I can force a unit to lose 25% or more of it's models SEVERAL TIMES during a single phase, so I should be able to force it to take multiple Morale checks.

It feels a lot like the argument you are using for Pinning weapons. Out of context, both arguments seem reasonable. But when you consider that you only remove casualties ONCE for a unit's shooting, it makes sense that multiple pinning weapons would only trigger one Pinning test.

For pinning, the trigger is a pinning weapon causing any number of wounds. Every time a pinning weapon causes any number of wounds, you take a test. It's just a question of clearly identifying the actual cause of the test.

The cause of the Casualty Morale Test is losing 25% or more of your models in a single phase. I can easily see that criteria met several times in a single phase (as per my earlier example). Nothing in the Taking Morale Tests section specifically restricts this to one test per unit in a single phase.

This is just another example of why the rules (and the game) have to be viewed as a whole, not dissected into individual phrases. Out of context, you can prove just about any point you want.

-- MKerr

[Nabterayl]

That's a fair point, mkerr, and well taken. On the other hand, for that example the unit of analysis is the unit - you check whether the unit has suffered the requisite casualties and test once. For pinning weapons, it still seems to me that the unit of analysis is the weapon, not the victim unit - you check whether the weapon has caused a wound and test once - then do the same for the next weapon.

[Old_Paladin]

Oh No! The pinning question has spread to another thread; it's like Nurgles Rot, it's everywhere (and mildly itchy).

Wait... does this mean I have to make one sanity check? Or two seperate ones (one from each thread, even though they're both from the same forum)?

[hidden_snake]

Honestly, this seems to boil down to a Rules as Written VS: Rules as Intended debate. Speaking from the RaW standpoint, I can see how it makes sense for you to have to take multiple pinning checks from a single unit, but from a RaI standpoint, it doesn't really seem to make sense, nor fit with the way the game works in general.

[Nabterayl]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the way the game works in general." All dice rolls are simply a question of shifting the distribution curve of results, and I assume GW's designers are sophisticated enough to treat them that way. In fact, I see more evidence of the designers branching out mathematically these days; consider the various curves of the Punisher as opposed to the Exterminator.

If by "makes sense" you mean can be justified from a fluff standpoint, I personally prefer the multiple test position for the following reasons:

1. It eliminates the weirdness of multiple units being more effective than single units by virtue of being multiple units. Consider, for example, two squads of five snipers lined up end to end. Under the single-test model those two squads are more likely to pin an enemy unit than the same ten models lined up end to end in a single unit. Similarly, three Basilisks in a single squadron are somehow less effective at pinning an enemy than the exact same three Basilisks, in the exact same positions, organized as three separate units. This doesn't "make sense" to me from a fluff/real-world standpoint, and the multiple-test model avoids this weirdness.
2. Shooting only happens simultaneously from a rules standpoint. We don't know how long a turn of gameplay or even a single shooting attack takes, but it's intuitively obvious that shooting attacks take time. As an easy example, if a single bolter kills two models, it's obvious from the fluff nature of the bolter that those two models were not hit at the same instant. Similarly, a squad of ten models is unlikely to fire at exactly the same instant. A series of multiple shots ringing out, or a series of shells falling from the sky, over a period of time seems to me like it would create more uncertainty among the victims than a single instant.

[Madjob]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the way the game works in general." All dice rolls are simply a question of shifting the distribution curve of results, and I assume GW's designers are sophisticated enough to treat them that way. In fact, I see more evidence of the designers branching out mathematically these days; consider the various curves of the Punisher as opposed to the Exterminator.

If by "makes sense" you mean can be justified from a fluff standpoint, I personally prefer the multiple test position for the following reasons:

1. It eliminates the weirdness of multiple units being more effective than single units by virtue of being multiple units. Consider, for example, two squads of five snipers lined up end to end. Under the single-test model those two squads are more likely to pin an enemy unit than the same ten models lined up end to end in a single unit. Similarly, three Basilisks in a single squadron are somehow less effective at pinning an enemy than the exact same three Basilisks, in the exact same positions, organized as three separate units. This doesn't "make sense" to me from a fluff/real-world standpoint, and the multiple-test model avoids this weirdness.
2. Shooting only happens simultaneously from a rules standpoint. We don't know how long a turn of gameplay or even a single shooting attack takes, but it's intuitively obvious that shooting attacks take time. As an easy example, if a single bolter kills two models, it's obvious from the fluff nature of the bolter that those two models were not hit at the same instant. Similarly, a squad of ten models is unlikely to fire at exactly the same instant. A series of multiple shots ringing out, or a series of shells falling from the sky, over a period of time seems to me like it would create more uncertainty among the victims than a single instant.

Your second point answers your first. If there is an invisible time factor to consider as far as an RAI interpretation goes, consider that while unit shooting is considered essentially simultaneous (happening within a matter of seconds or even minutes), separate unit shooting is not. This implies that a greater length of time has passed in between units firing, time for a unit which had ducked for cover to avoid sniper fire or an artillery barrage to poke their heads out some time later, only to be forced back down again by a new round of shooting. In game terms, this would have been 1 sniper team firing, followed by another at the same target (or two consecutive basilisk barrages staggered thanks to firing as separate units) and the target unit taking 2 separate pinning checks.

Of course, this won't convince anyone who wants a more concrete example to follow after for rule arguments, I just felt like pointing this out.

[mkerr]

That's a fair point, mkerr, and well taken. On the other hand, for that example the unit of analysis is the unit - you check whether the unit has suffered the requisite casualties and test once. For pinning weapons, it still seems to me that the unit of analysis is the weapon, not the victim unit - you check whether the weapon has caused a wound and test once - then do the same for the next weapon.

I agree that your "quality of a weapon" argument is the strongest one. I think it's too easy to poke holes in your "it says weapon - singular" argument. I also agree that they applied weapon qualities inconsistently and this should've been made more clearer in the rules.

But in the end, the Pinning rules are satisfied with a single Pinning test after a round of shooting. It's consistent with the rule and matches the way the vast majority of the players play the game (and the previous versions of the rules).

If you feel strongly that your interpretation is correct (and benefits the game), then by all means play that way. I put up with all kinds of strange House Rules when I play, so one more isn't going to hurt me. But I would avoid making it seem like your interpretation is the only valid one (or the most reasonable one).

Interesting discussion and I look forward to having more with you.

-- MKerr

[Nabterayl]

Agreed, and I look forward to more discussions with you. I don't think that my interpretation is the only one, and I recognize that it's in the minority.

I do still think it's the most faithful reading of the rule, of course, or I wouldn't hold it. But I don't think the point of these online debates is to convince people to play the way I and my group play. It's just to discuss the language of the rules so that people who want to play by the language in the rulebook can decide, among and for themselves, what the language of the rulebook actually is. If folks want to play single-test because a) that's the way tournaments play, b) they just like it better that way, or c) they've understood my analysis and have a good-faith disagreement with it, I have no problem with that.