question about pinning

[Denzark]

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

[list=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.
]

for me there is no wierdness from multiple units being more effective than single units - getting shot at by 2 different sources, one of whom is firing as the other one reloads, or a different angle making your cover less effective, is always going to make you pause more.

[Nabterayl]

Well, that's the weirdness, to me. Two units are always more effective at pinning under the single-test rule, regardless of their disposition. Under single-test, three Basilisks in three separate units that are tread-to-tread are more effective at pinning than three Basilisks that are tread-to-tread in a single squadron. Regardless of the actual position of the models on the board, the mere fact that you have designated them separate units in your list makes them more effective at pinning under single-test.

Now, of course, rules are rules, and I prefer to go with the rules rather than what "makes sense" most of the time, since different things "make sense" to different people. I'm just saying that, for whatever it's worth, multiple-test makes more sense to me personally.

[mkerr]

for me there is no wierdness from multiple units being more effective than single units - getting shot at by 2 different sources, one of whom is firing as the other one reloads, or a different angle making your cover less effective, is always going to make you pause more.

And that's covered in the increased likelihood that multiple pinning weapons will cause at least one unsaved wound. For example, if you have a single sniper rifle in a Platoon Command Squad then you are less likely to generate a pinning test than a unit of Ratlings. Fewer shots = smaller chance to cause a wound.

It's the fact that someone got shot when I wasn't expecting it that makes me hit the ground. Not the fact that two or more guys got shot. So I wouldn't be three times as likely to hide under the table in a Luby's if someone said "three guys just got shot". It's the "got shot" part that grabbed my attention.

But it's worth stating again, you can't base rules decisions on anecdotal or fluff-based arguments. It's too easy to find a situation that supports your position.

-- MKerr

[Old_Paladin]

Well, that's the weirdness, to me. Two units are always more effective at pinning under the single-test rule, regardless of their disposition. Under single-test, three Basilisks in three separate units that are tread-to-tread are more effective at pinning than three Basilisks that are tread-to-tread in a single squadron. Regardless of the actual position of the models on the board, the mere fact that you have designated them separate units in your list makes them more effective at pinning under single-test.

I'd be careful about discussing the effectiveness of artillery, as they follow different rules.
With 3 seperate cannons, you'll average a missed scatter, a hit and a partial scatter (causing one to two tests).
A barrage is probablly going to get a unit no matter what, it's only one test but at -1. Against high leadership units the -1 is better (you're more likely, on average, to fail a single Ld. 9, then two Ld. 10)