BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Sniper Rifles

  1. #11

    Default

    :O Someone who agrees? yay!

    Anyway, that's pretty much the argument I was trying to make, but didn't have the time/ wordage to make :P

    As for OldPaladin's POV, where they are all the same kind of weapon, I still have to argue. Even though they are all the same, they're all different instances of the same type of gun. Hell, for a real world argument, I know fine well I'd be a lot more likely to dive for cover if there were 2 or 3 snipers, instead of just 1.

    By referencing the weapon when talking about causing a pinning test, it says to me that you apply the rules for pinning for each time the rule is referenced in a summary. Unfortunately, every argument I'm thinking of revolves around describing similarities in Object Oriented programming, and in general programming skills, and I'm not describing all of that as well, unless you really want me to, of course :P
    When life gives you lemon's... should have used a condom.

  2. #12
    Librarian
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    808

    Default

    I think the real world argument weakens your point.
    How are you supposed to know that it's 3 snipers after you, and not a single master sniper, or 15 guys with AK's pretty far away.
    Snipers pin because of the scary 'unknown' factor of the attack; you'd be a lot more level headed if it was "Ok, it's 3 snipers. One in the library, one in the bell tower, one in the burnt out car." The pinning comes from the, "Holy crap, where did that come from!"
    And again, my point about several different kinds of weapon, "Crap, we got snipers somewhere, everybody down. **Boom** Oh No, Mortars have us ranged... what do we do?!?"

  3. #13
    Veteran-Sergeant
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Using that same logic, however, it makes sense that more sniper wounds would lead to a greater chance of the unit diving for cover.

    With their high leadership, a Space Marine squad will probably not be rattled by a single sniper shot. Half a dozen shots, however, would mean half a dozen leadership tests and a "realistically" greater chance they'd take cover.

    I think Nabterayl has a fairly solid interpretation of the rule, especially showing how the wording has been changed. I know this is not how it used to work, but under this reasoning several units become a much more viable choice (Scouts with sniper rifles, ratlings, Kroot hunters, etc.).

  4. #14
    Veteran-Sergeant
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Brookly , NY
    Posts
    192

    Default

    4th edition is no longer valid and has no weight in this dispute its old out dated and had a different team of people play testing and coming up with the wording . The only word that can hold weight is the current 5th edition rule set or any official
    FAQ posted to replace 5th edition text . So please stop trying to bring up old rules to confuse the topic .

    Every tournament I have gone too including GW tournaments have played it where you take one test per squad firing at you not per wound from said squads .

    Having more shots means more of a chance to score that wound to cause the pinning check that's the advantage to a squad of snipers .
    Last edited by Slann; 08-05-2009 at 08:16 PM.

  5. #15
    Veteran-Sergeant
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Yes, that's correct-- 4th edition isn't valid anymore. Which is why it's often helpful to look and see how rules were changed from 4th to 5th, since a change implies things work differently now.

    After all, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

    No one is saying follow 4th edition rules. They're saying the rule was X, now it is Y. Which implies it should no longer have result X.

  6. #16

    Default

    Lord Anubis is right. In case of ambiguity, it's relevant that the wording has changed.

    Still, I'll stand by my analysis of the fifth edition wording all on its own. Can somebody from the single-test camp explain how the language supports their position, and why my analysis is incorrect?

  7. #17
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    West Melbourne, Florida U.S.
    Posts
    2,192

    Default

    As I have said countless times around the net....

    1) you take a single pinning test per pinning weapon that causes any amount of unsaved wounds. I don't know where people are reading the words 'pinning weaponS' or 'unit' as neither ever appears in the pinning rules as a trigger for a pinning test.

    2) Further in the pinning rules you are told overtly that, YES, you can take more than one pinning test during the turn. So whether you are taking one million tests at ONCE or one million tests spread out over the turn the rules don't care.

    The English presented to me in the pinning rules is pretty obvious. I honestly do not understand how people are getting only a single test from a volley of 5 pinning weapons.

    Either its people who liked how it was played in 4th and refuse to accept change or they just don't understand what the words 'a pinning weapon' means as a trigger for the test.

    Funny.... people for a decade complain how pointless pinning was, and now that it is actually a viable tactic to use, BAM, people refuse to accept it.... What the hell is it with the pinning hate?
    40k Dark Eldar HORDES - Legion of Everblight / INFINITY - Yu Jing, HaqqIslam

  8. #18

    Default

    Damn, I had about seven paragraphs wrote out in the quick reply, and "the token expired", whatever that means, so I lost it. I'll try and retype it later, but I need to sort some stuff out for later now.

    BuFFo: Ha, I don't think we've got that far yet, I think we're still trying to convince everyone here that the idea is plausible :/ You have hit the nail on the head though.
    When life gives you lemon's... should have used a condom.

  9. #19

    Default

    Soooo...

    Your saying I should get all my firewarriors with carbines because every wound would force a pinning test? Even if you guys have it interpreted corectly do you think I would be able to get that to fly with people?

    What ever happend to the Rulz Boyz? You guys ever try sening them an E-mail? I know I did on WBB and Sweeping Advance and sadly many weeks latter did get a responce.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenPaladin View Post
    Soooo...

    Your saying I should get all my firewarriors with carbines because every wound would force a pinning test? Even if you guys have it interpreted corectly do you think I would be able to get that to fly with people?

    What ever happend to the Rulz Boyz? You guys ever try sening them an E-mail? I know I did on WBB and Sweeping Advance and sadly many weeks latter did get a responce.
    I've heard of people contacting them twice and getting two opposing answers. Contacting GW tends to be a bit of a mess.

    Anyway, I'm a strong proponent of the "Pinning weapon causes wound = Pinning test. Multiple weapons = Multiple tests" PoV. Mainly, because its the one the rules support

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •