Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I truly have no problem that a fearless unit is immune to pinning however this is undercutting all the accurate, low ROF weapons that cause pinning.

As a simple suggestion, just like a fearless unit will not run from combat, in total disregard to the safety and preservation of him so a pinning type weapon does not cause him to duck for cover making pinning type weapons potentially capable of causing more casualties.

For every casualty suffered from a pinning weapon, a fearless unit must make an additional save versus armor.

Example:

Pathfinders target a squad of berzerkers causing 3 kills, the berzerkers then have to make 3 additional armor saves rather than make a pinning test.

that would actually make pinning weapons AMAZING

It would also make fearless even worse than it already is. Suffering in CC is bad enough for stuff like orks and some tyranid MCs, now you want them to get killed off outside battle because of fearless too?

Hmm, it makes sense but I'm not sure if it would make Pinning Weapons OP or not... Then again, how common are pinning weapons anyway?

Andilus Greatsword wrote:Hmm, it makes sense but I'm not sure if it would make Pinning Weapons OP or not... Then again, how common are pinning weapons anyway?

We are basically talking sniper type weapons and Tau carbines. So with the exception of tau carbines, I don't find this OP. Scout snipers 10 shots, 5 hit, 2.5 wound average 1 casualtiy for 130 pts. Pathfinders 10 shots, 7 hit, 3 wound average 1+ casualty per turn for 240 points. Tau carbines 12 6 hit 4 wound 1+ casualty. So we are talking an average of 1+ extra rolls for a fearless unit.

It's my understanding that Pinning weapons cause pinning because the squad is unable to determine where the shots came from and so hit the deck. A Fearless unit wouldn't have such a problem, so it makes perfect sense to me that they wouldn't suffer additional effects.

Bennowar wrote:It's my understanding that Pinning weapons cause pinning because the squad is unable to determine where the shots came from and so hit the deck. A Fearless unit wouldn't have such a problem, so it makes perfect sense to me that they wouldn't suffer additional effects.

Yeah, but since they're not taking cover they open themselves up to more shots...

It would make barrage weapons too powerful. Imagine having half of your unit splatted by a basilisk and then have the rest of it die to this rule.

JourneyPsycheOut wrote:It would make barrage weapons too powerful. Imagine having half of your unit splatted by a basilisk and then have the rest of it die to this rule.

Agreed - handle by stating non-barrage direct fire weapons that cause pinning tests.

The real problem is that way too many units have fearless.

Tongue wrote:The real problem is that way too many units have fearless.

Agreed but this is a FIX for this problem. Any demon, CSM dedicated troop, anyone lead by a chaplain means you can pretty much put a fearless unit or units on the board. The point being is that sniper rifles - while still of value versus MC - are pretty much a waste of time it your choice is a S4+ rapid fire weapon or a sniper rifle. The extra wounds would not result in utter mayhem in the game or create a truly unbalancing system but it would provide a negative to units being fearless in the fire phase and create a boost for sniper-type weapons. Look at a worst case scenario. A unit of pathfinders backed up by a doom/guide seer versus orks. about 9 pathfinders will hit with 3 of them being AP 2. About 6 will hit and may be the ork will save one. He then would have to take 6 saves and save one of them for 11 casualties. Now take a bladestorming Dire Avenger with two cats on the exarch and the same doom/guide seer. 33 S4 shots, about 30 hit, 22 kill. All that for about 90 less points!!!

All units take cover and use terrain to their advantage as best they can. The difference is that a pinned unit will lie down and actively cover and do nothing else, essentially hand over head, while a fearless unit or a unit that passes morale will hunch down and keep moving.

If the problem is balancing snipers, then I'd rather adress snipers directly. There's other weapons that cause pinning, which are often best left alone.

Possibly I can see pinning forcing a leadership test on a hit rather than a casualty.

@DAaddict
Don't get me wrong, I like your idea....and when looking at the math, it seems like its almost not enough heh.

Hows this for wording

PINNING
..snip..

If a unit other than vehicles suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test. This is a normal Leadership test. If a unit automatically passes a Pinning test from a non-barrage, pinning weapon, it can either choose to go to the ground voluntarily or make an additional armor save for every casualty suffered from the pinning weapon.

..snip..

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mahtamori wrote:All units take cover and use terrain to their advantage as best they can. The difference is that a pinned unit will lie down and actively cover and do nothing else, essentially hand over head, while a fearless unit or a unit that passes morale will hunch down and keep moving.

If the problem is balancing snipers, then I'd rather adress snipers directly. There's other weapons that cause pinning, which are often best left alone.

Possibly I can see pinning forcing a leadership test on a hit rather than a casualty.

There is still the argument that with pinning weapons you don't know where the shot came from exactly. So how can you take proper cover and still move when you don't know where the shot is coming from? Essentially the fearless unit continues to expose themselves to fire, since they don't know where the shot came from and don't care...unless they voluntarily go to the ground.

Continuing the fluff rationale, to-hit wouldn't make as much sense, since its the casualty that panics everyone. And since that shot failed to kill, its doubtful subsequent shots will also...unless the shooter takes moment to acquire a better aim and fires another volley next turn

This is reminding me of the DoW2 intro. The Eldar ranger gets a headshot (rending!) at the beginning of the battle, and the space marines quickly take cover (and quickly avoid getting hit by sniper's subsequent shots). The second shot he lands harmlessly bounces off the SM's shoulder pad, and a short moment later (opponents turn!) he gets mowed down by a heavy bolter wielding SM who didn't go to ground.

Using the rationale that a unit that is fearless should take additional damage to pinning weapons simply fall flat, since a fearless unit acts in every way like a unit that has passed the morale test.
It's not a matter of stupidly standing there taking the shots, but rather that they do not suffer shell-shock or panick in the same way that normal mortals are prone to.

What can be argued is that a unit that is uncapable of going to ground (terminators, for example) just stand stupidly and take it, however.

Mahtamori wrote:Using the rationale that a unit that is fearless should take additional damage to pinning weapons simply fall flat, since a fearless unit acts in every way like a unit that has passed the morale test.
It's not a matter of stupidly standing there taking the shots, but rather that they do not suffer shell-shock or panick in the same way that normal mortals are prone to.

What can be argued is that a unit that is uncapable of going to ground (terminators, for example) just stand stupidly and take it, however.

A fearless unit - despite getting slaughtered in HTH combat - takes wounds based on the difference as opposed to normal sane units that would run away say taking 7 to 0 casualties. To their benifit, they are still standing against a hopeless situation but they are getting slaughtered for their indifference to their situation. All that I am saying is while a fearless unit may be indifferent to pinning attacks they also probably don't take cover from these unknown sharpshooters. So they should take the equal number of wound chances base on the number that actually killed one of them Again go to my worst case scenario of pathfinders with a doom/guide seer backing them up and we are talking maybe 4 wounds on a MEQ - so taking 4 saves on armor is not a vicious deal. So on average 5 wounds suffered. This is small bonus payoff to an opponent taking a 240 point squad.

The balance of fearless units being counted on in all situations versus fearless units being subject to more casualties in firing as well as CC situations is all I am saying.

I like the idea a lot. Fearless units, with no regard for their own safety will charge into crossfire without trying to protect themselves to any extent, without a second thought.

This rule seemed good at first until i noticed that it would also make barrage weapons OP, it's not the snipers I'm worried about, and the no retreat rule in CC is pretty harsh on fearless units anyway.

How about fearless units are easier to hit with shooting, or something like that?

DAaddict, your reasoning has a few flaws. First and foremost, the results of a melee is a lot more decisive than against pinning and represents a decisive advantage gained by the winner which simply doesn't exist in shooting. Second of all, there are a lot of mass-destruction weapons that are pinning (all barrage). And last, most of the time pinning is a non-issue even for non-fearless units simply because it's an unmodified test which usually succeed.
So, what amounts to a one in six chance for most units to lose next turn (assuming leadership 9) would result in a significant increase in taking higher amount of casualties.

For example, this will make a 30-Ork unit simply be decimated by any form of barrage, and most likely to suffer an excess of one wound per sniper rifle shot.

Here's a counter-proposal.
Fearless unit or a unit unable to be pinned, take leadership test just like normal units, but should this leadership test fail they must re-roll any successful save (any kind).
This limits the benefit against Ork hordes, and additionally limits it to the number of actual wounds caused / shots fired. Still is a bit good against Orks due to their low armour saves, but they are leadership 10 and cheap per model...

I have an even better solution:

Change Fearless to work the way Stubborn does now.
Make units with stubborn knock down the Ld reduction by only 50%.

Mahtamori wrote:Using the rationale that a unit that is fearless should take additional damage to pinning weapons simply fall flat, since a fearless unit acts in every way like a unit that has passed the morale test.
It's not a matter of stupidly standing there taking the shots, but rather that they do not suffer shell-shock or panick in the same way that normal mortals are prone to.

What can be argued is that a unit that is uncapable of going to ground (terminators, for example) just stand stupidly and take it, however.

Well instead of a fearless unit simply automatically passing a pinning test, allow them to either choose to automatically pass the test...but causing additional armor saves based on casualties to be rolled. This represents them continuing whatever they were doing, but exposing them to more hits.
....or they can choose to take a pinning test as normal. This test wouldn't be out of panic, but tactical sense and trying to figure out where the shots are coming from. So fearless units have more choices than other units, but lose the automatic pass with no consequence.

Also, this change wouldn't necessarily have to apply to barrage weapons as DAaddict suggested. The fluff being that barrage weapons are not a very accurate, so being a complete badass, fearless unit and ignoring a pinning test wouldn't necessarily expose you to subsequent shots... like you be versus a sniper with their crosshair right on you.

Anyway I think the fluff is there to justify it, the real question is whether or not this is good based on gameplay, mechanics and balance.

Fearless is an overabundant enough rule that giving it some drawbacks strikes me as a good thing. I've proposed applying the same leadership penalties to shooting morale checks as to melee with the same penalty for Fearless in the past (and play tested it to good effect, yes shooting got stronger, but that was rather the goal, the real unfortunate side effect was encouraging mechanized infantry even more then they already are), with pinning weapons generating double the leadership penalty per wound.

The trick of course (and this applies to the fifth edition morale mechanics for fearless/no retreat in general) is finding a balance for the 6+ save hordes and the 3+ save cult marines, but since almost all the other rules favor hordes at their basis (per model bonuses on the charge for example) a little improvement for more elite troops is OK by me.

Jack

Why is it that they are so reckless they expose themselves to more shots? I don't really get this-you are justifying it by saying the sniper gets more shots? Or that the squad wildly throws themselves in front of bullets?

The fearless justification in CC is bad too, but it is there as a (poor) balance to the fact that most squads that get beat in CC are breaking and a fearless unit can't. This is a huge advantage in 5th (unless you are a shooting army and would want to fire at the squad killing your fearless allies) and so they balanced it a bit to keep fearless units from being too sturdy, which is dumb, because it makes everyone not in a suit of power armor that has the Fearless rule blow up just slightly less quickly than if they just got wiped out in a sweep.

However, I don't see any reason for this rule. Why a fearless squad should be punished for not breaking against a sniper rifle is beyond me. Bad fluff justification* besides (which doesn't even really matter) it is a rule without any reason to exist.

*I'd worry that you'll have people throwing all their scout squad sniper attacks on fearless squads:

"Oh, those guys over there are disciplined, let's shoot at those nutters that don't care about anything because (our bullets will magically take out more?)(they will get crazed and fall down and break their necks?) and the others will just stay firm."

In very few instances Fearless = discipline. Orks, Berserkers, ect they're just running hell for leather at the enemy with no thought of their safety. Snipers _love_ people like that. you kill a few of them, the bullets just go through, and no one bothers taking cover? SHOOT AGAIN! personally i think that it should be a bonus to hit or wound rather than extra saves but i can see it either way.
I agree that it should apply to non-barrage pinning though. Snipers, heavy autofire ect.

In an ideal gaming environment, exception abilities are provided with care and under special circumstances. A great example I remember from Fantasy 6th edition were Dwarfen Slayers (essentially easy to kill for a dwarf, dealing moderate damage against all targets, and generally surviving due to fearless rule because in Fantasy combat resolution is even more important).

In a case where Codex Creep is the rule, however, the rule is devalued.

As a concept, Fearless is good, but it's apparent that GW has failed in application since they need No Retreat - and even then people feel Fearless is too good.

In either case, back at the task at hand. We're still talking about a unit's reaction to taking sniper fire (oh, and we're not talking about lone snipers in a tree shooting at unsuspecting targets, this is battlefield snipers which essentially amounts to marksmen shooting at suspecting targets. Huge difference.)
Once it is time to roll (or in case of Fearless not roll) the damage from the Snipers have already been done.

I feel at some point, Fearless should be a benefit and not a huge series of drawbacks just to compensate for a few codexes utter failure in charging points for the rule.
As it is, with these rules, having an Avatar in an Eldar army is looking like a liability rather than an asset.