Last night I played a 2000 point CTF game against a good friend of mine who was using Imperial Guard. Towards the end of the game, I had my Kroot in a loose formation around my "flag", and they came under fire from IG mortars. A few died, and I failed my pinning test, thus went to ground. At this point, a conundrum arose, and thus my question:

Can a unit that has gone to ground (forced or voluntarily) hold an objective if it would otherwise be capable of holding the objective and is within the required range to hold it?

My friend believes they are unable to hold the objective, but though we pored over the rulebook, couldn't find a reference to this. I'm wondering if it's a rule from a previous edition or something we didn't manage to see in the BRB (and a search for "pinning and objectives" got me nothing). Thank you in advance for any and all help in this matter

Nothing Springs to mind that should prevent this idea, all a troop unit needs to do to score is be within 3" of an objective, so going to ground does not affect this therefore they are still holding it.

Logically in fact going to ground on an objective would make a lot of sense, your units have made it to the required location so their job now is to stay alive rather than kill enemies.

Failing a Pinning Test merely prevents them from doing anything voluntarily in their next turn and 'pins' them in place. It doesn't prevent the same unit from effectively controlling/holding an objective. A number of players use this technique of going to ground on their objective, especially if it is in cover, as they will get the bonus to the cover save from going to ground and thus make it more difficult to shift them off it.

If the same unit was falling back in the last turn of the game and happened to be within the prescribed distance to the objective, they would *not* be able to hold/contest it as units which are falling back at the end of the game are removed from play and counted as destroyed before victory conditions are considered (P.90 BRB, 2nd paragraph of "Ending the game").

Moved to Rules of Engagement Forum.

E.

Awesome, thank you.

To avoid creating another topic, I'll go ahead and ask another question here as well.

When a barrage unit (such as a Basilisk) fires indirectly at a vehicle equipped with a Disruption Pod, is the vehicle prevented from benefiting from the cover save because the blast is originating from less than 12" away?

EDIT: Actually, after running a search, I see that this question is also suggested for a new Tau FAQ, so I guess I won't be getting an absolute answer, but if some thoughts on the matter could be weighed in, maybe we could come to a conclusive house-ruling?

The wording in the codex is clear. It specifically mentions the weapon firing being more than x" away. Since codex trumps BRB, you get your cover save.

Hm, true enough. The Dpod does say "weapons firing more than 12" distant", and I assume that the main gun on a Basilisk is a "weapon", and that the center of a large blast template is not.

Any other thoughts, or can this topic be locked?

Locked as per OP's request.

E.