I never said ROF was an action. I also never claimed anything should be applied retroactively. I was quoting the rulebook, which refers to pinned units not being allowed to "use Multiple ROF". I understand what you're trying to say, but it seems like an interpretation rather than a clear rules citation.
Either way it's an interpretation... Yes. The rules state that a pinned unit cannot "
use... a Multiple ROF." But the problem is that "
using a Multiple ROF" is nowhere defined in the RB. I think Klas and Paul nailed it by clarifying that ROF is defined as something "retained" (or "lost"), not "used" (A9.2). "Using" a Multiple ROF is nowhere defined, and therein lies the problem - your understanding of its meaning is your
interpretation. What the RB likely
should say is that a pinned unit cannot "retain" a Multiple ROF which is done per DR and not applied retroactively.
What you are suggesting would require that a First/Prep Fire counter be placed on the MG, which - unlike when a unit cowers and is told to receive a Prep/Final Fire (A7.9) - the RB does not say to do. However, A9.2 states that "
once a MG has lost its Multiple ROF, it is marked with an appropriate Prep, First or Final Fire counter." A pinned unit is not said "to have
lost its Multiple ROF." So which is it? When the RB states that a pinned unit cannot "
use... a Multiple ROF?" is it saying that a Pinned unit cannot "retain" ROF or that a pinned unit has "lost" ROF? A valid question, but "retain" seems the simpler answer. Without the counter, the weapon is still free to fire (as is the possessing unit), but a pinned unit is not free to further "retain" ROF (both unit and MG, btw,
already penalized for now having halved FP).
And as I offered in my first post above, an assumption of fundamental game mechanics (the placing of Fire markers) is probably why the authors never noticed the undefined "use" in the text. But the RB definitely does not say a pinned unit cannot "
continue to use ROF" nor does it say it cannot "use a Multiple ROF
weapon" which is your interpretation of what A7.81 means to say.
Believe me, I completely understand your question - and applaud you for noting the poor wording here. You may be even be right about the intention, but I don't think so. So please don't simply harden your position:
Query Perry!