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.

wfr12n wrote:
Dark Elves can shoot into combat, however they drop to Initiative 1 or lose Always Strikes First because they are also paying attention to not getting shot.

-OR-

Resolve combat. Aftewards, you roll LD on the unit that fired with a penalty based off wounds done to your own troops. If you fail, the highest LD model in the unit (and there must be a champion, or character to assign such an order) takes a wound on a 4+ with no armor saves, rolling a total amount of dice equivalent to the amount the LD test was failed.

Those are pretty clunky rules. The second one is way too mild anyway. And the first one, I mean, when those same Dark Elves are marching towards some Dwarf Quarrelers, are they not trying to get shot?

My vote's still for losing Steadfast and being unable to use IP or SYG.

Announcement wrote:
since it would be possible to do it on a real battlefield it should also be possible to do it in Warhammer

Careful with this kind of thinking. There are a lot of things you can't do (or shouldn't do) in Warhammer that you could (or should) do in reality.

Announcement wrote:
I'm of the opinion that since it would be possible to do it on a real battlefield it should also be possible to do it in Warhammer

I usually approach every Proposed Rule written here with a simple question first:

What problem are you trying to solve?

The game has many problems. Units are OP or UP. Whole armies are skewed. But if the "problem" you are trying to fix is something happens on real battlefields and doesn't happen in games, you've got near infinite proposed rules ahead of you. As I said, adding this only benefits shooty races and shooty armies. Even if it's a harsh penalty for using it, it's still an option they didn't have before. So if you think that shooty armies < non-shooty armies, then that is a problem you are solving. However, if shooty armies are fine, then you are further breaking the game by creating this new rule.

With the new elves and dwarfs, I'm of the opinion that shooty armies can be quite powerful. Especially war machine shooty. People already complain about gunlines and their tedium. If every shooty army is just going to throw up some suicide fodder and blast the hell out of them from behind, I think it would dumb down the game and be frustrating for close combat armies. But even if it's not that extreme, ask yourself that bold question. You can friendly fire and shoot your own troops using fluff. They do it right now if you just use your imagination. Making it a mechanic means you're trying to change something. And you should try and change something because it needs changing, because it doesn't affect all armies universally.

Warpsolution wrote:


Well, I always think balance should take precedence over realism, so if close combat shooting just isn't viable without the game becoming unbalanced, I say drop it.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

What problem are you trying to solve?

I don't know if I've mentioned this yet, but I'm a new player and I don't know all the ins and outs of the game yet. It's not at all impossible that my idea is a very stupid idea, and that's why I started this thread - to get feedback on my idea from more experienced players. However, I will say this - during my last game my unit of spearmen got absolutely slaughtered by the enemy's forces. That happened because despite having a whole unit of archers available, I couldn't get them to the battle fast enough to save my spearmen. However, if close combat firing was allowed I could have provided supporting fire during the rounds they were meandering around picking daisies instead of uselessly chasing across the board in a futile attempt to reinforce my front line.

As far as close combat shooting goes, of course it's going to favor shooty armies. That's why you balance it out with some negative consequences. Shooty units can be more expensive. Units in friendly fire lose steadfast. Units within x inches of the unit experiencing friendly fire have to take panic tests. Whatever - there are many counterweight rules one can implement to offset the advantage. Not to mention that even without all these counterweight rules, if you go with my idea (roll any misses to see if they hit friendly units), you're almost guaranteed that you will lose at least one soldier each round. These should of course count during combat resolution.

It just annoyed me to no end that my archers were at full strength and ready to go, but useless because all enemy units were engaged in close combat with my doomed spearmen.

Announcement wrote:
That's why you balance it out with some negative consequences.

Announcement wrote:
Units in friendly fire lose steadfast.

Announcement wrote:
Units within x inches of the unit experiencing friendly fire have to take panic tests.

Announcement wrote:
if you go with my idea (roll any misses to see if they hit friendly units), you're almost guaranteed that you will lose at least one soldier each round.

Okay, so all of the above are not consequences that make up for the fact that you can shoot into combat. They're possible repercussions of shooting into combat. But, even if a ranged unit decides not to do so, giving them the option make them better than not.
If this rule was implemented, there would need to be something to balance missile troops whether or not they take advantage of this.
Does that make sense?

Also, as to that last point, you are most certainly not guaranteed losing 1+ model/round. 10 Marauder Horsemen throw javelins into a combat with Chaos Knights. 5 javelins miss, 1.7 wound, and .3 wound. Much better, I say, to roll off on the hits. It makes shooting into combat more dangerous and more fair.

Announcement wrote:
It just annoyed me to no end that my archers were at full strength and ready to go, but useless because all enemy units were engaged in close combat with my doomed spearmen.

That'll happen. But there are ways to help deal with that sort of thing.

Warpsolution wrote:

If this rule was implemented, there would need to be something to balance missile troops whether or not they take advantage of this.
Does that make sense?

Absolutely. I am not an expert at WHFB and don't know all the rules by heart, so I'm sure there are other counterweight rules we could add to close combat shooting that I don't know about\forgot about.

Warpsolution wrote:

That'll happen. But there are ways to help deal with that sort of thing.

I don't want to derail this discussion, but one or two quick tips on what to do in this situation would be highly appreciated!

Announcement wrote:
...counterweight rules we could add to close combat shooting

Nah, see, this is my point. No matter how risky or even straight-up bad you make this new option, it's still a new option. You could say "any unit that takes one or more unsaved wounds from friendly fire is automatically destroyed, and is worth triple victory points". But that still doesn't balance the rule. Even though it's crap, it's still better than not having the rule at all.
So forget about adding risks or costs to the rule. To make up for the fact that you can shoot into combat, you'd have to either:

a. Make shooting attacks worse in some way
b. Make units without shooting attacks better in some way
c. Offer proof that shooting attacks are not as good as they should be.

I agree with Duke about 75% on this one. The question "what are you trying to fix" is an important one. In fact, it is hands-down the most important one.
With that said, I don't think there's anything wrong with striving to make a game be what you want it to be. It might be perfectly balanced in every way, but still leaves you feeling unsatisfied. So, to expand the above question, I would propose that "this would make it more fun!" is a legitimate answer.

Announcement wrote:
I don't want to derail this discussion, but one or two quick tips on what to do in this situation would be highly appreciated!

Sure. A lot of people use cheap and/or fast units to force the enemy units off-course, giving you more time to shoot at them.
You could also invest less points in archers, so you have less points not doing anything when battle is joined. Or you could have less points in melee units, so your shooting has a larger impact.
Then there's matters of deployment. Setting your archers up to counter-charge the enemy, or setting them up in front of your combat blocks, and have them flee through. Etc. Really, I'd just take a look at the Battle Reports section. Anything Wood Elf would surely help a lot.

Announcement wrote:

Yeah, but my argument is that shooting at units engaged in close combat shouldn't be outright banned in the rulebook, and exceptions to this rule shouldn't be a special rule. I just think the player himself should be allowed to make the decision whether or not to fire into close combat.

No, because a player is more callous about plastic men than most generals, and the actual missile troops doing the shooting.

Warpsolution wrote:

Announcement wrote:
...counterweight rules we could add to close combat shooting

Nah, see, this is my point. No matter how risky or even straight-up bad you make this new option, it's still a new option. You could say "any unit that takes one or more unsaved wounds from friendly fire is automatically destroyed, and is worth triple victory points". But that still doesn't balance the rule. Even though it's crap, it's still better than not having the rule at all.
So forget about adding risks or costs to the rule. To make up for the fact that you can shoot into combat, you'd have to either:

a. Make shooting attacks worse in some way
b. Make units without shooting attacks better in some way
>>>>>>>>>>c. Offer proof that shooting attacks are not as good as they should be.<<<<<<<<<<<

I don't think he'd have a hard time with C, as long as he was making a case on Ballistic Skill shooting.

Obvious Caveats: Wood Elves and Organ Guns. (One of those is just plain OP and the other is counterbalanced internally due to lack of killy CC units and saves of any kind.) I left Khalida shooting off because its a SC ability. TK shooting without Khalida is still terrible, even always hittin on 5's.

I'm just going to throw out a few:

-Dwarf shooters (who are still good in CC) and cheap, or their elites
-Organ gun
-Hellblaster
-Leadbelchers
-Bolt Throwers, O&G, HE, DE
-Skinks

That's a handful of BS shooters that vary from good to kick ass and they span about half the armies in the game.

Of those, only skinks and dwarf shooters are not a war-machine of some kind. I probably should have been more specific.

(Leadbelchers are basically walking RBT's, d6 shots, no penalties for moving and multiple shots.)

HE Archers, TK Archers, Empire Archers, Brett Longbowmen, outriders, pistoliers and the like.. they are largely ignored or not worth points spent.

Leadbelchers are expensive Ogres with wussy grapeshot. They are nothing at all like repeaters. They're 3 wound ogre charging, ogre stomping MI.

People use knights because knights are very cost-effective, they get rid of your core tax with fewer models, and they can work in a pinch as hammers and anvils. It's not that everyone is buying up all the non-archers because archers suck, they are buying up knights because they are better.

Also, infantry archers aren't used because they don't synergize as well with a non-gunline army. You have to stay in your BSB/IP/spell/etc radius so you can't have half your army running out while half try and shoot. And not every army is capable of making a good gunline.

Sigh.


HE RBT - Hits on 4's long range .(24 inches) d6 s4 ap shots no penalty for multiple shots.

LB - Hits on 4's at 6+12 (18 inches) or 5's (30 inches) - d6 st 4 ap shots No penalties for d6 shots or moving.

Right.

NOTHING like an RBT.

That is correct, they are not alike.

You're evaluating one aspect of a unit to try and say they're The Same. Leads are MI who are also great in combat. RBT is a war machine that sucks butt in combat and you're not going to want it there.

It's an easy shorthand to say a thundertusk is a stone thrower. But a thundertusk is a monster that's really powerful in CC and a stone thrower is (almost always) really horrible in CC. A thundertusk "Has A" stone thrower.

Basically, when you're setting them up on the table, you're not going to play them the same. If 2 units go in the same spot and you do the same stuff, fine, they're an "Is A" relationship.

But a caster with an Amber Spear spell isn't a cannon. You wouldn't play him like a cannon.

A while back, I'd have agreed that BS-based shooting wasn't very good.
But Dwarf Quarrelers are easily the best overall choice in their Core.
And Reavers or--Horned One forbid--Dark Riders? Awesome units.

Furthermore, Peasant Bowmen and Night Goblins and such are not bad choices. They can strip off a rank or two, and make decent tar pits after that.

I'll say it once and I'll say it a thousand more times: shooting should not, all on its own, win the day. Neither should magic. It's poor game design.

Warpsolution wrote:
I'll say it once and I'll say it a thousand more times: shooting should not, all on its own, win the day. Neither should magic. It's poor game design.

Tell that to my Dark Elf list with a zillion darkshards/riders and a whopping 7 bolt throwers.

I think it's fine game design. Not everyone wants to be an all-comers, well-rounded force. You shouldn't HAVE to have mages or HAVE to have shooting. That's bad design IMHO. It's 40K. You need AV there or you're hosed.

I don't know, maybe because it's so ferocious you might hit your own men?

Any list where you can just stand there and shoot/magic your opponent off the board is boring. It's static, it doesn't offer any kind of strategy. Shoot half my army to pieces. Fine. But not all of it.
I'm okay with losing. Just let me do something. Let me play, too.

i would be ok with allowing people to shoot into combat, and then having the engaged unit not be able to use the generals leadership/bsb for the remainder of the game (as they realize their true place in his plans!)

Sorry wrong one.

Redacted.