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.

Well, it's a pretty simple question. What do you think?

EDIT:
For the record, I think it would be cool if you could fire at enemy units engaged in close combat. I was thinking that you could do the following:

Roll to hit - any dice that does not hit the enemy must be re-rolled to hit your own unit. The rest of the phase is resolved normally.
For example, your 10 archers fire at an enemy unit engaged in close combat with your own unit. Of the 10 dice you roll, four hit. (Then you go through combat resolution as normal.) However, since they're engaged in close combat with your unit, stray arrows could potentially hit your guys. Therefore, you roll the six dice that missed the enemy unit once more - that is, another roll to hit, but this time for your own unit. Then resolve as you would if you were firing at any other unit. What do you guys think?

IIRC, The rulebook mentions that you don't want to risk hitting your own units fighting your opponent in close combat.

Edit - 6th edition rulebook now in hand, "The events in a close combat move too quickly and the warriors themselves will be understandably hesitant about firing on their comrades."

 Deathwinger wrote:
IIRC, The rulebook mentions that you don't want to risk hitting your own units fighting your opponent in close combat.

See, that's the only reason I could think of for why shooting at units engaged in close combat is prohibited. But I don't really think the rules should make that decision for me. Shouldn't the player himself be allowed to decide whether he wants to be a d*ck and potentially fire at friendly units?


EDIT:

 Deathwinger wrote:
"The events in a close combat move too quickly and the warriors themselves will be understandably hesitant about firing on their comrades."

Ah, that makes more sense. But I'll still make the argument that there are certain armies who probably wouldn't give a d*mn if they fired at friendly units. In either case I think it sounds cool to be able to fire at a unit engaged in close combat.

Announcement wrote:

 Deathwinger wrote:
IIRC, The rulebook mentions that you don't want to risk hitting your own units fighting your opponent in close combat.

See, that's the only reason I could think of for why shooting at units engaged in close combat is prohibited. But I don't really think the rules should make that decision for me. Shouldn't the player himself be allowed to decide whether he wants to be a d*ck and potentially fire at friendly units?

Chaos, Dark Eldar, and Orks, I can see that.

 Deathwinger wrote:

Chaos, Dark Eldar, and Orks, I can see that.

Yeah, I don't exactly see Brettonians or High Elves firing volleys at friendly units, but I certainly think it shouldn't be completely prohibited by the rulebook. Maybe a compromise where only certain armies (like the ones you mentioned) are allowed to fire at units engaged in close combat could be a decent way to go.

Their actually is an army, or more accurately a unit, that can fire into melee; the Skaven's Poisoned wind Globadiers. They have a special rule called Life is Cheap (illustrating why they can fire into melee) were every shot into a melee must be randomized between friend and foe with a 50% of hitting each. I would think if their was a rule to allow more units to fire into melee it would be something similar.

As for other armies that could fire into melee, I'm not sure about the Dark Elves as though they have little value for life they seem to act somewhat professionally on the battlefield so I can't really see them doing something like that.

Well, use skavenslaves and Poison Wind Globardiers.
Skavenslaves opponent can be shot if he's fighting a skavenslaves unit, cause they are expendable useless filthy rats, and globardiers can shoot into combat because they dont give a feth about anyone!

You can't shoot into combat because, and I'm just speaking generally here, killing your own soldiers is a bad plan.

KeyserSoze wrote:
Well, use skavenslaves and Poison Wind Globardiers.

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.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
You can't shoot into combat because, and I'm just speaking generally here, killing your own soldiers is a bad plan.

The question isn't whether it's a good idea or not, the question is whether the rules should ban shooting at units engaged in friendly combat altogether. I say no - I think the player himself should be allowed to decide whether he wants to risk friendly fire or not.

Now, is it a smart move? In most cases the answer will definitely be no, but it should be a move I can choose to make if I want to.

A non fluff related reason...


Because if you could it would be a cheep way to pie plate enemies off the board.

Charge and enemy unit with one cheep guy,
Enemy unit piles in,
Drop a pie plate in your next shooting phase,
???
Profit!

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
A non fluff related reason...


Because if you could it would be a cheep way to pie plate enemies off the board.

Charge and enemy unit with one cheep guy,
Enemy unit piles in,
Drop a pie plate in your next shooting phase,
???
Profit!

^---This. I remember back when this actually was allowed; a buddy of mine used to run his Treeman (at the time T7) into combat, and then fire arrows in there like crazy. Back then S3 couldn't hurt T7, so there was zero risk to the Treeman.

Imagine having blocks of Free Company running around tying up units so that Mortars can have free reign, or worse, not having the a 'safe zone' from being shot at. Or (Night) Goblins keeping you busy to be pelted by Rock Lobbas or Doom Divers.

Shooting is already very powerfull atm, that's why tournaments try to contain it a little(ie max 4 war machines on dwarves, max 90 models with longbow on wood elves etc). Imagine what would happen if you could shoot into combat.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
[quote=Ma55ter_fett 609555 7102417 626e1a9e0727e312789ff400651a31d7.jpgThis. I remember back when this actually was allowed;

So it has been allowed before?

KeyserSoze wrote:
Shooting is already very powerfull atm,

But wouldn't that be a balancing issue rather than an argument for barring shooting into combat?

Yeah, in like 4th or 5th Edition. Definitely not in 6th or since, though.

If you, as a commander, shot into your own troops...there would be consequences. Maybe an Orc Warboss would be okay with a potential mutiny, and certainly a Skaven general would have a plan for such back-stabbing, but an Empire commander? Or a Bretonnian Lord? Their men would turn on them in short order.
You obey the general because you want to survive. If it's plain as day that he's killing your friends, you slit his throat and abandon the field.

Beyond the badness of it in a long term army, from a game perspective it favors some armies vastly more than others. If it was straight 50:50 then the cheapo armies with low unit counts can basically hold up the enemy indefinitely and get shot up.

TK would be gods at this because they'd never break. Just lol over and get shot to hell and be healing them back.

If it's only reroll the ones that miss, the armies with super BS or ability to raise BS have a big benefit. Like Empire and Elves and Dwarfs

It would require some serious reconstruction of the game, to be sure.
Like, it causes panic in nearby friendly units, or your General can't use his IP for tha turn, or something.
And then some armies have special rules to modify that. No one cares if you shoot Goblins. Skaven don't care period. Tomb Kings and Bretonnia can't do it at all, because they're too honorable. Dark Elves and Ogres have the chance to attack nearby friendly characters. And so on.

Really, shooting into your own troops is about the same as sacrificing a small unit to pull the enemy out of position. It isn't good for morale. But in the latter case, that's much harder to witness and go "hey! Our general did that on purpose!", unless it keeps happening over and over, battle after battle.
...or so I'd imagine.

General response to everyone:

Yes, I agree that, on a real battlefield, it would be a terrible idea. I agree that if I was a soldier and my commander was killing friendly soldiers that I would probably run away or try and take him down or something.

But put the whole "it's not a good idea" discussion aside. That's not the point. The point is that on a real battlefield, one -can- fire at whoever one wants. And while the cases are few and far between, there are probably situations where firing at units in close combat does have some strategic merit.

Also, I should note - we are -not- talking about firing at friendly units here. We are talking about firing at enemy units engaged in close combat, where friendly units would probably become collateral damage.

Now, as a new player I find your feedback interesting since you've all pointed out some problems with my idea, however it seems to me that the problems are mostly balancing issues?

Announcement wrote:
we are -not- talking about firing at friendly units here. We are talking about firing at enemy units engaged in close combat, where friendly units would probably become collateral damage.

Of course not. But archers on the battlefield aren't really going to be drawing, aiming at a specific target, and then loosing. You're shooting in an arc, into a mass of troops. So if that mass of troops includes guys from your side...that's probably a lot to ask of a normal soldier; firing on his brothers-in-arms.

Announcement wrote:
But put the whole "it's not a good idea" discussion aside. That's not the point. The point is that on a real battlefield, one -can- fire at whoever one wants.

One can also order your reserves to cut down your main line, or order your artillery to shoot backwards.
But yes, there are times when firing into melee would be tactically sound. But the fact that "it's not a good idea" is exactly the point. You yourself agreed it's bad for an army's moral. So if you want to kill your own dudes alongside the enemy, fine. But the rules that allow you to do that better include those consequences.

Announcement wrote:
...some problems with my idea, however it seems to me that the problems are mostly balancing issues?

I don't understand. What other issues can one have with a rule, besides ones that revolve around balance?
Duke brought up the biggest potential issues: if the hits are split 50-50, then it favors cheap troops. If only the misses have a chance of hitting the target, it favors models with a high BS. So, I'd suggest the following: you split the hits, half on-target and half on the enemy. Then, if even a single friendly model is killed, it causes Panic in nearby troops. And gives the unit suffering the loss -1Ld. Or something to that effect.

Announcement wrote:
The point is that on a real battlefield, one -can- fire at whoever one wants.

You're right. But a real battlefield doesn't use D6 and painted goblin miniatures. This is a game. And this is a proposed rule in a game. Proposed fluff can be in general discussion. In fact, you can say that when your men break, that is you accidentally gunning them down. Or some of the casualties the enemy causes. When they fail a toughness/armor test, that's actually you shooting them from behind. That's fluff. Fluff is fine.

But if you want an actual proposed rule, what happens in real battlefields doesn't amazingly matter. People don't run around on organized trays and have wheel limits either. They're just rules to make a game. And often the problem with putting in new rules is--well, usually it's that they are terrible rules--in this case, I don't think it's bad, it just isn't balanced among the various races.

You could even make it hardcore like, if you get shot in the back you lose steadfast and IP (because your own men shooting you in the back doesn't make you all that rah rah rally). But then armies who have Unbreakable would get a huge leg up. Undead. And Slayers. And some Gorger whose sole job it is to stand there while a million leadbelchers belch lead.

Basically, the shooting races are already supposed to be balanced to non-shooters. This would ONLY help shooters. So people like WoC and DoC get however much weaker.

Warpsolution wrote:
But archers on the battlefield aren't really going to be drawing, aiming at a specific target, and then loosing.

Yes, you are right about that. I responded to a few people who specifically used the term "firing at friendly units". Perhaps it was just because "firing at enemy units engaged in close combat" is incredibly long-winded, but I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

Warpsolution wrote:
But the fact that "it's not a good idea" is exactly the point.

That's a good reason not to actually do it in-game, but it is not a good reason to prohibit it completely through the rules. My point is, the option should be there. I do agree, however, that certain (severe) consequences should be put in place so that the option is not abused by people. Though I still think that only misses should be rolled to hit friendly units since a guaranteed 50/50 division just doesn't make sense. However, if even only one of those arrows actually hit a friendly unit, the whole unit should take a panic test, just like you said.

Also, I am also open to the idea that close combat shooting should be straight up prohibited for certain armies. I think it is safe to say that some armies simply would not fire into a battle knowing full well that they are just as likely to kill friendly units as they are to kill enemy units.

Warpsolution wrote:
[ I don't understand. What other issues can one have with a rule, besides ones that revolve around balance?

It just seems to me that "no, we can't do that because the game would be unbalanced" is just lazy speak for "we don't really want to deal with the challenges of implementing such an option". It's quite obvious that some rebalancing would be needed if one was to implement close combat shooting, but I don't really think that in itself is a reason to go "no, we're not going to do it".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DukeRustfield wrote:

That's fluff. Fluff is fine.

Pardon my totally noob answer to this, but I have no idea what "fluff" is exactly. I was under the impression that it was the history surrounding the various armies, heroes, lords, etc.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

But if you want an actual proposed rule, what happens in real battlefields doesn't amazingly matter. People don't run around on organized trays and have wheel limits either. They're just rules to make a game.

Yes, and I think rules should be as close to reality as possible, with the exception of where balancing becomes such an issue that "reality" needs to be tweaked a bit. I don't think close combat shooting falls into that category.
As far as the "organized trays and wheel limits" argument goes - I'm not saying "I want this game to be real", I'm saying "I want this game to be as close to reality as possible". I assume that you play with actual miniatures rather than cut pieces of paper with the units name on them, and therefore I further assume that you agree that the game is simply more fun if an archer is an actual, painted plastic representation of an archer rather than a little 1"x1" paper cutout with the word "archer" on it. You don't actually need any of the GW units to play the game, so the only reason to buy them would be to make the game more realistic, right?

 DukeRustfield wrote:

Basically, the shooting races are already supposed to be balanced to non-shooters. This would ONLY help shooters. So people like WoC and DoC get however much weaker.

Well, that's where balancing comes in. If even one single casualty in a unit of 50 spearmen is enough for the unit to panic, the player would have to seriously consider the consequences of firing into close combat. I mean, all you have to do is add something along the lines of "if one or more friendly units is killed by friendly arrows, take a panic test (or maybe even an automatic panic?)". I doubt you'll see firing into close combat very often if the consequences are dire enough, but I still think the decision should be left up to the player.

If the game had a rule in place like this, I'd expect all ranged units to cost more.

And, to clarify, I think it should go like this: you roll to hit. Then, you randomize the number of hits, 1-3 hit your own troops, 4-6 hit the enemy. Just like the Skaven used to do it.
That way, 10 Waywatchers firing 20 shots hit the enemy 7 times and their own troops 6 times, instead of hitting the enemy 13 times and their side 4 times.

This tactic should favor cheap, expendable troops. Because it makes sense, and because their attacks have a shorter range (and, among other things, harder to focus-fire) and are overall crappier (lower BS and S).

I think it'd be fair to say that wounds caused in such a way count towards Combat Resolution, and automatically negate Steadfast and IP.

But be warned, for the above system had serious issues, once upon a time: 50 Skavenslaves charge into a Hydra. A Warpfire Thrower lays down it's template, roasting 30 Slaves and the Hydra. Now we randomize, and the Hydra takes 15 S5 (D3 wounds) hits instead of just one.
The moral of this story? Templates are a whole 'nother ball game.

Announcement wrote:
Pardon my totally noob answer to this, but I have no idea what "fluff" is exactly. I was under the impression that it was the history surrounding the various armies, heroes, lords, etc.

Well, that's where balancing comes in. If even one single casualty in a unit of 50 spearmen is enough for the unit to panic, the player would have to seriously consider the consequences of firing

Fluff usually means the game universe back-story. But I also apply it to anything that basically has no tangible game mechanics impact on the game because I don't know a convenient other term.

Such as when they say a Troll attacks with tooth and claws, that's still a hand weapon. The tooth and claws is just fluff. 99% of the time, it doesn't matter. A crossbow shooting your guys at S4 is the same as a gun shooting your guys at S4 or something throwing a rock at you at S4. The game mechanic is an S4 shooting attack. There might be some item or spell or ability that says you can shrug off one specific type of attack (like Dragon Ogres being resistant to lightning). But it's beyond rare. So HOW your men die don't really matter. It's just fluff, because the important thing is they are dead and the enemy scores kills on them. You can say your WoC warriors made their armor saves but then were struck down by the Chaos Gods for being unfaithful--the result is the same. Just one is fluffier.

Panic attacks are already subject to rules. Some races have better LD. Way better LD (Liz). Or are unbreakable. Or Stubborn. Etc.

Put your greatest enemy into a crowd of all your relatives that are constantly moving and try to shoot him without hitting any of your own family.

That's why you can't shoot into combat, unless you're Skaven. Then you're probably aiming for your family as well and can go right ahead.

If you wanted to be able to fire into combat, theirs a few problems you need to deal with.
Steadfast, Stubborn and undead. All of which can tie down an enemy and repeatedly pelt them.

I'd have wounds on your own troops count as combat resolutions for the enemy in the ensuring close combat phase. It's a good way to represent the significant hit to morale that comes with having your own troops fire into you.
Second, have any friendly unit that loses a model, lose the benefit of steadfast, and stubborn, and also be unable to use the Generals leadership or the BSB until the start of your next turn. After all, who would listen to a general shouting "stick in there guys" as he's also ordering troops to fire on you.

Exactly what I'm saying.
I think that, if the unit shooting into the combat had to make a Ld test to do it, that would make sense, but then we're starting to get bogged down in dice rolls.

Stubborn units just always have Steadfast, so they're the same issue. If the fired-upon unit loses Steadfast, both problems are solved.

Undead/unbreakable units are another matter. So we're looking at Vampires, Tomb Kings, Dwarf Slayers, Flagellants, and Chaos Spawn. And the Warror's Daemon Prince, I guess?
I'd say that certain armies just shouldn't have the option. Like Tomb Kings and Dwarfs. They're too set in their tactics.
Let the Empire shoot into their crazy peasants. And let Beastmen and Warriors shoot at Spawn.
Um...you can't shoot at the General. That should be a thing.
And Bretonnian Generals lose the Blessing when you pull these shenanigans. Etc.

@Duke: I don't think the OP is saying "let's make this a house rule, and leave all other rules in place, just as they are". I think it's more about a direction the game could go in. So yeah, some units have higher Ld or could take advantage of this in some way.

The biggest issue I could see? Lizardmen. S3 javelins and blowguns piling into T4+ models with good armour saves that don't need Steadfast because they stand a good chance at winning the fight anyway.
Maybe, with this rule, they'd need to cost more. Or maybe they'd be fine.

Combat Resolution is a good angle. That takes of all the undead and daemons who will get extra crumble. It would only leave truly Unbreakables.

If you say HITS = CR that's a really harsh penalty and would only get used if you know they are going to get wiped-out anyway or if you want to sacrifice them. So even if they save/ward/regen they still take a CR beating. Then you don't have to worry about all the other stuff like IP and BSB and whatever because it's kind of included in the CR.

Interesting idea. I'm not sure, though.
That goes back to favoring fewer, more powerful, shots. 15 Irondrakes would be much safer shooting into combat than a big block of goblin archers.
That, and it would probably be hard for people to wrap their heads around. "Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, total up CR. Except when shooting into combat. Then, roll to hit, total up CR, roll to wound, roll to save".

Wounds on your own troops count towards CR, and they loose Steadfast, Hold Your Ground, and Inspiring Presence. That seems to be the easiest method.
This might be getting off-topic a bit, but is it actually unfair for your opponent to not count wounds caused to the enemy not count to CR? What I mean is, say you pin his unit down with yours, and then shoot the crap out of them both. It might actually be a worse situation for your opponent if they're just stuck there, with no chance to run, while you shoot them off the board.
But I suppose, if that is the case, they can normally beat you in combat, so losing Steadfast and such would be enough.

I think shooting into combat can work if you build consequences that make every player juggle the risk... for example...

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.

Something like #2 can be universally applied, although there would be serious fluff issues. Whereas #1 could handle that problem, however it would be a pain to keep track of a different set of rules for each individual army.

Warpsolution wrote:

@Duke: I don't think the OP is saying "let's make this a house rule, and leave all other rules in place, just as they are". I think it's more about a direction the game could go in.

That's exactly right. I made this suggestion to see what pros and cons an implementation of close combat shooting would have, and more experienced players than me have pointed out several problems with implementing it into the current rules. 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, but only of other rules that give units unfair advantages or disadvantages are tweaked or changed so that close combat firing does not unbalance the whole game.