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.

Okay, too many times now I have noticed that I will lose all but one model in an assault. Then, in my following shooting phase, I have tons of available firepower that could blast away at this massive horde of enemies who are about to tear the lone survivor apart AND THEN tear the rest of the army apart...but I can't. And I want to know how other people think.

If GW instituted ANY kind of fire into assault rule I would be happy. I would be willing to take a fifty-fifty chance of hitting my own guys. I would be willing to accept that a miss autohits my own guys. I would be willing to accept that my guys take a wound for every wound the enemy takes. i would accept it if I had to target and fire on my own unit, and could only shoot at the enemy once I had mercy killed all of my own men! Anything, anything....

Does anyone else agree with me? Or am I wrong?

I see your point, but that rule makes it possible for non MEQ armies to be able to be able to be assaulty armies. It would make perfect sense for a bunch of marines to shoot at a gorup of marines that are in CC with my squishy Dark Eldar, cause T4,3+ save is WAY better than T3, no save (vs bolters). That would be the end most assaulty armies though.

Definitely agree. I actually pondered this very topic a few weeks ago when my the left flank of my IG gunline got rolled into by Grey Knight Termies. Two of the guardsman survived and managed to save (partly because of the Lord Commissar standing just behind them). It comes around to my turn, and I'm pondering the two Leman Russ Vanquishers w/ HM-LCs and HBs in the sponsons, sitting on a hill about 4" behind the commissar. I know the current rules forbid it, but the cold, hard, fluffy truth is that Mr. Pointy-Hat is going to order the tank crew to open fire if they don't take it upon themselves to do so. I've actually proposed a house rule to my local players letting HQ units order such attacks using rules similar to the IG "Orders" rules.

jinshiryuu wrote:Definitely agree. I actually pondered this very topic a few weeks ago when my the left flank of my IG gunline got rolled into by Grey Knight Termies. Two of the guardsman survived and managed to save (partly because of the Lord Commissar standing just behind them). It comes around to my turn, and I'm pondering the two Leman Russ Vanquishers w/ HM-LCs and HBs in the sponsons, sitting on a hill about 4" behind the commissar. I know the current rules forbid it, but the cold, hard, fluffy truth is that Mr. Pointy-Hat is going to order the tank crew to open fire if they don't take it upon themselves to do so. I've actually proposed a house rule to my local players letting HQ units order such attacks using rules similar to the IG "Orders" rules.

Logically, yes, they would fire into the mob. But don't you agree this would spell the end to most assault armies?

kuro_khan wrote:
Logically, yes, they would fire into the mob. But don't you agree this would spell the end to most assault armies?

Not really. I think an army built to "assault" would still be able to do so effectively. Just because a commissar orders a tank squadron to blow away two guardsman to kill off a mob of Boyz, isn't going to stop the other nine bajillion greenskins from rolling over your gunline. I will say what it would spell the end of is mixed-tactic armies, like SM's or Eldar, or at least mixed-tactic lists. That's one of the reasons I said it should be some sort of Ld test to do, probably with hefty penalties to the roll, maybe -1 per friendly unit in the melee. That way it becomes an option (it's a sick tactic, but the fluff supports it), but not someting you can rely on.

...of course, that brings up the argument of who the Victory Points go to...lol

Keep in mind that there is no necessity to take any kind of save against wounds. The rulebook states that you are allowed to make saves, not that you must take saves. So, if you want a unit to die, it should be perfectly in order to refuse to take any saves, increasing their chances of dying, so you can fire into the bunched up enemies.

Witzkatz wrote:
Keep in mind that there is no necessity to take any kind of save against wounds. The rulebook states that you are allowed to make saves, not that you must take saves. So, if you want a unit to die, it should be perfectly in order to refuse to take any saves, increasing their chances of dying, so you can fire into the bunched up enemies.

The other way to circumvent this issue would be to have armies other than SM's actually have the neurons to realize they just had their butt handed to them and choose to fail the morale test and fall back voluntarily. It's a calculated risk, because they may get overrun and destroyed, and either way the winner gets a consolidating move they can use to try and find cover from follow-up shooting the next phase, so maybe that would be a better solution balance-wise. The assault-army player would just have to be crafty enough to utilize cover (or at least move close to another unit and hope they hold still for the cover save). But then GW would have to come up with a new way to make SM's better than everyone else, since that's effectively what Combat Tactics does for you.

Shooting your own models will take away the assaulters only "cover" (outside of real cover-saves) from beeing shot to pieces.

I dont think this could be balanced with hitting your lonely surviviors (which are already to die).

The solution i would suggest is to allow barrage to aim at locations rather then units.
May work like a barrage order in DOW ( pc-game ), so more focus at the meaning of "barrage".

This should also mean a barrage hits both armies, so you're able to make any assaulters suffer a lot before reaching the gunline.
OTOH, such tactic wont help against infiltrators or outflankers.

Maybe:

- declare aimed area at begining of your shooting phase.
- set a unit on 'barrage' mode. This unit does nothing than barrage the target area for the next turn.
- unset of 'barrage' mode should cost a turn. Sustained barrage should go on until you order them to unset ( cease fire ).
- every trespasser of this area receives a full salvo of the units set to barrage this area.
- normal rules still apply, but scatter is always measured from the middle of the target area ( place marker? )

I see the "shoot your own to spare them from horrific deaths" or "shoot your sacrifical units" from a fluff perspective as viable,
but i believe it is hard to justify the change this would make to game-balance.

Play Space Marines and make use of Combat Tactics to fail your LD test after losing the CC.

I would personally love to see the end of assaulty armies, in a universe with las cannons and plasma guns, nobody should be trying to get close. It's like saying a guy in a bomb squad suit with a chainsaw should beat a guy with an 50. cal...

Norade wrote:I would personally love to see the end of assaulty armies, in a universe with las cannons and plasma guns, nobody should be trying to get close. It's like saying a guy in a bomb squad suit with a chainsaw should beat a guy with an 50. cal...

Well, .50 cal machinegun rounds are relatively slow . . .

So you think everyone should just have shooty armies. Yeah, that would be a fun game.

Turn 1:
Player 1
I don't move any of my guys.
I shoot
Player 2
I don't move any of my guys.
I shoot
Turn 2:
Player 1
etc...

Such excitement... like a NASCAR race.

Norade wrote:I would personally love to see the end of assaulty armies, in a universe with las cannons and plasma guns, nobody should be trying to get close. It's like saying a guy in a bomb squad suit with a chainsaw should beat a guy with an 50. cal...

The thing is, the Warhammer was based on Dune for the most part.

In Dune, personal shields are so powerful that any gun is obsolete. Besides the lasgun of course, which is ridiculously powerful. Oh and contact between the two creates huge explosions.

Anyway, a lot of armor in 40k is like that. Except no explosions.

I just think that assault shouldn't be so powerful. If there wasn't run and the ever-abundant 4+ cover save, then assault wouldn't be nearly as bad. In fact, it would be quite balanced.

Writerski7 wrote:
Well, .50 cal machinegun rounds are relatively slow . . .

Depends on the .50 -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWmg5bXvCW4

kuro_khan wrote:So you think everyone should just have shooty armies. Yeah, that would be a fun game.

Turn 1:
Player 1
I don't move any of my guys.
I shoot
Player 2
I don't move any of my guys.
I shoot
Turn 2:
Player 1
etc...

Such excitement... like a NASCAR race.

Only if you're duking it out in Kansas. Any decent amount of terrain is going to force movement of units to accomplish objectives and obtain LOS. The most boring games I've seen are usually assaulty armies, to be honest...

Move, Run, Move, Run, Move, Charge (Lather, Rinse Repeat)....
Unless they're GK's, then it seems to be Move, Shoot, Move, Shoot, Move, Shoot, Charge.

To be honest, how "exciting" a game is going to be has nothing to do with the army "type", it's going to be a factor of the table layout and the experience/tactical skill or the players involved. And all the OP was commenting on was a way to avoid situations where one poor schmuck with a popgun is surrounded by a horde of chainsaw-wielding maniacs and the rest of your army has to stand around like they have ringside seats and watch him get turned into meatloaf the next phase. There are specific situations/weapons/armies that have an out for this, but I think the OP's post was just a post on how assaulty the game is oriented. And that particular argument is not only a matter of personal opinion, it changes from edition to edition, and even the codices alter it from time to time.

I don't want to see the "end" of assaulty armies. Assault doesn't necessarily mean chainsaws and spiky meat cleavers either. If you consider anytime a unit had to take a bunker in WWII, or a modern SWAT team going through the front door of a house, those are all assaults. Short-range, lethal, maybe some HtH. I do think any army which relies heavily on assault should have to use speed, cover and stealth to accomplish it's mission (or hordes of troops).

Having had a few days to consider it, I can see where someone might use a rule allowing you to fire into a close-combat as a way to truly slaughter assault-based armies. Send a cheap squad to assault the enemy, use a line formation so some of the units remain "unengaged" in the back and tie them up in assault, hope they survive the next round and open fire on the poor remaining fodder/enemy combo. At the same time, I've seen that exact tactic used in reverse, to allow an assault-heavy army to tie up a gunline with cheap, fast units, then use that delay to move the chainsaw maniacs up to finish the job. There is no perfect scenario, no completely balanced set of rules. Anytime you try to model a situation with artificial rule systems, some things end up being made arbitrary or unconsidered, because a ruleset to cover even most of the possible situations would take a few semis to tote around. And anytime you start creating an artificially constrained environment like wargaming rules, there are going to be people who figure out how to use certain rules/combos/loopholes to their advantage. I personally would love to have a way to withdraw my troops from a close-combat without having to play vanilla SM's. I like IG. I'd like my troops (hell, I'd settle for officers Orders) to be able to fall back when that 'nid swarm overwhelms them. I'll take the chance on losing them in a Sweeping Advance, they're meatloaf anyway. But as much as I might want it, it's not going to happen (outside of a friendly match house rule), so I have to try and think ahead and decide if it's worth leaving them in the trenches for the cover, or having them fall back and suck up the loss of the cover save while they reposition. That's my responsibility as the "leader" of the army. IF you have an assaulty army, it's your responsibility to use cover and speed to close up before the big guns can perforate your force. More importantly though, it is the responsibility of all of us to remember that wargame should be written wargame and concentrate on having fun.

I agree completely with the OP. I have always wanted to do it. Especially since I pretty much always played Chaos I felt it was appropriate.

can i just say that this pisses me off alot, becuase like a majority of the poeple here I would rahter sink a bunch of shells into that squad and take a 50/50 chance hitting my guys or based on numbers in line of sight and ratio of enemy to allie troops rather than not shoot just cuase i "can"t shoot and a pile of squishy targets that happen to be crazily attacking somone. Oh and fluff wise i think almost every army would do it. Let see IG, oh yeah there will be a pie template on that squad, tau, OH hell yeah for the greater good. dont get me started on that. Spacemarines, definate check. Orks common they put snotlings in a gun to shoot at people ofcourse they are going to shoot an assaulting mob of people. only time i can see it not happening is if maybe its a hq in close combat and still alot of armys would still shoot. In fact in every video game and all the pictures you see units taking fire and being in melee combat at the same time. So i say. Time for a change.

OH and for all the assalt type armys they all just got a buff with the run rule so no more qq ing.

btw this should be a poll question and be sent to games workshop with the millions of votes it gets

I would play it as something like this:

"During the player's shooting phase, controlling player may fire at enemy units locked in combat at Normal BS unless the fireing unit's BS is 4+ whereby the unit will use BS 3. If any shots fail to hit then the controlling player's unit which is locked in the same combat must take the hits, whereby roll the to wound and save rolls as normal. The same BS modifications apply to blast weapons.

Sniper weapons and similar xenos counterparts are not affected by the above BS modifier."

I know the language is a little shaky and would need work if it were to be published but I think it gets the point across.

Sure, that would be great for marines. Oh, i hit my own guy? (Shrugs) T4 and 3+ save means I probably didn't hurt him.

Ooh.. squishy eldar.. only need to roll a 3+ to wound, and he's toast!

Eh, well that seems to be what GW and most marines players want, all marines all the time!

kuro_khan wrote:Sure, that would be great for marines. Oh, i hit my own guy? (Shrugs) T4 and 3+ save means I probably didn't hurt him.

Ooh.. squishy eldar.. only need to roll a 3+ to wound, and he's toast!

I see your point... however I wouldn't imagine the dying race that eldar are to sacrifice precious comrades.

Eldar seems to be the best example of where this tactic would not work as they are elitists, so their points are relatively high although not MEQ. But generally speaking, horde armies can afford the sacrifice and MEQs can risk it do to their save. Tau simply have no better choice! Eldar are naturally caught in the middle as is the nature of the army as whole IMO.

I just hate how many CC armies are in your lines on their turn 2 for assault. I mean really, wtf is the point of even haveing a shooty army since on average you get one maybe two turns of shooting before you are killed. That and everyone now gets a 4+ save (unless you are an idiot and place stupidly) ontop of Run/fleet.

Awsome, thank god I have six turns total on average. That means 4-5 turns of hand to hand I have to try to deal with.

In LotR, only Evil models are allowed to shoot into melee, and it is random who you hit.

You do realize this would make ranged models effective at every range they can hit while decreasing how effective assault units would be Because now there dieing even after there shooting gallery run across the board.

There is a bit of finesse too two assault army's fighting too. you have to decide weather it worth it to charge now for the extra attacks or can you move a bit more for a more favorable unit.

All in all it be fine with me if you could shoot in to CC but then when i kill a unit ( or you do ) shouldn't I be able to consolidate in to your guys and finish off the rest of my attacks if i can any left ?

I gave it some thought, and I've come up with what I think is a decent "house" rule. I've tried to be as even-handed as possible and hopefully covered most contingencies as well. I know quite a few people, especially those who run assault-heavy armies won't like the rule at all. I'm not suggesting this should be placed into an errata as an official rules update, just offering it as an option to players who would like to use such a rule. Thoughts, tweaks, suggestions, scenarios/issues I've missed or neglected and constructive feedback would all be appreciated.
_______________________________________________________

[1] "But Sarge', those are our men..."
During their shooting phase, any unit may choose to fire into a close combat, rather than shooting as normal. All of the normal rules for shooting apply, and range is determined by measuring to the closest enemy model(s). Normally, troops will be hesitant to fire into close combat (compassion for their fellow troops, no clear lines of sight to individual targets, preservation of assets, etc). In order to fire into a close combat, the unit must make a successful Leadership test. Any rules which would modify the unit's Ld, or apply to the unit's Morale checks (eg: a Lord Commisar's Aura of Discipline, or Cato Sicarius' Rites of Battle]) apply as normal for purposes of making this check, even though it is not actually a Morale test (although, yes, a commisar's Summary Execution rule [is]should[/i] apply) should probably also appl. This represents leaders being able to enforce their will on their troops. If the unit passes the Ld test, they may then fire into the close combat. If they fail the test, they cannot choose an alternative target. They are assumed to have lost their nerve, failed to get even a mediocre line of sight, etc).

[2]"...on these coordinates..."
[2a] Firing with standard (non-template/non-blast) weapons:
The unit rolls to hit as normal, but before rolling to wound, the opposing player is allowed to roll the equivalent of a cover save (4+) for being obscured by an intervening unit. Any hits which are negated by this special circumstance "save" are applied to the friendly unit instead of against the enemy unit. Wounds are then rolled for and distributed as normal (in the interest of emotional fairness, the opposing player should be allowed to make the Wound rolls against the friendly unit). Normal saves (or other methods of resisting/ignoring wounds) apply for all the combatants.

[2b] Firing with template and blast marker weapons:
Since the models are only a static representation of a "swirling" melee, it is unfair to allow the player to simply place the template as normal, as it would be too easy to place the template where it only touched enemy models. Instead, the player places the template so it covers as many enemy models as possible (the normal way). Enemy models which are under the template are allowed the same 4+ "cover save" (even though template weapons normally disallow cover saves) as above, with successful saves being applied to the friendly unit instead. In addition, any friendly model which falls under the template takes an automatic hit, in addition to those incurred by the opponent's "cover saves". After determing hits, roll for wounds and normal saves as you typically would.

[2c] Firing with blast marker weapons:
Blast markers are placed as normal, with the exception that any model in the melee, friendly or enemy may be the initial target. Roll for scatter as normal and any model (friend or foe) under the marker takes a hit as normal.

[3] "Friendly fire isn't..."
Soldiers typically will not stand around when their own artillery starts dropping shells on them. At the end of the Shooting phase, any friendly unit involved in a close combat you fired into must make an immediate Morale check, even if they suffered no unsaved wounds. There is a penalty of -1 for every friendly unit or squadron that fired into the combat. In addition, each blast or template weapon used incurs a further -1 penalty. If the unit fails the Morale check, they fall back immediately. All rules for sweeping advances and consolidation moves apply as normal. If the friendly unit is completely wiped out, the enemy unit may make a consolidation move (if they are normally allowed one). Units without a Ld stat do not need to make this check.

[4] "Cadavera vero innumera..."s
If there are multiple units for one or both sides engaged in close combat, simply roll randomly to distribute hits from standard and template weapons. Blast weapons are handled normally.

[5] "Tanks a lot..."
If one or more units involved in the combat is an engaged vehicle, all of the above rules apply normally, substituting "vehicle" where it says "unit". Hits against the vehicle are applied against the facing as they would normally be determined.

[5] "To the victor go the spoils..."
Friendly units that are damaged/destroyed by firing into close combat are counted as victory/kill points for the opposing player.
_______________________________________________________

These rules are well thought out and reasonable unbiased.

The only things i can see trouble with is your making shooting units better while making assulting units worse.

any rules suggestions to even this out ?

deviant cadaver wrote:These rules are well thought out and reasonable unbiased.

The only things i can see trouble with is your making shooting units better while making assulting units worse.

any rules suggestions to even this out ?

I have given it some thought, but to be honest, I'll probably have to do some playtesting before I can work on tweaking it won way or another. A lot of the "advantage" this is giving to shooty armies is offset by the damage you're doing to your own unit. The ultimate goal is to make it a last-ditch option, not a "viable tactic". Perhaps a better "cover save" for the enemy unit. At the moment, the 4+ is basically making it a 50/50 chance you hit your guys or the opponent's. I'm not sure I would want to see it lowered to a 1/3 chance to hit the enemy, but then, perhaps that might be better, especially since it stems from the frustration of having one guy stuck in melee with a beefy assault unit about to overrun them. Or perhaps working up rules for squads to carry smoke grenades with them so they can provide cover for themselves. Soldiers have been using that technique for decades (centuries if you allow for things like units advancing after cannon batteries have pounded the enemy and filled the battlefield with smoke and dust).

Other options I am thinking about are working the optional "fallback" rule back into the game (so your mauled unit can try to get the hell out of the way), or to create some sort of rule allowing HQ units to "order" troops to fall back. I know a subject like this is always going to be a point of contention among players, and it's probably going to go back and forth with every edition as they "tweak" the rules. I personally feel that with the new rules making transports more survivable and a ton of ways to get cover (including the cheesy two squads giving each other cover as they advance "loophole"), that the balance in this edition has shifted to assault-heavy armies.

The two caveats I would point out to that are that 1) I like shooty (probably left over from being USMC), so my opinion can be said to be biased and 2) GW has always modeled the game very heavily on WWI trench-style warfare, with a liberal sprinkling of WWII airborne and bunker assaults thrown in for flavor. So the game is naturally going to have a heavy bias towards close-combat. The "reality" of modern warfare is very different, and chainsaw wielding maniacs would just be fodder unless they outnumbered the opponent heavily, but it's not really possible to try and project "reality" into the mix, because you would have to basically rewrite the entire thing into a new game. All we can do is roll with what GW gives us and if we make "house" rules, try to make something that is consistent and balanced, that allows everyone to play what they want and have fun with it.

i think it should depend heavily on the army to modify the leadership test necesary to pass like chaos or orks would get a -2 to the result nearly always being able to shoot them but things like tau and eldar would get a +2 weakinging their ability to shoot at their allys

deffskullz wrote:i think it should depend heavily on the army to modify the leadership test necesary to pass like chaos or orks would get a -2 to the result nearly always being able to shoot them but things like tau and eldar would get a +2 weakinging their ability to shoot at their allys

It could also be argued that the Eldar are willing to make sacrifices (Exarchs sacrificed to summon the Avatar, the Solitaire is condemned to have their soul consumed by Slaanesh) and the Tau come with an option to turn one of their battlesuits into a suicide bomber in case they get overrun.

I did actually consider that certain armies might get a bonus or penalty when I came up with the rule, but then I decided that 1it was already enough of a change to the game flow/balance to make it further without further complicating the balance issue by making certain armies more or less likely to do it (chaos SM's vs loyalist SM's comes to mind for that one). In addition, once you start down that line of "detail" those modifiers would be likely to change depending on certain special units/models being on the board(Lord Comissars, Chaos Lords), which units are being fired at (Orks wouldn't think twice about firing on squigs or grots, but probably not the warboss), which units are doing the shooting (heck, a Chaos dreadnought might do it anyway even if his side is winning, just because he's psycho) and any army becomes more likely to do so as their numbers dwindle (calling down that last desperate artillery strike on yourself as you're being overrun so to speak). All in all, it just becomes a big swamp of numbers that just penalize or reward certain armies based on fluff (which makes a certain amount of sense), but it's hard enough to keep the game balanced as it is, so ultimately I decided to pass on army/unit-based mods for those reasons.

just so I understand, you roll a d6 per hit to determine wound distribution (enemy or friendly hit)... THEN you roll saves?

I can live with that... makes my tac marines wearing the equivalent of 2+/4+ armor

Horst wrote:just so I understand, you roll a d6 per hit to determine wound distribution (enemy or friendly hit)... THEN you roll saves?

I can live with that... makes my tac marines wearing the equivalent of 2+/4+ armor

Correct. For every successful hit, you roll a d6 and on a 4+ (so it's 50/50) the wound is taken by the friendly unit, not the enemy unit. The unit still gets any saves it would normally get (armor, cover, invulnerable) that it would get as if it were being fired on without being in a close combat. The exception being weapons which use a blast marker, where hits are taken based on which models are under the template. If the marker ends up over four enemy and one friendly unit, then the enemy squad takes 4 hit and the friendly squad takes 1, with no "special cover save". Just straight up being allowed to fire blast weapons (like an earthshaker cannon) into the fray.

I'm also considering if there should be some sort of provision based on number of models remaining in the unit or something like that. The biggest way I can see this being abused is for high armor/toughness units (dreadnoughts, terminators, wraithlords) wading into melee to up units so they can't maneuver, advance or fire and then the engaged unit being subjected to incoming fire as well. The idea behind the rule is that if a unit is battered and about to be overrun anyway (that poor single guardsman or fire warrior standing idiotically defiant in the face of the ten possessed space marines who just chewed through the squad) might find itself the lucky recipient of a "Captain Harris" to protect the remainder of the force.

The only thing about that is the ratio of friendly to enemy troops. If you have 1 SM Captain vs a mob of 30 Orks... you're much more than likely to hit the Orks than the SM. Though I suppose the problem with that line of thought is it's 'realistic' and 40k is FAR from that...