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.

Maybe it has already been proposed on here, but here goes anyways.

When you are shooting at the enemy through your own troops (different squad) and it gives the enemy a cover save due to intervening models. You should have to take some kind of wound if the enemy makes any of the cover saves. It would definately make you think twice about shooting through your own troops and more realistic.

Our group used a similar house rule in our old =][= munda campaign, basically we made it that if you missed, it hit your own dudes

Suggestions have been made before, but this doesn't follow the reason why they are getting a cover save, which is explained directly in the rule book. They aren't hitting their own troops, they are in fact NOT FIRING SO THEY DON'T HIT THEIR OWN TROOPS! This is quite blatant and common sensical, I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

Yeah I mean if you think about you roll to hit and everyone that misses does not have an open shot b/c they would rather not blast the head off of someone in their own army. I dont see why you would get a cover save in the first place anyway, shouldnt your own units be able to duck? I mean it is the 41 millenium and all so they should have good enough communication for that.

Emrab: You mean like happened in 4th Edition? Get with the future!

Yes i realize that is how it use to be and Im not a big fan of the change but to me it just made sense.

They tried forcing Ld tests to shoot at a unit that wasn't the closest, but that really did not work. Everyone could usually (except guard...) pass their Ld test and everyone could usually shoot anything they wanted with no negative.

Now with the 4+ cover from shooting through units, there is an unavoidable hard negative to shooting through units (read: shooting the unit that is *not* the closest). Instead of making it an abstract "Leadership to see if your men have the ability to not shoot the closest enemy", they make it a tactical choice that the player makes.

I like it a lot, more hard choices for the player to make.


Adding the aspect of wounding units that you are firing through would A) cause more wounds to your friendly units that you are firing through, and B) cause more wounds to enemy units you are firing through. In the end it would end up effecting large shooty armies (read: IG) more than any other army because A) they have to fire through their own units more due to the fact that there is so many of them, and B) they would take extra wounds from being shot at since an enemy could shoot at a unit in the rear of a formation and cause wounds to every unit in the LOS.

Currently, we still fire over and behind our own troops. It isn't preferable, but you do what you have to do. If your aim is blocked, you don't fire. It is just easier to bestow a cover save then it is to modify BS, because then there might be exceptions (sniper rifles) and what not to things, and 4+ Cover Save is really enough to discourage it, 3+ would just be ridiculous if you ask me.

Hitting your own troops would be a special rule for armies like Orks, Tyranids, who care less about losing units and/or aren't very smart. Conscripts or units led by Commissars might have some implication, but even Conscripts and Commissars have common sense. Firing into assaults and wounding your own troops would make sense for Commissars (a special rule I always abdicate for Guard). Just my opinion though.

Suggestions have been made before, but this doesn't follow the reason why they are getting a cover save, which is explained directly in the rule book. They aren't hitting their own troops, they are in fact NOT FIRING SO THEY DON'T HIT THEIR OWN TROOPS! This is quite blatant and common sensical, I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

Hmm I think you missed my point, I said nothing about misses or not firing. The fact is that if the enemy got a cover save from you shooting through another squad of your own then that bullet, round, missile whatever you wanna call it got stopped by something and common sense would dictate that it was one of your guys.

It's nothing extremely difficult to figure out, I mean unit A of space marines shoots through unit B of space marines at your squad of IG you take 4 wounds and make 1 cover save unit B of space marines takes 1 wound that allows armor saves.

Aglobalthreat wrote:

Suggestions have been made before, but this doesn't follow the reason why they are getting a cover save, which is explained directly in the rule book. They aren't hitting their own troops, they are in fact NOT FIRING SO THEY DON'T HIT THEIR OWN TROOPS! This is quite blatant and common sensical, I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

Hmm I think you missed my point, I said nothing about misses or not firing. The fact is that if the enemy got a cover save from you shooting through another squad of your own then that bullet, round, missile whatever you wanna call it got stopped by something and common sense would dictate that it was one of your guys.

It's nothing extremely difficult to figure out, I mean unit A of space marines shoots through unit B of space marines at your squad of IG you take 4 wounds and make 1 cover save unit B of space marines takes 1 wound that allows armor saves.

The shooting phase (or nearly everything else in 40K for that matter) isnt an exact representation of what is happening. Many more shots are being fired than are actually rolled for. Things are moving about at the same time, shooting at the same time and beating each other into bloody pulp at the same time. A cover save if meant to represent a reduced chance of you hitting something with shooting. This may be because you cant see your target very well, or your bullets are hitting some cover or because you arent firing because your friend is standing in front of you.

Actually givng something a cover save isnt a particularly good way of representing this. A better way would be to impose a penalty to hit, but because we are constrained by the system being based on D6s a -1 to hit is too great a penalty.

Wow I give up, the only reason I suggested this is so that there would be a penalty for shooting through your own people. In modern day combat we don't shoot through our own what makes it so different in 40k world where the weapons are even more deadly.

Regwon you totally missed my point as well. If the unit gets a cover save because you shot through your own troops and there is no other cover around where did that shot get stopped? Not saying they didn't take the shot or it misses cause obviously you rolled the dice for it and your opponent made a cover save!!! OMG how is that so hard to understand?

Anyways I don't care any more I just suggested this for the hell of it, I might use it as a house rule just because I prefer some realism over BS.

Aglobalthreat wrote:Wow I give up, the only reason I suggested this is so that there would be a penalty for shooting through your own people. In modern day combat we don't shoot through our own what makes it so different in 40k world where the weapons are even more deadly.

Regwon you totally missed my point as well. If the unit gets a cover save because you shot through your own troops and there is no other cover around where did that shot get stopped? Not saying they didn't take the shot or it misses cause obviously you rolled the dice for it and your opponent made a cover save!!! OMG how is that so hard to understand?

Anyways I don't care any more I just suggested this for the hell of it, I might use it as a house rule just because I prefer some realism over BS.

Actually you missed my point.

The rules are a representation of reality rather than reality itself. Otherwise we would have to roll several bucket loads of dice every time anyone fired an assault cannon. A cover save is just that, a representation of reality. When you are firing at an enemy those shots that may have hit weren't fired because somebody got in your way. I guess it depends on how you perceive the game.

While you are house ruling in favour of realism youll probably want to get rid of all the space travel/aliens/demons/magic/laser guns and everything else that makes 40K fantastical rather than realistic.

The rulebook actually describes the reasoning exactly as everyone else seems to be interpretting it, Aglo. Nobody is mis-interpreting what you are saying, we know that you are not getting the simple fact of the matter that when the cover save is rolled for firing through your own troops, what is actually happening is that a successful save means that the round was never actually fired because someone was in the bloody way! So NO! The penalty is not that someone is getting hit, the penalty is that someone is not firing and your opponent has a fifty-fifty chance of not getting hit even when they are not in cover or wearing any armor, running around bare-ass naked frolicking in combat!

LMAO, see the thing is that I'm pretty sure I posted this in 40K Proposed Rules. I defended my case to it. But in the end this is "proposed" not interpretations of the actual rules so thanks for disagreeing with me I'm not arguing over what the rule book states I think the forum you are looking for is called you make da call.

Thanks =)

Then you did a poor job.

Yes, you proposed a rule, but your reason was flawed. If the Rule Book says that the round was not fired, then the round was not fired so the bullet hit nothing. I have never played 40k, and I can understand that much.

Ok if its "Proposed" it should have absolutely nothing to do with the rule book... this rule would take the place of whats in the rule book. I know what the rule book says I play the fething game unlike you Arion.

Go flame someone else I posted this to have an actual discussion.

Aglobalthreat wrote:Maybe it has already been proposed on here, but here goes anyways.

When you are shooting at the enemy through your own troops (different squad) and it gives the enemy a cover save due to intervening models. You should have to take some kind of wound if the enemy makes any of the cover saves. It would definately make you think twice about shooting through your own troops and more realistic.

If you read this (with your eyes) it can quite easily, nay, it is quite plainly, not only a "proposition" but more of a complaint.

Okay, so let us say you actually are proposing a rule. Nobody seems much interested in it because there already is a penalty for firing through your own troops, and just about everyone thinks that it is perhaps a little over the top, too. Under the idea of your own units taking one in the back of the head on top of your opponent not being wounded, well that's just plain slowed, and highly detrimental to armies where massed fire is not just the best tactic, but the only option.

Aglobalthreat wrote:Hmm I think you missed my point, I said nothing about misses or not firing. The fact is that if the enemy got a cover save from you shooting through another squad of your own then that bullet, round, missile whatever you wanna call it got stopped by something and common sense would dictate that it was one of your guys.

It's nothing extremely difficult to figure out, I mean unit A of space marines shoots through unit B of space marines at your squad of IG you take 4 wounds and make 1 cover save unit B of space marines takes 1 wound that allows armor saves.

OK, first why would a SM need a cover save from a bolter?

Second, why would shot automatically hit intervening troops just because model made coversave?

Third, why add more complication to the game?

Fourth, Why penalize shooty armies any more than 5th ed has? Dude give the IG a break.

Poor little Guardsmen. They already have something to fear from everyone, and now big ol' mean Aglobalthreat wants them to be afraid of their only, and not necessarily compensating, strength. I feel for the little buggers being all human, fighting a potentially losing batle where everyone is ganging up on them. The true underdogs of Warhammer 4o,ooo.

Funny Skinna, lol I don't play them but with ap- strength 3 or gets hot on one of their few good small weapons. Adding shooting up their own guys just seems like creul and unusual punishment.

This is a perfectly suitable suggestion for a house rule. Skinnattittar, you must be able to politely discuss why you don't care for a rule without insulting others. If this isn't something you are capable of doing then you need to refrain from posting in the first place. This forum is a place to discuss proposed rules. It is fine if you don't care for a proposed rule but there isn't any need to insult and/or attack the person simply for proposing it.



Back to the OP, I personally don't feel that this rule would be a good addition to the game for the following reasons:

1) It isn't always as simple as one unit firing over another unit. In many cases you only have some models firing through their own unit while other models in the unit have a clean shot. As the game stands now, firing through a unit is the same thing as firing through cover. So if a target unit has some of its models in actual cover, some of its models behind other enemy models and some of its models behind intervening friendly models you don't need to do any special checking, you just know the unit is 'in cover'.

As soon as you add in the rule about firing through a friendly unit, you'll now often have to do an extra set of checking. Besides checking to see if the target unit has enough models 'in cover' to get a cover save, now presumably you'd also have to check to see if the majority of that cover is being generated by firing through a friendly unit.

IMHO, this extra complication doesn't add enough value to the game because units firing through their own models are already being penalized pretty significantly by providing the enemy with a cover save.


2) if you add this penalty for firing through your own models, it only makes sense that you add it into the game when firing through enemy models as well (and if you don't then the rules would really seem to be odd IMO). And adding this rule into the game when firing through enemy models effectively breaks the game because it effectively rewards firing units for targeting the further enemy units as any saves made will result in an extra casualty.


For these two reasons I think it is much better to leave the system the way it is, even if it doesn't always seem to make the most sense from a literal point of view.

In addition to the reasons others have listed, I'm against this as it's not well balanced depending on who you're shooting at. If you're shooting at SM, they're not going to take the 4+ cover save instead of their 3+ armor, so it's not as bad to shoot at them, while if you're shooting at the orcs or tau across the table, now all of a sudden you can hit your own guys, where before there was no chance of it.

Well after you presented it that way I guess it would complicate things quite a bit and make shooting at further units more appeasing. Thank you for the great feedback from the last 2 posters you have influenced my opinion on this.