For the greater good...or whatever.

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.

**Horst**

thats a good point anti...

maybe add a modifier to the 4+ dice off depending how many friendly models you have in the close combat?

say, if you outnumber them 2 - 1, its a +1 to the roll in their favor. (so it hits a friendly 66% of the time)

if you outnumber them 3 - 1, its a +2 in their favor. (so it hits a friendly 83% of the time)

this is a good idea, to prevent people from just holding say a unit of space marine terminators with thunder hammers with a block of 40 conscripts with a lord commissar behind them...

**ChristmasMarine**

Your rules seem fair, ive always wanted something like that in 40k....its such a grim/dark place, with some of the most heartless examples of humanity (and inhumanity) anywhere, and we cant shoot into a combat? Doesn't seem to fit.

Only thing I would add is that I think the wounds caused by said shooting should be added to combat resolution...maybe with a modifier for the friendly side for being shot at (after all, having your own side shoot you is quite a shock). What do you think?

**jinshiryuu**

ChristmasMarine wrote:Only thing I would add is that I think the wounds caused by said shooting should be added to combat resolution...maybe with a modifier for the friendly side for being shot at (after all, having your own side shoot you is quite a shock). What do you think?

I considered that, but since the attack is going to occur during the shooting phase, I thought it would be better that have a separate Morale check instead of modifiying the combat resolution. Normally models in CC don't have to make Morale checks, but in this case I think it would be warranted.

anticitizen013 wrote: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...

I had considered that as well, but didn't want things to get too math intensive, but...

Horst wrote:thats a good point anti...
maybe add a modifier to the 4+ dice off depending how many friendly models you have in the close combat?
say, if you outnumber them 2 - 1, its a +1 to the roll in their favor. (so it hits a friendly 66% of the time)
if you outnumber them 3 - 1, its a +2 in their favor. (so it hits a friendly 83% of the time)
this is a good idea, to prevent people from just holding say a unit of space marine terminators with thunder hammers with a block of 40 conscripts with a lord commissar behind them...

This seems reasonably simple to implement. The question there being should it go the other way as well? If the friendlies are outnumbered 2-1 then a -1 penalty to the 4+ roll, 3-1 then a -2penalty?

**deviant cadaver**

The only problem I have with it now is what happens if you finish of your own unit then can you shoot at them normally?

The biggest thing that i see that makes it fair is that after your shooting phase its combat then my turn so I get a chance to react before too much has happened.

How so you feel about a 4+ cover if they where in CC at the start of the turn from shooting. In all fairness the whole army should be shooting at once.

**jinshiryuu**

deviant cadaver wrote:The only problem I have with it now is what happens if you finish of your own unit then can you shoot at them normally?
The biggest thing that i see that makes it fair is that after your shooting phase its combat then my turn so I get a chance to react before too much has happened.
How so you feel about a 4+ cover if they where in CC at the start of the turn from shooting. In all fairness the whole army should be shooting at once.

I'm a bit torn on that one. Without the cover save (if you wipe out all of your men) it makes them more vulnerable. The counter-argument is that typically if a unit is destroyed (or a vehicle explodes), the models are removed from the board and no longer block line of sight. The counter to that being this isn't a typical situation. The entire issue sort of revolves around the idea that your opponent might 20-30 orks (as an example) basically "hiding behind" a single guardsman or the like (it prevents firing just as well as a wall to hid behind does).

Honestly, unless it's advanced well ahead of anything else even remotely threatening, that assault unit shouldn't draw everyone else's fire. And if it does... well, you sent your cc troops in unsupported (aka suicide mission), because you either meant for them to draw fire to let the rest of your army advance (so drawing the fire is what you want), or you made a tactical error (live and learn) or you had a battle plan that involved dropping a heavy-hitting cc unit close to the opponent's gunline and use the assault rules to wipe them out one unit at a time and consolidate move into/behind cover (whether terrain or up close to another unit). Admittedly, it's not as bad as it used to be when an assault unit could consolidate straight into another CC.

In my opinion, the cover save should go away once the last remaining member of the unit dies, but that's only my opinion and I've already admitted to being "shooty" biased. What's everyone else think?

**deviant cadaver**

I think if you cant' consolidate into CC then keeping the cover save could be fair.

**Skinnattittar**

Way back you used to be able to voluntarily lose an assault and let your guys try to run for it. I think going back to that system would be best. Even if it means the remains of that unit are auto-destroyed, it is just 90% of the time a huge detriment to one player (usually the losing player) to have one last man standing who only will be defeated in their assault phase leaving their opponent able to move, shoot, then assault again, chaining their assault across the table. I think this happens more often than it should be "fair." Give players more latitude with tests.

**agnosto**

It's a fine idea and I don't really see assault armies being completely ruined by it; they can shoot into combat as easily as the other guy after all. Nurgle CSMs would love this rule; they would run in through a hail of friendly fire and wipe whole units. Especially since chaos is immune to all the psychological stuff anyway. I don't see the Tau doing it (based on fluff), but then tau screens of drones could be an exception (who cares if a little robot gets shot up?).

**Skinnattittar**

The problem with a "shoot into assaults" rule is that, I think, pretty much all but a handful of the armies would actually do it in the fluff. So if this rule would be given to everybody, well, people would do it whenever they feel it would provide benefit towards winning the game rather than whether or not their army would be doing it at that time. So I think it would water down the flavor of the game some more. As you said, Agnosto, Nugle Marine players would do it as a matter of course, regardless if real Nurgle Marines would do it in reality. I don't think anyone likes getting shot in the back, whether they think it won't harm them or not, getting that one in fifty pink in the back of your head, thus killing you, is not a fun prospect.

Some armies it is in their fluff to do it as a matter of course/disregard for the safety of their own troops.

**crazypsyko666**

Alright, how about this, All missed shots have a 50/50 chance of hitting your own people? It's simple, straightforward, and you can do it on a d6 roll.

Step 1: Roll to hit.
Step 2: Remove all dice that rolled misses and put them into a pile.
Step 3: Use the remaining dice to roll to wound, saves, whatever
Step 4: Take the dice that were previously put in a seperate pile.
Step 5: Roll to hit. All hits wound, unless wounding is impossible (Strength to Toughness test)

It's appropriately dangerous, but with potential to still be useful. What do you think?

**kuro_khan**

I'd only be moderately ok with it if wounds and saves happened BEFORE the 50/50 split happens.

My squad of DE Wyches are in CC with your tin cans.

(making up random #'s here)
You shoot into combat, 20 bolters
14 hit
8 wound (vs T3)
Wyches don't get a save against bolters, so 8 unsaved wounds.

THEN you do the 50/50, that way on avg 4 wyches and 4 marines die.

**Zarco**

I think We should make use of the leadership and Initiative. They should make both rolls, if they fail one of the two they cannot shoot into close combat but if they passed they can. I mean it makes since.

**crazypsyko666**

I've thought about it, And I like what jinshiryuu said, but with a few added on things.

jinshiryuu wrote:
_______________________________________________________

[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.

[6] "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.

[7] "The Price of Victory..."
Because of the close proximity of the fighting, Your men have just as much chance to hit one of theirs as they do to hit the others. All missed shots are re-rolled and aimed at their own soldiers. They share the same 4+ cover save as the targeted squad, but no armor or invulnerable saves can be taken, and the soldiers are expected to fail all rolls to wound as well (Unless the strength of the weapon isn't high enough to have any possibility of doing damage.)
_______________________________________________________

**Gorechild**

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

but that would put space marines at a disadvantage...there's no chance GW would ever do that in 40k

**KingCracker**

Honestly, I see the points and the cons in this. Personally I think it should go by fluff. I do NOT think SM would shoot into there own ranks. You guys that think so are incredibly out of your minds. They are far too disciplined to murder there own brothers. You SM players are just pissed that when you crunch the numbers, you cannot kill a horde army with shooting. You cannot kill a horde army in CC either (usually because there are more AND we are better at i then you. Mius IG of course lol)

I dont think Eldar would do it, IG would for sure. Orks..............do I really have to even comment on this? Sheesh we should get a BONUS to wound the warboss if doing the shooting only for "Im da biggest, an make a betta boss den youz" kind of mentality.
Hmm... Im not sure about Tau, the greater good saving everyone blah blah blah. But at the same time, I would see them thinking, we will kill some to save many. I guess really no SM and no Eldar.
Sorry SM players. You guess dont fluff wise AND rules wise. You have better chances of saving then anyone in the damn game.

**Aramoro**

You're trying to apply realism to a game balance issue and that's doomed to failure. If you're saying that IG would realistically fire into combat that's probably true but realistically they also wouldn't have time to decide that. Contrary to the turn sequence the guys in combat aren't just chilling having a chat until the next assault phase, guys don't stop running because it's not their turn to move.

Turns effectively happen simultaneously but to make the game work at all you have turn about. So your IG squad gets charged by some Orks your Demolisher tank is already aiming and firing at the same time, it doesn't have time to see how the combat is going over there before weighing in with some Demolisher shells.

I think the only way to make it fair on both sides is When the assault is declared in your opponents turn you declare the units which are going to fire into it in your turn. I.E. it's a terrible idea to fire into combat. If you're squad gets wiped out the you fire at the assaulters, if you win the combat and wipe out the assaulters, bad luck someone is already loading the breach.

Aramoro

**jinshiryuu**

Actually, the more I look at this issue, the thornier it gets. "Realism" vs "fluff" vs game-balance, etc, etc, etc. Since the initial post was lamenting the issue of having one or two models who managed a miraculous Ld save basically standing around waiting to get massacred, it seems like the real problem isn't needing to be able to fire into combat (in "real" life, support for close combat operations usually comes from other infantry closing in to make accurate shots (aka "joining the fight"). The real problem seems to be that dice roll that takes the tactics out of the player's hands. I was out of the hobby for awhile, but I her a lot about how the voluntary fallback mechanic was broken. It seems like the real option would be to come up with a working version of that. Opinions?

**Skinnattittar**

Allow a losing unit to voluntarily fail their leadership roll. It makes sense (SOP; if you're fethed, GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE!!), it is simple, and it solves the main problem. The trade off is that those guys will have to suffer the possibility of being run down by a Sweeping Advance, so 'tough' units, or ones with lots of guys left, may not want to risk it, but those small remains might want to take the chance and make a get away before their buddies start pounding what is left of the enemy unit(s).