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.

I really like this idea on paper. Im going to test this out in a game tonight and see how it goes. I'll post about this later.

I really like this idea on paper. Im going to test this out in a game tonight and see how it goes. I'll post about this later.

Awesome! If it works out maybe we could start a thread in the "Proposed Rules" section. I just wanted to see if there would be interest before I even bothered with it, but it looks like there is. Can't wait to see what you come up with!

The problem is, because of the incredible variation in potential combats, writing a rule that fits them all is nearly impossible.

Say, any hits are randomised. How do you work out a randomisation chart that covers a 50/50 split, and one that covers a lone model facing off against 20 enemies? Now what if the lone model is a Trygon or a Dreadknight? What about if the enemy outnumbers friendly models 2/1? What about the opposite ratio?

Not to mention the massive changes in game balance. It's very 'gamey' to not be able to shoot into combat, but I think it really benefits the game.

Our group already uses a mechanic to shoot into combat. It rarely happens because we deliberately make it risky. Half of the incoming shots are resolved against friendlies, and half against the enemy. Both sides get a cover save, and if there is an uneven number of shots the extra goes to the larger side.

Single shot weapons (such as a lascannon) are determined randomly before resolution. Normal morale checks, etc. If the friendly force should survive and lose contact with enemy they require a special morale check modified by how many were killed by friendly fire. We have a "Treachery Reaction" table the friendly unit rolls on, running the gamut from acting normally to attacking the nearest friendly unit.

Too many people in our group wanted at least some way to do this even if the odds weren't that great of success.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
I did it all the time in 2nd Edition. Especially with my Marines, lol.

It's incredibly grimdark too. Fits right into the setting.

Well you could afford to do it with marines because they were so tough, especially terminators, it was fairly safe. There's something not quite right about loyalist marines shooting into a crowd of their brothers even if it is to kill those they are in combat with.

You have to remember, Space Marines aren't a band of brothers like the real world, lol. They're a bunch of seven and a half foot tall hardened psychopaths masquerading as monks. In situations where the combat is going against the Marines, the ones in combat would rather hold off the enemy long enough to let their brothers blow them to pieces, rather than have the other Marines be worried about hitting them in the crossfire. The Emperor protects. And well, when he doesn't, oh well. Hopefully they've got a spare bionic leg lying around and the quick clotting feature of their blood works properly.

 amanita wrote:
Our group already uses a mechanic to shoot into combat. It rarely happens because we deliberately make it risky. Half of the incoming shots are resolved against friendlies, and half against the enemy. Both sides get a cover save, and if there is an uneven number of shots the extra goes to the larger side.

Single shot weapons (such as a lascannon) are determined randomly before resolution. Normal morale checks, etc. If the friendly force should survive and lose contact with enemy they require a special morale check modified by how many were killed by friendly fire. We have a "Treachery Reaction" table the friendly unit rolls on, running the gamut from acting normally to attacking the nearest friendly unit.

Too many people in our group wanted at least some way to do this even if the odds weren't that great of success.

But how does that make sense if one model is tied up against an Ork horde? That one model somehow soaks up half of the incoming shots?

Ork nobs punch the hell out of their subordinates, IG commissars execute retreating guardsmen, possessed Chaos Rhinos munch on their own cargo... Heck, it's strange it's not been added to the game yet.

I know. It's a matter of balance and game mechanics. But it'd be nice if certain cruel, bloodthirsty and wretched characters were able to do so.

 Kaldor wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Our group already uses a mechanic to shoot into combat. It rarely happens because we deliberately make it risky. Half of the incoming shots are resolved against friendlies, and half against the enemy. Both sides get a cover save, and if there is an uneven number of shots the extra goes to the larger side.

Single shot weapons (such as a lascannon) are determined randomly before resolution. Normal morale checks, etc. If the friendly force should survive and lose contact with enemy they require a special morale check modified by how many were killed by friendly fire. We have a "Treachery Reaction" table the friendly unit rolls on, running the gamut from acting normally to attacking the nearest friendly unit.

Too many people in our group wanted at least some way to do this even if the odds weren't that great of success.

But how does that make sense if one model is tied up against an Ork horde? That one model somehow soaks up half of the incoming shots?

That's what he gets for having the name Will. When you're told to fire at Will, you tend to do that.

 -Loki- wrote:
That's what he gets for having the name Will. When you're told to fire at Will, you tend to do that.

Back from play testing. My friend and I ran the rules as follows:
1) Ld test to shoot into combat
2) BS - 1 to hit
3) 1s and 2s hit friendlys
4) Ld test for friendly unit being shot at afterwards
We played marines vs guard. Tbh, there weren't very many moments where we could use it. His marines wiped a lot of my squads in the first round of combat. But I shot 3 LR into a combat between my command squad and his command squad + captain. My LR killed EVERYTHING standing in that combat.
Overall assessment, I liked it and it worked well. I just wish I could have used it more. Will definitely have to test again when we play on Saturday. I'll write up a report again when that happens.

Would I ever want to? I do all the time. Karamazov enjoys his non-scattering orbital bombardment.

 Kaldor wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Our group already uses a mechanic to shoot into combat. It rarely happens because we deliberately make it risky. Half of the incoming shots are resolved against friendlies, and half against the enemy. Both sides get a cover save, and if there is an uneven number of shots the extra goes to the larger side.

Single shot weapons (such as a lascannon) are determined randomly before resolution. Normal morale checks, etc. If the friendly force should survive and lose contact with enemy they require a special morale check modified by how many were killed by friendly fire. We have a "Treachery Reaction" table the friendly unit rolls on, running the gamut from acting normally to attacking the nearest friendly unit.

Too many people in our group wanted at least some way to do this even if the odds weren't that great of success.

But how does that make sense if one model is tied up against an Ork horde? That one model somehow soaks up half of the incoming shots?

Yes, exactly. Sure, it seems a bit silly that the one model would receive the same number of shots as the horde, but if somebody wants to waste half their firepower on such a scenario they at least have the option. Besides, it's not really any less "realistic" than simply being unable to shoot into combat at all.

i think that 50% of the shots hitting your troops is a bad idea, it should work more like how our wound allocation currently works, you take wounds from the nearest side, like in three or more player games, when player 1 and player 2 are locked in combat and player 3 just fires into the middle and the wounds are allocated to the closest models.

That way it makes it more realistic and makes more sense. It also opens up the option of hammer and anvil tactics like my terminators charge down the centre of the field and attack a swarm of boys. I happen to have a tactical squad on the other side of the fight (from my perspective) which also shoots into the fight, but if i kill all the orks and my marines are too dumb to stop firing i can hurt my own guys.

Maybe you could make 1's hit your troops to make it more realistic, but i think that just taking wounds from the nearest model makes the most sense.

I didn't read any of the other post, just going to post this here.

This is one of the first questions I asked when I started playing the game. Why can't I shoot at my own guys? Who knows what morals your leading officer has, and we all know that its 40k and that some of the guys in 40k ...........has little or no morals.

On the same note. Why can't I drop DROP PODS on units; the enemies of course. Seems like a legitamate stratagy to me.

 bobtheoverlord wrote:
i think that 50% of the shots hitting your troops is a bad idea, it should work more like how our wound allocation currently works, you take wounds from the nearest side, like in three or more player games, when player 1 and player 2 are locked in combat and player 3 just fires into the middle and the wounds are allocated to the closest models.

That way it makes it more realistic and makes more sense. It also opens up the option of hammer and anvil tactics like my terminators charge down the centre of the field and attack a swarm of boys. I happen to have a tactical squad on the other side of the fight (from my perspective) which also shoots into the fight, but if i kill all the orks and my marines are too dumb to stop firing i can hurt my own guys.

Maybe you could make 1's hit your troops to make it more realistic, but i think that just taking wounds from the nearest model makes the most sense.

I could see all shots hitting the enemy and misses going to your own side, but that's also a bit strange as every shot now hits something. The idea was to allow the option without making it so optimal for the side shooting at their own troops. Besides, I personally am not as fond of the mechanic of always removing closer models first. In close combat it makes sense but not so much when shooting.

Assault units have taking enough of a beating these days as it is!

I'd rather go with the ''Shoot at full BS, every miss hit your troops''

 IcedAnimals wrote:
Would I ever want to? I do all the time. Karamazov enjoys his non-scattering orbital bombardment

Anything from the Chaos Daemons codex that was give Boon of Mutation can shoot it into and out of combat. I usually only get it on Fateweaver, and frequently try to snipe characters or other special weapon / equipment holders from combats that Fateweaver isn't even in.

One time I wanted Fateweaver stuck in an ongoing assault so he couldn't be shot, but I wanted to fire his Bolt of Tzeentch at something else. Since he can both split his fire and shoot Boon into combat I was able to blow up a tank with Bolt, shot Boon at the unit I wanted to charge and was safe from enemy fire for the next turn.

The whole "any miss hits your own troops" seems ridiculous. Every shot hits something now?

Seems like it should be more like:
Models in CC have a 4+ (or a sliding cover save based on percent visibility of enemy unit/percent covered by friendly models) cover save. Any successful cover save wounds are allocated to the friendly unit.

The way it worked in 2nd Edition, IIRC, was random allocation based on the number of units involved on both sides.

But it was only allocation of hits. Misses were still misses.

That seems the most realistic way to do it. You take the total number of models who can be hit, and then randomly allocate the hit amongst those models. It's a lot of math. Which is probably why it got removed from the game, because 3rd Edition hated anything more complicated than putting models down, rolling six sided dice against a simple formula, and pulling models off the table.

Althornin wrote:
The whole "any miss hits your own troops" seems ridiculous. Every shot hits something now?

Seems like it should be more like:
Models in CC have a 4+ (or a sliding cover save based on percent visibility of enemy unit/percent covered by friendly models) cover save. Any successful cover save wounds are allocated to the friendly unit.

I kinda like this on the surface, but it's the same as dividing the shots in the first lace as mentioned before and it doesn't take into account the different toughness of engaged models before cover saves are made.

 amanita wrote:

Althornin wrote:
The whole "any miss hits your own troops" seems ridiculous. Every shot hits something now?

Seems like it should be more like:
Models in CC have a 4+ (or a sliding cover save based on percent visibility of enemy unit/percent covered by friendly models) cover save. Any successful cover save wounds are allocated to the friendly unit.

I kinda like this on the surface, but it's the same as dividing the shots in the first lace as mentioned before and it doesn't take into account the different toughness of engaged models before cover saves are made.

Why not roll to hit, roll for cover save, then roll to wound?

I play guard and orks.

I think its wrong that we CANT shoot into combat.

Ig should at least have an order for it. "They're already dead!" or something like that. Orks should have it because they view it as hilarious. Nothing beats watching some git think he's about to klobber that space marine only for the space marine's head to explode right before the nob gets to swing.

I like this idea seeing (only for certain units tho) as it makes sense fluff wise and it adds a tactical element i feel the game is missing. I play csm and it would make sense if some units like cultists had them

I think the argument that it would unbalance some armies is poor, as most armies have access to allies who are good cannon foddor, however doing this may "neegate the alliance" so a Unit of SM firing into IG infantry would suddenly find the alliance is now "one eye open"

I still say that allowing people to sacrifice cultists or Conscripts to put battle cannon shells or plasma cannon blasts on target without scatter is a bit much; take out the suicide homing beacon, and it'd be fine.

 thedarksaint wrote:

 amanita wrote:

Althornin wrote:
The whole "any miss hits your own troops" seems ridiculous. Every shot hits something now?

Seems like it should be more like:
Models in CC have a 4+ (or a sliding cover save based on percent visibility of enemy unit/percent covered by friendly models) cover save. Any successful cover save wounds are allocated to the friendly unit.

I kinda like this on the surface, but it's the same as dividing the shots in the first lace as mentioned before and it doesn't take into account the different toughness of engaged models before cover saves are made.

Why not roll to hit, roll for cover save, then roll to wound?

This is still the same result as splitting the incoming fire in the first place. It's because the 4+ cover save divides incoming damage equally.

I still say that allowing people to sacrifice cultists or Conscripts to put battle cannon shells or plasma cannon blasts on target without scatter is a bit much; take out the suicide homing beacon, and it'd be fine. ~ AnomanderRake

This is a legitimate concern, but it is somewhat mitigated by the fact all models get that 4+ cover save and since the shooting phase is before the assault phase, any targeted melee must be from combat in the previous turn. Chances are good a weak unit will not remain engaged with a stronger one, but you never know!

Yes absolutely that's very 40k ish, also I don't see why Space Marines wouldn't shoot their own to win a battle. What is it American War movie now?

Unmodified BS, remove model from the closest, on 1s remove closest friendly model.

Yes, I'd be in favour of this...I really ought to try some of these suggestions for real.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Y I don't see why Space Marines wouldn't shoot their own to win a battle.

Would you shoot your own brother in the face?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Y I don't see why Space Marines wouldn't shoot their own to win a battle.

Would you shoot your own brother in the face?

Yes for the Emeror. I don't buy this band of brothers herohammer side of Space Marines anyway, those are fanatics and psychopaths.