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.

im sick of not being able to fire into the enemys while allys assult them. In the middle of the fight the commander might think it is worth the risk of a few of your own men. They should make it that a mis counts as you hitting your own man or something

Its been suggested a bit down. Arguaments for both sides are in there.

soz im a nuub to this sight lol

Sorry, Don't speak Troll. What is it that you want to change?

Iur_tae_mont wrote:Sorry, Don't speak Troll. What is it that you want to change?

No idea. I gave up at the title.

I think he is annoyed that he cannot willingly shoot at his own doods that are stuck in assault because he didn't plan far enough ahead to keep them out of assault.

No its just annoying that i cant do it

It's a game, not a simulation.

Additionally, I see you play Marines. Since Marines have a good T and Sv value, the effect of being able to shoot into melee would simply blatantly favour MEQ even more than the rules do already. To balance such a huge change, you'd need to alter the point cost significantly upwards on all models with higher T or Sv value - simply to keep the game interesting for everyone.

fair enogh but at the same time if i was say playing as IG or Orks or Tyranids it wouldnt matter if 1 or 2 died... so what i have many many more

Valid point. I never knew you couldn't fire into an assault with friendlies involved? I've done it before with my Khorne Berzerkers, with no complaint from my opponents. If I'm not mistaken, IG's have a rule for this.

undivided wrote:Valid point. I never knew you couldn't fire into an assault with friendlies involved? I've done it before with my Khorne Berzerkers, with no complaint from my opponents. If I'm not mistaken, IG's have a rule for this.

Nope, the only rules that cover this are the 3 - way battle rules in the BRB

Pardon my ignorance. I seems that I need to read up more on my rules.

IG have a rule 4 it wow i didnt know that

Blood Raven 5th Company wrote:IG have a rule 4 it wow i didnt know that

They don't...

o... a post earlyer they did

If you could come up with fair rules for it, no one would mind.

The only problem is there are no fair rules for it.

*sigh*

This topic again. We should petition a sticky to say:

"Please don't post a request asking for firing into assaults! You're not the first person to think of this. Everyone has, but no one can come up with a fair system that doesn't require differential equations and rolling a dozen D100s."

To the OP: If you want the complete arguments for and against, go through old pages or hang out for another few weeks. People have argued over this before and will again, but not today.

Firing into assault...my old friend...

If you really want to fire into an assault then allocate hits evenly from the closest model down - spreading them throughout the combat. Use different coloured dice if they have different Toughness values when rolling to wound. Save as normal. Done. This way you'd have to position yourself behind the enemy to make the most of it - and if you had a GM or some other unbiased onlooker to allocate the hits then it's even better for 'fairness'. However within the current game I feel there's no need of it...

...Or field an army comprised of Vindicare Assassin's as they are the only current unit that actually can fire into combat.

warspawned wrote:Firing into assault...my old friend...

If you really want to fire into an assault then allocate hits evenly from the closest model down - spreading them throughout the combat. Use different coloured dice if they have different Toughness values when rolling to wound. Save as normal. Done. This way you'd have to position yourself behind the enemy to make the most of it - and if you had a GM or some other unbiased onlooker to allocate the hits then it's even better for 'fairness'. However within the current game I feel there's no need of it...

...Or field an army comprised of Vindicare Assassin's as they are the only current unit that actually can fire into combat.

Or, a blast weapon that fires at a nearby unit and just "happens" to scatter into the comber

Or, a blast weapon that fires at a nearby unit and just "happens" to scatter into the comber

Why dont you just roll to hit, all the misses you roll again for your men

because a a bunch of the shots from Imperial Guard would hit thier own men and you'd cause more damage to yourself than the enemy. anyway, your allies are likely the closer people, logically most of your shots would hit them.

besides, Marines can auto-flee and get out of an assault that looks bad, mostly anyway. many players do that to get more shots off, or at least the people with shooty armies.

Well what is a bigger loss 2 guardsmen or 1 marine

Blood Raven, it can't be that simple.

If you just take "Misses count as hitting your own troops" as a rule, MEQ get a HUGE advantage. Not only do they hit their own troops 1/2 as often as enemy troops, Bolter fire is devestating to GEQ and not nearly as much to MEQ.

A shot into CC between Marines and Orks using this rule from a standard Marine firing a bolter:

Ork Hit 66% * Wound 50% * Failed Save 100% = 0.33 dead orks per shot
Marine Hit 33% * Wound 50% * Failed Save 33% = 0.056 dead marines per shot

Now, when the Ork fires into the CC:
Marine Hit 33% * Wound 50% * Failed Save 33% = 0.056 dead marines per shot
Ork Hit 66% * Wound 50% * Failed Save 100% = 0.33 dead orks per shot

Bottom line: The Marines can basically fire for little to no cost into the CC, but the Orks will decimate their own troops by shooting into CC. A shot from EITHER SIDE is 6 times as likely to kill an Ork than to kill a Marine.

Agreed.

Not to be mean or anything, but all these suggestions of "Let us take cover and armour" or "Let's be able to fire into assault" fail to take the math into account, and the math is that it simply boosts MEQ more.

If anything, I would like to see a change that makes GEQ more survivable, not less.

Grakmar wrote:
Bottom line: The Marines can basically fire for little to no cost into the CC, but the Orks will decimate their own troops by shooting into CC. A shot from EITHER SIDE is 6 times as likely to kill an Ork than to kill a Marine.

A rule doesn't have to impact all armies equally to be a fair rule.

I'm basically neutral on shooting into melee, but your argument doesn't invalidate any given rule option for it.

Take the standard 4+ cover save it benefits ork significantly more often then Marines, but its a fine and fair rule.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
Bottom line: The Marines can basically fire for little to no cost into the CC, but the Orks will decimate their own troops by shooting into CC. A shot from EITHER SIDE is 6 times as likely to kill an Ork than to kill a Marine.

A rule doesn't have to impact all armies equally to be a fair rule.

I'm basically neutral on shooting into melee, but your argument doesn't invalidate any given rule option for it.

Take the standard 4+ cover save it benefits ork significantly more often then Marines, but its a fine and fair rule.

Jack

But, then you'd have to recost every unit and every weapon. By just throwing this rule in, a Marine player will simply get into CC a massive horde and then drop flame templates and bolter fire all over the massed squad killing the Orks but leaving his Marines fairly unharmed.

Adjusting cover saves to be 4+ rather than 5+ just makes cover more useful. Adding a rule that screws over specific armies requires a re-balancing of the entire game.

Did things get re-costed when most cover went to 4+ instead of 5+?

Did that change (making many non MEQ armies twice as tough versus bolter fire) 'screw over' marines?

Rules change, relative values fluctuate, its not such a huge change in either case really.

Jack

There's a difference between saying "Cover now gives you 50% better protection" which does benefit junky armored units more than Marines (although still gives Marines a boost against AP3 or better) and a rule modification that adds an entire new aspect to the game that gives Marines a giant advantage and other armies an actual disadvantage.

Increased cover saves also came with a removal of numerical advantage in CC and No Retreat, both of which hurt the CC focused horde armies.

Marine armies are already top-tier, they don't need any more boosts at this point. If you add this rule, tourneys will come down to SW vs BA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd like to add that it also makes very little logical sense.

The whole "I should be allowed to fire into assaults if I want to" is an argument in terms of adjusting the rules to make sense with fluff.

But, does it really make sense than an Ork would hit his own squad more than an enemy squad? Can I declare my Shoota squad is going to fire at my own unit in CC, that way I get more hits on the SM?

Changing a core rule alters balance, this is news how?

Personally my IG army would love shooting into melee, so I'm not sure how it only helps marines (suck plasma firey pain space marine!)

Jack

There is no simple and fair way to do it.
It can be done, but to work it out fairly, taking into account target unit, other units and unit size (and all the multiplyers for bikes, walkers, MC, bigger bases) would just take way to long.

Then you get scenarios like this...

- Single grot in combat with 50 IG. Burna boys roll up... flame the tightly packed IG
- Wraithlord charges into any infantry, DA bladestorm (DA can't hurt the lord, so its all good!)