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.

In a grim dark future focused on forging a narrative, no officer ever has to make the "hard choice" of whether or not to fire on his units positions to survive or be victorious.


Idea for a house rule.

Friendly Fire

A player may target his own units and units in cc.

If the controlling player targets units locked in combat, then each to hit roll of 4+ will cause a hit upon the enemy, while each to hit roll of 3 or less will cause a hit upon one of the controlling players models. If a friendly model suffers an unsaved wound then the entire army suffers a -1 penalty to the leadership for the rest of the game. This penalty is cumulative with all other Friendly Fire penaties.
Weapons that hit Automatically such as blast and template weapons hit all models touched by the marker or template.

If the controlling players targets his own units then his army immediately suffers -1 leadership to all units for the rest of the game. This is culmulative for each time the player fires upon his own units.
The firing unit suffers a -2 penalty to its leadership in place of the -1 and has to pass a leadership test at the lowered value before they can fire on their comrades. If the unit passes the test, they gain the stubborn rule and will not suffer any further penalties to their leadership value from the Friendly fire rule.

If the firing unit is a vehicle or vehicle squadron, then before firing the controlling player must roll a d6 for each vehicle firing. On a 3+ the vehicle fires and the effects are resolved as stated above. On a 1 or 2 the crew hesitates(Or refuses to shoot on their fellow soldiers). If the crew hesitates, the vehicle may not choose another target or move until the start of the next turn.


BTW, Am now thinking of a "Fire on my Position" rule for scouts/forward operating units. The freindly fir rule could develop into this or it could be a balancin mechanism



I find that when a rule is developed by individuals who differ drastically in philosophy but are able ot "communicate" that the rule and the language of the rule is usually better.

As per Blacksails request. SM, BA, DA, SW and GK armies may not make use of this rule.

Also for Blacksails, he has brought up a list of touch points that need to be addressed to help balance the rule. While he and I disagree on certain base concepts and armies most affected, his list is pertinent.

Blacksails wrote:My second point is with game balance and how it drastically favours shooty armies. What Ld are vehicles? 10 all around, or different per codex? Are you going to have to come up with Ld values for each individual vehicle, and what fluff will you base it on? Why will some armies be incapable of using the rule, others be able to use it without Ld modifier, and others with full penalty? It directly affects how certain codices play and you have to understand that. Most shooty units have poor choppiness, and most choppy units have poor shootiness. Its one of the tenets of 40k; shoot the choppy one, chop the shooty ones. Thats fine because once the choppy ones start doing their thing, you, as a shooty army, will need to reposition and prepare for the choppy unit once its out of combat. CC units have to endure at least one full turn of shooting before ever making it into CC, often more than that, allowing shooty armies to either kill or whittle them down to low effectiveness. That's the balance of the game, and overall, it works pretty well. Denying CC units safety in CC opens up a can of worms of game balance that is far more complex than you might have originally thought.

These are just rough ideas. I welcome input on how to improve this rule and if any think they would play this as a house rule for certain armies like the IG, 'Nids and Orks. Or if it should be an option for all armies. Let me know what you think, later.

Well, I like the idea personally, it fits with the fluff and my friends have been toying with a house rule similar...this is pretty harsh too and I like the idea of your own army suffering loss of moral when this happens. I'd probably make it a distance from the unit being shot though rather than army wide since not all of your army might see it.

I like the idea but the loss of morale sounds a bit too heavy. The unit that was shot at should lose morale, and perhaps even other units nearby, but why should a bunch of Shoota Boys or Chaos Marines (just an example) care at all about their targets?

I'd make the penalty just -1 for whole army for each friendly fire. That wouldn't slow down the game with additional checks and would be easy to track.

I'm losing count of the amount of times this exact same idea has been proposed. Every time it has been shown that it is not a particularly good or useful rule, and is in, in fact, not particularly fluffy. Every army would have different reasons and motivations to shoot or not shoot at their allies, and would suffer very different consequences.

From a game balance perspective, armies with cheap units benefit greater than armies with more expensive units. What would an ork army care about killing 10 boyz if it could put 10 high strength wounds on a particularly killy marine unit?

The game is balanced so that CC units are more or less immune from anything but the CC they're engaged in, which is what currently keeps CC a viable tactic in this game. If you remove that immunity and open up any assault to shooting from the outside, you are then imparting a very significant nerf on assault based armies.

As I've said before in numerous other threads, no, its just not a good rule for the game. Feel free to hammer something out between friends, but in doing so, you are effective creating a potentially serious imbalance for numerous armies.

Hmm, never having bothered to have read, or seen any of those threads I didn't realise that...good point...

Personally I gave a special order to my custom Krieg officer just to do that, all missed to hit rolls go on allies, all saves allowed.

Orks Nids DE and chaos should be exempt. If we are talking "hard choice." well at least Nids should be exempt.by exempt I mean allowed. No leadership penalty.

Jihadnik wrote:Well, I like the idea personally, it fits with the fluff and my friends have been toying with a house rule similar...this is pretty harsh too and I like the idea of your own army suffering loss of moral when this happens. I'd probably make it a distance from the unit being shot though rather than army wide since not all of your army might see it.

ergotoxin wrote:I like the idea but the loss of morale sounds a bit too heavy. The unit that was shot at should lose morale, and perhaps even other units nearby, but why should a bunch of Shoota Boys or Chaos Marines (just an example) care at all about their targets?

I'd make the penalty just -1 for whole army for each friendly fire. That wouldn't slow down the game with additional checks and would be easy to track.

I am open to the reduction of the penalty. Maybe make it a LoS based penalty. Though I'd like to make my case for the penalty remaining close to army-wide and cumulative:

1)It seems like all armies would have some sort of commincations system/ability that would inform them of such a move almost immediately.

2)If the penalty is lessened to much then it would become an every game mechanic.

3)The penalty needs to reflect the long term effect of such actions but the game is played on a game by game basis.
3a)I can easily see this rule being modified for a campaign where your army and its leaders gain abilities through out the campaign. This would make a commander almost useless after a couple of these incidences.

Blacksails wrote:I'm losing count of the amount of times this exact same idea has been proposed. Every time it has been shown that it is not a particularly good or useful rule, and is in, in fact, not particularly fluffy. Every army would have different reasons and motivations to shoot or not shoot at their allies, and would suffer very different consequences.

From a game balance perspective, armies with cheap units benefit greater than armies with more expensive units. What would an ork army care about killing 10 boyz if it could put 10 high strength wounds on a particularly killy marine unit?

The game is balanced so that CC units are more or less immune from anything but the CC they're engaged in, which is what currently keeps CC a viable tactic in this game. If you remove that immunity and open up any assault to shooting from the outside, you are then imparting a very significant nerf on assault based armies.

As I've said before in numerous other threads, no, its just not a good rule for the game. Feel free to hammer something out between friends, but in doing so, you are effective creating a potentially serious imbalance for numerous armies.

While I respect your opinion, I am having trouble with your logic.

In the section highlighted cyan:
As I mentioned in the op. The IG and 'Nids could both Friendly Fire and it would be very fluffy. Think Commicars for the IG and Ripperswarms/digestion pools for the 'Nids. Additionally, SM's & Terminators could easily benefit from flamers beng shot into cc. They would trust in their armor to protect them.

In the section highlighted orange:
How do cheap units benefit more? The more expensive units have a better save. By the time the marines take enough wounds to do any damage the Orks will be wiped out.
If your opponent is dumb enough to spend half of his shooting hits killing his own models, I say let him.
Honestly, Meq - Geq - and Horde would all benefit equally depending on when the Friendly Fire rule is used.

In the section highlighted red:
Your assertion that the game is balanced when concerning assault units having to be in cc to survive is only true for some units.
There are plenty of cc units that do not need to be in cc to survive.
Also, I believe that the math indicates that most of the combats these units are in, are resolved with a winner in a single round of cc.
By the time it becomes the opponents shooting phase these units are usually back out in the open any way.. This means that your supposed "significant nerf" is more likely a minor one that could easily be mitigated.


Now, I would like it if you joined the conversation with constructive advice. Please feel welcome to join the conversation.
If you only want to express your exasperation, distaste and contempt for the concept, you've done so and can now move on.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

doktor_g wrote:Orks Nids DE and chaos should be exempt. If we are talking "hard choice." well at least Nids should be exempt.by exempt I mean allowed. No leadership penalty.

Good idea about the 'Nids. What about Commisars and Inquisitors? Should they also be exempt?

From a fluff perspective, Space Marines (at least most chapters) would not fire on their own troops in a swirling melee for fear of friendly fire. Loyalist marines are a brotherhood with bonds forged in the crucible of battle; one does not forsake those bonds and risk causing a casualty of one of your brothers to kill a lowly Ork boy. Seeing as how nearly 50% of all codices are some form of loyalist marine, the rule already wouldn't be a universal one, from a fluff perspective.

For game balance, I'll provide a scenario. Let's say an IG army and an Ork army. My 20 guardsmen are in CC with 5 nobz, and I'm really terrified of what that power klaw is going to do to my tanks. So I take my Leman Russ and fire my battlecannon into the melee. The interesting part about this rule is that it benefits templates and blasts, as the units are all bunched, and further benefits armies with lots of models to score lots of wounds. I target my 20 guardsmen all conveniently packed together, and roll a hit (or scatter low enough it doesn't matter). I can safely assume I'll get no less than 10 models, seeing as how close the models are all together. On 4+ they hit the enemy, so 5 wounds to the nobz, 5 wounds to my Guard. I lose 25pts of models, the nobz only get their 5++ cybork (assuming they buy it) and lose 3 (on a good day). That's a minumum of 60pts in models (likely more with upgrades like bosspoles and klaws), and a significant portion of that model's close combat ability.

That's how its broken. There are numerous ways to abuse this rule if its put in place. The game is balanced so that CC units are immune from shooting in CC. CC units have mediocre to poor shooting (or none at all) to compensate for this, and often have to weather a turn or two of shooting before hitting the front lines. By denying them that ability, you effectively tip the game to favour shooting even further. This will always boost armies like Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and IG, who already bring a staggering amount of firepower to the table.

The idea behind the balance of CC units and shooty ones, is that the shooty ones are generally effective from turn 1 on, while the CC ones need a few turns to get into assault. Once there, if the CC units aren't immune from shooting while in assault, they will get even further slaughtered against shooting.

The point I'm trying to make it is that its not as fluffy a rule as you think, as each army would behave very differently. It can't be a universal rule, and it can't be specific either as it would be an unfair advantage. Some armies don't care about shooting at their own, while others care very much. You may not have liked what I said earlier, but it was constructive, you just misconstrued the way I wrote it in a negative way. I don't do sparkly and happy criticism. This is not a good rule, simply put.

I don't really see a point to purposefully shoot at a unit of your own unless they are in melee with a particularly dangerous enemy unit and the unit of yours is pretty much expandable. Like conscripts vs assault termies for example. But for example firing at a unit of your own terminators out in the open is just silly.

I also do not see the point to sire at my own sternguard for example when they are in melee with an enemy unit (important unit or not) because they are too valuable.

But the basic idea does have a point. It should just be more limited because otherwise it would be too easy to exploit. If I remember correctly in fantasy battles the Skaven had a rule that allowed them to fire into close combat. They still might have it, I just haven't played it for the last two editions. But my point being that something similar could be used to pull off friendly fire. Making a new special rule perhaps. "Expandable" (I think a rule with that name is somewhere already but am not sure...) or something that would allow the unit to be shot at by your own units when it is in close combat, with a risk to kill your own troops. Although that could be exploited too...

If we allow this, it opens the discussion on Epidemius tricks against allies [ie. Grots) in order to Max Tally.

As mentioned above, implementing this rule does hurt CC oriented units as they are no longer immune to being shot at. However, my friends and I play with similar rules (without Ld modifiers) but the tables we play on are typically smaller than average. We use this rule to prevent one powerful CC unit from slaughtering a more shooty army before the shooty army even gets a chance to respond.

And to Blacksails's point about the Leman Russ and blast markers, we count the normal blast marker as 3 hits and the large blast marker as 5 hits, if that makes any difference.

I'd love for the ability to have your troops shoot into close combat, but under certain restrictions.

1) Snap Fire rules are used.
2) Any To Hit rolls of 1 hit your own units (this roll cannot be re-rolled for any reason).

Essentially rolls of 2-5 mean the firer simply was unable to get a clear shot and didn't fire. Roll of 6 means he managed to draw a bead and opens fire. 1 means he managed to draw a bead on a target and something bad happened....like his poor mates head suddenly being in the path of his shot as he pulls the trigger.

Blacksails wrote:From a fluff perspective, Space Marines (at least most chapters) would not fire on their own troops in a swirling melee for fear of friendly fire. Loyalist marines are a brotherhood with bonds forged in the crucible of battle; one does not forsake those bonds and risk causing a casualty of one of your brothers to kill a lowly Ork boy. Seeing as how nearly 50% of all codices are some form of loyalist marine, the rule already wouldn't be a universal one, from a fluff perspective.

*snip*

The point I'm trying to make it is that its not as fluffy a rule as you think, as each army would behave very differently. It can't be a universal rule, and it can't be specific either as it would be an unfair advantage. Some armies don't care about shooting at their own, while others care very much. You may not have liked what I said earlier, but it was constructive, you just misconstrued the way I wrote it in a negative way. I don't do sparkly and happy criticism. This is not a good rule, simply put.

1)We are going to have to disagree on whether a SM Captain would order his troops to use there flamers on the Genestealers that are 1" away from assaulting the SM screening unit right in front of them. Or on an ork mob tying up the scoring unit that needs to get to a critical objective. You believe brotherhood would prevent such and I believe that sense duty and faith in ther armor would.

When comparing reasons, I will go for the grimdark realistic choice of great sacrifice over the inabilty to make the hard decision for fear of hurting a fellow marine. It is war, they all know the score.

I belive that it is very fluffy, but I would have no problem if GW gave such a rule to all armies except Loyalist SM's.

BTW, no, it was not constructive. It was just criticism. Just as is your statement that "This is not a good rule, simply put". Constructive criticism is were you point out a possible flaw in something in so that it can be corrected/improved rather than trying to get everyone to give up on it because you don't like the concept.

Criticism/=constructive criticism

*Hint-Try offering solutions or at least point out the flaws with the attitude of trying to help improve the idea/rule

gaovinni wrote:I don't really see a point to purposefully shoot at a unit of your own unless they are in melee with a particularly dangerous enemy unit and the unit of yours is pretty much expandable. Like conscripts vs assault termies for example. But for example firing at a unit of your own terminators out in the open is just silly.

I also do not see the point to sire at my own sternguard for example when they are in melee with an enemy unit (important unit or not) because they are too valuable.

But the basic idea does have a point. It should just be more limited because otherwise it would be too easy to exploit. If I remember correctly in fantasy battles the Skaven had a rule that allowed them to fire into close combat. They still might have it, I just haven't played it for the last two editions. But my point being that something similar could be used to pull off friendly fire. Making a new special rule perhaps. "Expandable" (I think a rule with that name is somewhere already but am not sure...) or something that would allow the unit to be shot at by your own units when it is in close combat, with a risk to kill your own troops. Although that could be exploited too...

For your first 2 sentences, I refer you to my reply to Blacksails above. Also to elaborate on the firing on your own units:
Imobilized/wrecked tank blocking the path of escape/victory
Shooting flamers though your anti-assault screen
A forward unit wants to order an artillery barrage or an Airstrike with a "Fire on my position". (This would be a cool rule for forward scouts in some instances)
If the way GW has been letting models get taken over by the enemy, we might need to have such a rule before long

Now, I do agree that the rule should be carefully designed to minimize exploitation and thank you for the constructive criticism. I will be modifying the OP as the discussion brings forth coherent revised versions and/or ideas that there seems to be a consensus on.

Thanks for the input.

later

focusedfire wrote:

Blacksails wrote:From a fluff perspective, Space Marines (at least most chapters) would not fire on their own troops in a swirling melee for fear of friendly fire. Loyalist marines are a brotherhood with bonds forged in the crucible of battle; one does not forsake those bonds and risk causing a casualty of one of your brothers to kill a lowly Ork boy. Seeing as how nearly 50% of all codices are some form of loyalist marine, the rule already wouldn't be a universal one, from a fluff perspective.

*snip*

The point I'm trying to make it is that its not as fluffy a rule as you think, as each army would behave very differently. It can't be a universal rule, and it can't be specific either as it would be an unfair advantage. Some armies don't care about shooting at their own, while others care very much. You may not have liked what I said earlier, but it was constructive, you just misconstrued the way I wrote it in a negative way. I don't do sparkly and happy criticism. This is not a good rule, simply put.

1)We are going to have to disagree on whether a SM Captain would order his troops to use there flamers on the Genestealers that are 1" away from assaulting the SM screening unit right in front of them. Or on an ork mob tying up the scoring unit that needs to get to a critical objective. You believe brotherhood would prevent such and I believe that sense duty and faith in ther armor would.

When comparing reasons, I will go for the grimdark realistic choice of great sacrifice over the inabilty to make the hard decision for fear of hurting a fellow marine. It is war, they all know the score.

I belive that it is very fluffy, but I would have no problem if GW gave such a rule to all armies except Loyalist SM's.

BTW, no, it was not constructive. It was just criticism. Just as is your statement that "This is not a good rule, simply put". Constructive criticism is were you point out a possible flaw in something in so that it can be corrected/improved rather than trying to get everyone to give up on it because you don't like the concept.

*Hint-Try offering solutions or at least point out the flaws with the attitude of trying to help improve the idea/rule

Space Marines have a special rule that allows them to fall out of combat if they so choose. That, for all intents and purposes, represents their ability to fall out of a swirling melee and either shoot it to death or re-engage (hopefully with some help). The overwhelming vast majority of chapters in most situations are not going to willy-nilly shoot into CC with whatever weapons they have on hand, which is what your rule is attempting to recreate in an alleged fluffy manner.

This rule become imbalanced if half of the codices can use it, and the other half can't. Its just silly at that point.

You seem to be working under a different definition of criticism than I am. I am in no way obligated to provide any suggestion to make this rule better, or even to make it work in the first place. I have pointed out the flaws of this rule a few times already, which is criticism. I have explained my point and backed up it up with examples. My criticism can simply be "I don't like this rule because of 'x'" and you would have to accept that as a valid rebuttal. The fact that I've written out my reasons in organized, well thought out responses only furthers my point that everything I have said to this point has been valid criticism, I'd even go as far as calling it constructive when I tried to explain my reasoning why this rule doesn't and shouldn't exist from a fluff and game balance perspective.

As I've said in countless threads, text does not convey emotion well. I don't write my posts with a particularly flowery flair; they are blunt and to the point, even sarcastic at points. If you take offense to my writing style, I can't help you. I'm simply trying to explain in the easiest way possible why this idea is just a bad idea.

Step back for a minute and understand that this rule is broken to favour shooting armies over close combat armies. You have also failed to mention what effect this would have on vehicles or blast markers/templates. Just think about what an IG army with a horde of conscripts could do to tie up a particularly strong MC or two from the enemy and proceed to shoot Vendettas at it while locked in CC. Or an ork army shooting kannons, dakka jets, boomguns and deffguns into a melee with boyz and an elite CC unit. Then think about how this would work with allies now, and how most armies would be able to abuse this rule.

Basically, my point boils down to two fold. The first being that there isn't sufficient fluff reasons to allow ~50% of codices to shoot at each other (hell even Guard would be a stretch, as most regiments are not slaughter oriented like Chenkov is) in most situations. Sure, there might be one or two scenarios you could conceive of a bunch of tactical marines shooting flamers around terminators, but overall, most marines will not shoot if there is a good chance (50% in your rule) of hurting a brother. Remember that in the fluff, a bolter is perfectly capable of killing a marine with a few well aimed shots.

My second point is with game balance and how it drastically favours shooty armies. What Ld are vehicles? 10 all around, or different per codex? Are you going to have to come up with Ld values for each individual vehicle, and what fluff will you base it on? Why will some armies be incapable of using the rule, others be able to use it without Ld modifier, and others with full penalty? It directly affects how certain codices play and you have to understand that. Most shooty units have poor choppiness, and most choppy units have poor shootiness. Its one of the tenets of 40k; shoot the choppy one, chop the shooty ones. Thats fine because once the choppy ones start doing their thing, you, as a shooty army, will need to reposition and prepare for the choppy unit once its out of combat. CC units have to endure at least one full turn of shooting before ever making it into CC, often more than that, allowing shooty armies to either kill or whittle them down to low effectiveness. That's the balance of the game, and overall, it works pretty well. Denying CC units safety in CC opens up a can of worms of game balance that is far more complex than you might have originally thought.

Honestly, go look at common builds of every codex and analyze their strengths and weakness, and then imagine how it would affect them if they could shoot into CC.

Anyways, you can carry on as you please, but if you're going to post here, the least you can do is be open to criticism (no matter how harsh or how much you may not like it) and think about, rather than try and tell them they're wrong.

Blacksails wrote:You seem to be working under a different definition of criticism than I am. I am in no way obligated to provide any suggestion to make this rule better, or even to make it work in the first place.

As I've said in countless threads, text does not convey emotion well. I don't write my posts with a particularly flowery flair; they are blunt and to the point, even sarcastic at points. If you take offense to my writing style, I can't help you. I'm simply trying to explain in the easiest way possible why this idea is just a bad idea.

Step back for a minute and understand that this rule is broken to favour shooting armies over close combat armies. You have also failed to mention what effect this would have on vehicles or blast markers/templates. Just think about what an IG army with a horde of conscripts could do to tie up a particularly strong MC or two from the enemy and proceed to shoot Vendettas at it while locked in CC. Or an ork army shooting kannons, dakka jets, boomguns and deffguns into a melee with boyz and an elite CC unit. Then think about how this would work with allies now, and how most armies would be able to abuse this rule.

Basically, my point boils down to two fold. The first being that there isn't sufficient fluff reasons to allow ~50% of codices to shoot at each other (hell even Guard would be a stretch, as most regiments are not slaughter oriented like Chenkov is) in most situations. Sure, there might be one or two scenarios you could conceive of a bunch of tactical marines shooting flamers around terminators, but overall, most marines will not shoot if there is a good chance (50% in your rule) of hurting a brother. Remember that in the fluff, a bolter is perfectly capable of killing a marine with a few well aimed shots.

My second point is with game balance and how it drastically favours shooty armies. What Ld are vehicles? 10 all around, or different per codex? Are you going to have to come up with Ld values for each individual vehicle, and what fluff will you base it on? Why will some armies be incapable of using the rule, others be able to use it without Ld modifier, and others with full penalty? It directly affects how certain codices play and you have to understand that. Most shooty units have poor choppiness, and most choppy units have poor shootiness. Its one of the tenets of 40k; shoot the choppy one, chop the shooty ones. Thats fine because once the choppy ones start doing their thing, you, as a shooty army, will need to reposition and prepare for the choppy unit once its out of combat. CC units have to endure at least one full turn of shooting before ever making it into CC, often more than that, allowing shooty armies to either kill or whittle them down to low effectiveness. That's the balance of the game, and overall, it works pretty well. Denying CC units safety in CC opens up a can of worms of game balance that is far more complex than you might have originally thought.

Honestly, go look at common builds of every codex and analyze their strengths and weakness, and then imagine how it would affect them if they could shoot into CC.

Anyways, you can carry on as you please, but if you're going to post here, the least you can do is be open to criticism (no matter how harsh or how much you may not like it) and think about, rather than try and tell them they're wrong.

As I've said. There is a difference between criticism and constructive criticism. If you are unable to distinguish the difference then...yes, we do have differing definition. At least until you can comprehend the difference.

Case in point, the sections I've highlighted in orange is the first time that you have given what could be viewed as constructive criticism. There is detailed analysis of weaknesses proposed in a manner and language that is not overly contentious an allows for discussion on possible ways to correct the issues. This is different than just saying that this is unfair to x army and the rule is bad.

Due to this being constructive criticism, I have started to add provisions for Vehicles and blast weapons as you have suggested. I will add/change more as the discussion moves forward/ a consensus is reached.
I will say that the 3rd paragraph in orange provides a good source for topic points on how to balance the rule and will try to wrk it into the op as well.

This last section I highlighted in yellow. You might want to compare our profiles. I was posting on this forum long before you. Do not mistake that because I usually lurk these days(Have other things to do with my life) with my not being familiar with how to run a thread on this forum.

Again, there is a difference between criticism and constructive criticism.
BTW, if you have a problem conveying tone on the interwebs, Dakka has created a nice little tool callecorkmoticons to help with this. Give them a try.

Neat Idea...How about...

on a 1 the unit firing at its allies refuses to shoot and begins to fall back.
on a 2-3 the unit does nothing
on a 4,5 the unit fires as per rules below.
on a 6 the firing unit fires and feels good about it and becomes immune to the leadership modifiers that results from shooting on friendly units. We made the right descision.

Shooting
Shots are resolved at BS skill 1. For each hit roll a d6. on a 4+ you hit an enemy unit. on a 3- you hit one of your own.
If the firing unit is a BS 6 or a Sniper, shots are BS 2 and on a 3+ you hit an enemy and on a 2- you hit a friendly unit.

Take a Leadership test
After all shots and wounds have been resolved the firing unit takes a leadership test with their normal leadership minus the number of friendly hits (not wounds, hits). If the unit fails this test, it is unable to do anything next turn. If assaulted during the next turn, all models suffer -1 WS.

That should make it a more rare scenario, favoring snipers and high BS models who should be able to make those hits normally, but also add some stringent repurcussions as well.

@DrCrook- I like your concept, but I feel that there should be an army wide negative or at least a units within LoS might need to suffer a leadership loss or at least make some sort of test.

I am also leaning towards having the squad hit by friendly fire suffer a Pinning check if in the open and maybe roll leadeship or become Initiative 1 if is suffers any unsaved wounds from friendly fire.
This would represent the chance that they didn't get a warning of the incoming shots and are totaly suprised by a hail of shots from a new direction.

Maybe put in wording that if the friendly unit being fired upon contains the commander then no penalties will apply due to his heroic act.

I really want this to be a very rarely used but extremely fluffy rule.

Any ideas on the wording or if you guys even like the direction I am heading? Am willing to change stuff if discussion leads me to believe that it is going to far afield.

How about adding in a requirement that the firing unit contain a 'ranking' character, or has some clear C&C link to a ranking character.

Would Joe Guardsman really risk shooting into one of his own units without CRYSTAL clear orders. He'd worry about the consequences if he got it wrong.

Another potential tweak to concider is a 'Nobody heard that' rule.

If a unit is ordered to fire on their mates (or if mates don't fit the fluff somebody who owes them a debt, knows where the booze it hidden etc) they might just kill the commander giving the order instead, and pretend nobody heard the order, they were all too busy diving for cover/looking for the sniper etc.

maybe roll 2D6 or 3D6, all 1's and you loose the ranking character. Makes it a high risk strategy, but potentially a risk worth taking

The big problem with global leadership modifiers is that I don't see a scenario where the cost benefit is really worth it to shoot at a unit at BS 1 hoping for a hit while simultaneously potentially hitting one of your own guys and also risking a big leadership drop across the large portion of the army.

The ONLY scenario I could think of (if global leadership drop is in affect) where it might be viable is somebody has a deathstar in combat with a unit that you could consider disposable. But to kill a deathstar or make it worth doing it you would need to fire multiple squads of your strongest weapons into it. You will probably cause at least 1 wound on your own guys, but now you are much more likely to have your own troops driven off the board by leadership failures.

I like the idea, but it also has to have some tacticle advantages to it. The biggest abuse would probably come from any armies with a high number of shots, like shooty orks. 30 mob shoota boyz with 3 big shootas in it, or 15 lootas. Those are squads that need to put down heavy fire every turn on high priority targets.

The biggest abuse would be multiple times per turn/game. I would say limit 1 use per turn, and on the second use, 3rd use, 4th use start incorporating global leadership drops increasing the risk each time.

Its a good idea, its often a viable strategy, The people out there arguing the fluff angle, get some creativity out and argue for it, arguing against a rule on fluff is silly...its fluff, make it up, space marines are genetically modified to be super, they probably have the mentality, "I can hit it".

Just keep in mind this rule will probably never hit the books, if it does, it will be 7th edition, so 6 editions since 1987...maybe 4.167 years down the road...

So long as you come up with something that is fun and acceptable to your friends.

Eldar, Necrons, and Grey Knights all have ways to shoot their own guys.

That being said, shooting into an assault is a pretty terrible game option as you just create tar pits to hold people still to be shot like ducks.

I feel there should be a leadership test to do so, but a universal special rule added: Ruthless tactics, which exempts some troops from this rule allowing them to shoot as they please.

Isn't this the same rule as the rule in the LOTR game?

Hmmm.. Yes it is. It's a good one.
I don't think you should have the -1 modifier to moral however. Orks and Nids are to dum to understand moral, and in the Guard lives are less important than Lasguns.
In most other armies, shooting your own troops would be seen as stupid due to the fact that they could survive and continue to fight (the armies are too Elite to consider such a tactic).

-Farseer Tahril


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and btw, how can Eldar shoot thier own guys btw?
I don't remember seeing that rule anywhere.

-Farseer Tahril