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.

.

With most armies, it would be entirely fluffy for them to choose to risk there on personnel for a chance to kill more enemies, either due to confidence in their own armor/abilities (Marines) or disdain for their fellows (orks)

however, from a Mechanics standpoint, it gets difficult to determine who gets hit by what. in your example, orks, who by fluff would be the most likely to shoot into a melee, gameplay wise would NEVER do it, as for every shot that hits an enemy, 2 are hitting boyz. whereas elder, the army whose fluff least supports such action, would do so much more often.

A better way, IMHO, would be for the shooting player to roll to hit against the melee, and the defending player gets an additional 4+ save, rolled before armor/cover/invuln and each successful save hits the shooting players unit.

For games with more than 2 factions (IE 3+ players, no teams) than replace shooting player in that last sentence with "the unit not declared as target"

I'd generally, no. At the most genous level, a Leadership check to do so.

If you can fire into a friendly combat, I really thing you need rules to see if those "friendlies" turn around and shoot you.

I think the last couple of editions have been slanted in favor of shooting enough without adding this.

That could be fun. Treat everyone locked in combat as a single unit. Closest die first, remember?

I recall a scenario in the 5th edition rule book for a three-sided combat with rules for shooting into a melee since conceivably a fight could break out between your two opponents.

In concept it was roll to hit as usual, but then you randomized the hits between the units.

I think this should be a special rule for Imperial Guard conscripts.

Expendable: a unit with at least one model with this rule, when engaged in close combat, does not prevent friendly models from shooting at the engaged enemy unit. All shots targeting the engaged enemy unit are snap shots, and enemy models receive a 5+ cover save (for intervening models). For every successful save, the wound is instead allocated on the 'expendable' unit.

I think it favours shooting even more.

My vote is no. I haven't seen a proposal for this idea in three editions now that I liked.

I think it would be funny but only if you use a friendly CtA DA or maybe even AoC

with a LD check

and random allocation (roll hits per weapon, roll them again to 4+ the enemy 3- on your own guys then wound as normal)

It makes sense with something as disposable as a unit of kroot or eldar tricky pirates who would probably come kill you later again anyway.

As much as this would help my Necrons and IG out, I have to agree with what others have said. These past few editions have helped us shooty armies enough without being able to shoot our own units to kill the enemy who is in close combat with them.

Although it makes fluffy sense for armies to shoot into melee, I say no simply because the balance already vastly favors shooting as is.

I have to say 'no' to the idea as well. We already musical wound allotment games with way more units then I care to think about getting as many as 3 saves per wound. Adding in a further complication of being able to shoot into a combat of multiple forces is just going to further over-load an already over burdened rule system.

This is in several multiplayer scenarios (I remember a 5e one and the 4-way Carnage! epub). If your models aren't in the fight, fire away!