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.

hobojebus wrote:
Only army that should fire into combat is skaven.

I know I'm going to regret asking, but... do you have anything other than "because that's what used to happen" as an explanation?

For once, it would help to diversify the armies in AoS. Fluff-wise the "righteous" factions surely wouldn't recklessly fire into their own ranks for obvious reasons. However, I can see Orcs n Goblins doing the same thing, since they have a similar disregard for their allies' wellbeing.

There are plenty of reasons, really.

BertBert wrote:
For once, it would help to diversify the armies in AoS. Fluff-wise the "righteous" factions surely wouldn't recklessly fire into their own ranks for obvious reasons.

Stormcast eternals are shown in the fiction to frequently shoot in melee. They even go so far as to target the front ranks of the enemy engaged with their own front ranks - this is attributed to the supreme skill of the judicators lore-wise.

I see. I'm not too famiiar with AoS publications. So you're saying they shoot into melee because they are skilled enough to never hit an ally anyway?

It's still a stretch to call it a mechanic. Troops in melee are treated just like troops standing in the open for the purposes of being targeted by shooting. There's no penalty, no chance of hitting your own guys, nothing.

I'd like to see more shooting into combat, myself, and not just with skaven - but there needs to be some sort of downside. Not just for the purposes of balancing, but also because it seriously breaks immersion. What, every goblin with a curved branch and bit of grimy string is Legolas now?

I think the 'good guys' should be able to do it as well, but I also think they should be roundly mocked by their opponent every time they shoot one of their brave champions of order in the back

BertBert wrote:
I see. I'm not too famiiar with AoS publications. So you're saying they shoot into melee because they are skilled enough to never hit an ally anyway?

Yes. The front line soldiers have absolute faith in them not to hit them and so far it has not happened. Also, they have been shown to use quick and coordinated tactics like dispersing their frontline troops so that crossbow men can shoot through the gaps which are swiftly closed afterwards.

RoperPG wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Only army that should fire into combat is skaven.

I know I'm going to regret asking, but... do you have anything other than "because that's what used to happen" as an explanation?

You know that's the only reason..

As BertBert said though, I always thought the greenskins should have that as well since they couldn't care less about eachother's well-being.

BertBert wrote:
I see. I'm not too famiiar with AoS publications. So you're saying they shoot into melee because they are skilled enough to never hit an ally anyway?

Indeed, their bolts are also made of magical energy so another justification can be that their armor is made to be immune to their own shooting via repelling that energy. In the similar manner of how Romans made their armor to resist being shot by their own weapons(such as ballista bolts)in case an enemy captured and used them.

@Spinner, that could be a good idea. Maybe a bravery penalty or doubling the battleshock casualties by shooting into combat.

Thanks for elaborating! Stormcast could be the exception, then.
For the rest of the armies, however, a change might be in order.

At least for Skaven, since using their own units as literal cannonfodder has always been an integral part of their character and battle tactics. It's really weird that suddenly they can blast and bomb the battlefield without repercussions.

I'd suggest making it a high-risk-high-reward-thing, akin to how the ratling gun worked back in WHFB.

For example: Add +1 to all hit rolls if the target unit is engaged in melee with a friendly unit. If the unit is hit, roll another D6: If the roll is 1-2, the damage is allocated to your own unit instead (or to both units)..

This would reflect the treacherous nature of the skaven and also represent the enemy being pinned down by a horde of rats, not being able to dodge incoming fire.

Baron Klatz wrote:

@Spinner, that could be a good idea. Maybe a bravery penalty or doubling the battleshock casualties by shooting into combat.

I dunno - as I understand the AoS rules, that means that if you're winning, there's absolutely no penalty for firing into combat. Something like BertBert's suggestion for skaven makes more sense to me, but I'd honestly prefer 'misses hit your own troops'. It's simple, requires no extra rolling, and draws a clear line between skilled and unskilled archers.

RoperPG wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Only army that should fire into combat is skaven.

I know I'm going to regret asking, but... do you have anything other than "because that's what used to happen" as an explanation?

yeah, and the reason is that skaven are massive d-bags to each other and would do that. I could see orcs doing it, but as an accident (due to incompetence)

 thekingofkings wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Only army that should fire into combat is skaven.

I know I'm going to regret asking, but... do you have anything other than "because that's what used to happen" as an explanation?

yeah, and the reason is that skaven are massive d-bags to each other and would do that. I could see orcs doing it, but as an accident (due to incompetence)

I could see them doing it as a laugh. Or because Ratgit in that mob over there spat on the archer's favorite boots, so who cares if he gets shot in the back? Or the archer's buddy Groblug is bored and bet him five teef and his second-best squig that he couldn't put an arrow in that stunty's eye before Morgash krumps him. Or...

Greenskins are the best.

 Spinner wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Only army that should fire into combat is skaven.

I know I'm going to regret asking, but... do you have anything other than "because that's what used to happen" as an explanation?

yeah, and the reason is that skaven are massive d-bags to each other and would do that. I could see orcs doing it, but as an accident (due to incompetence)

I could see them doing it as a laugh. Or because Ratgit in that mob over there spat on the archer's favorite boots, so who cares if he gets shot in the back? Or the archer's buddy Groblug is bored and bet him five teef and his second-best squig that he couldn't put an arrow in that stunty's eye before Morgash krumps him. Or...

Greenskins are the best.

Love it, I love my night goblin/grot force, they are ridiculous little doofus army, I even traded for silver tower to add the spidergrots

Yeah, they should be able to twang a few arrers in the general direction of the bigger gitz for good measure.

the pointy end clearly goes into the uvver guys

Baron Klatz wrote:
In the similar manner of how Romans made their armor to resist being shot by their own weapons(such as ballista bolts)in case an enemy captured and used them.

That's not the case at all. Romans used softer metals for their pillum tips so they'd bend in the ground after being thrown and were useless as returning fire. No way could segmenta lorica (spelling?) withstand a ballista bolt.

I guess you could magic away the risk of hitting your own guys, but making everyone so good at it they can't cause friendly fire is like something out of a video game. Maybe make the odds of SCE causing friendly fire rare (like on 1's), but make it pretty likely for skaven/goblins/beastmen

Meh real life disagrees about shooting into combat otherwise there would be less use of the terms green on green, friendly fire and collateral damage. Personally I think its fine (the game mechanic, that is).

We use two house rules for firing during/into melee to make it more risk reward anyways, try them out:

Into melee: to hit rolls of a one are resolved against friendly models.

During melee: models in base to base contact cannot shoot ranged attacks unless they have the hero or monster keyword.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Meh real life disagrees about shooting into combat otherwise there would be less use of the terms green on green, friendly fire and collateral damage. Personally I think its fine (the game mechanic, that is).

I can't think of a single example of friendly fire that hasn't been due to misidentification or incompetence - No-one in real life is stupid enough to open fire on an enemy whilst there are friendlies in the area, unless it's absolutely critical.

It's an absolutely crazy tactic and no sane general would try it, unless treachery is afoot, or your using conscripts or foreign soldiers or something.


In game, shooting into melee / scrums there should be about an even chance of hitting your own guys (like every other game).

There have been a few cases in history where a commander in a position called down artillery on his own location as he was being overrun by an enemy attack. It is very unusual, though.

I think in 40K some armies should be allowed to shoot at their own men pretty routinely. I can see IG, Orks and Tyranids doing it.

IDK about AoS armies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There have been a few cases in history where a commander in a position called down artillery on his own location as he was being overrun by an enemy attack. It is very unusual, though.

Sorry, that happens, but it's a last resort and normally when the unit is essentially already lost. It's not something you'd do in a normal battle.

I think in 40K some armies should be allowed to shoot at their own men pretty routinely. I can see IG, Orks and Tyranids doing it.

For the IG at least, life is regarded as cheap, so risking shooting at your own men seems fair enough if the reward is right, but I don't think the same would apply to fantasy and AoS in particular. Maybe Chaos would find it reasonable to kill some of their own to bring down a Sigmarine?

I like Warmahordes how you can target your guys, though soon can't charge them, rightly. But I was hoping that was the case but I see how the rules say enemy model. Oh well, still funny at times.

Herzlos wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There have been a few cases in history where a commander in a position called down artillery on his own location as he was being overrun by an enemy attack. It is very unusual, though.

Sorry, that happens, but it's a last resort and normally when the unit is essentially already lost. It's not something you'd do in a normal battle.

I think in 40K some armies should be allowed to shoot at their own men pretty routinely. I can see IG, Orks and Tyranids doing it.

For the IG at least, life is regarded as cheap, so risking shooting at your own men seems fair enough if the reward is right, but I don't think the same would apply to fantasy and AoS in particular. Maybe Chaos would find it reasonable to kill some of their own to bring down a Sigmarine?

Well the khornates upon first seeing a stormcast were pushing past each other and trampling others to get into combat. They were that excited to see a new foe.

I think that it makes more sense when you realise there is no 'locked in' combat in AoS. Merely that if you are within 3" of an enemy unit you can pile in and attempt to attack, you can also leave that bubble (with a small penalty). Why does it make more sense for a unit to be able to shoot the enemy when they have friends an inch away from them in WFB. Cos they aren't locked in combat and you are looking at it with some abstraction? Do the same with AoS.

Dai wrote:
I think that it makes more sense when you realise there is no 'locked in' combat in AoS. Merely that if you are within 3" of an enemy unit you can pile in and attempt to attack, you can also leave that bubble (with a small penalty). Why does it make more sense for a unit to be able to shoot the enemy when they have friends an inch away from them in WFB. Cos they aren't locked in combat and you are looking at it with some abstraction? Do the same with AoS.

Well, in WHFB abstraction made sense, while in AoS there is absolutely no need for abstraction, since they went down in scale. Each model does now represent exactly and only itself and the rules should be able to cope with that. If you are not a super-soldier (which, granted, many individuals in AoS may be) you will not switch to a ranged weapon when engaged in close combat. It's a question of priority and reason.

@Herzlos, just to clarify, by bolts I mean those dart-like projectiles, not the javelins they usually shoot that would skewer a horse. (It was shown on a documentary with test-firing that the armor could survive the impact.)

We're getting a little off topic here (par the course as usual), I was comparing the shooting in combat to TW not RL.

@Dai, excellent point.

[Edit]: @BertBert, haha, good counter-point.

Herzlos wrote:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Meh real life disagrees about shooting into combat otherwise there would be less use of the terms green on green, friendly fire and collateral damage. Personally I think its fine (the game mechanic, that is).

I can't think of a single example of friendly fire that hasn't been due to misidentification or incompetence - No-one in real life is stupid enough to open fire on an enemy whilst there are friendlies in the area, unless it's absolutely critical.

It's an absolutely crazy tactic and no sane general would try it, unless treachery is afoot, or your using conscripts or foreign soldiers or something.


In game, shooting into melee / scrums there should be about an even chance of hitting your own guys (like every other game).

Really I think WW had many instances of such things happening and short range arrow fire into two blocks of infantry fighting doesnt equal 50/50 unless you generally close your eyes when you shoot?.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Meh real life disagrees about shooting into combat otherwise there would be less use of the terms green on green, friendly fire and collateral damage. Personally I think its fine (the game mechanic, that is).

I can't think of a single example of friendly fire that hasn't been due to misidentification or incompetence - No-one in real life is stupid enough to open fire on an enemy whilst there are friendlies in the area, unless it's absolutely critical.

It's an absolutely crazy tactic and no sane general would try it, unless treachery is afoot, or your using conscripts or foreign soldiers or something.


In game, shooting into melee / scrums there should be about an even chance of hitting your own guys (like every other game).

Really I think WW had many instances of such things happening and short range arrow fire into two blocks of infantry fighting doesnt equal 50/50 unless you generally close your eyes when you shoot?.

Have you ever tried firing an arrow at a target that's moving back and forth? I can barely hit a static one. It's probably not 50/50, as it'd depend on the number of bodies moving about in your way, but it's a whole lot lower than 100%.

Unlike the archer, does AoS have a future then?

Herzlos wrote:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Meh real life disagrees about shooting into combat otherwise there would be less use of the terms green on green, friendly fire and collateral damage. Personally I think its fine (the game mechanic, that is).

I can't think of a single example of friendly fire that hasn't been due to misidentification or incompetence - No-one in real life is stupid enough to open fire on an enemy whilst there are friendlies in the area, unless it's absolutely critical.

It's an absolutely crazy tactic and no sane general would try it, unless treachery is afoot, or your using conscripts or foreign soldiers or something.


In game, shooting into melee / scrums there should be about an even chance of hitting your own guys (like every other game).

Really I think WW had many instances of such things happening and short range arrow fire into two blocks of infantry fighting doesnt equal 50/50 unless you generally close your eyes when you shoot?.

Have you ever tried firing an arrow at a target that's moving back and forth? I can barely hit a static one. It's probably not 50/50, as it'd depend on the number of bodies moving about in your way, but it's a whole lot lower than 100%.

Arrow no, gun yes, but thats not the point as im not trained in either and am not in a fantasy world being portray via a 'game' so what ever but seriously if your replying to my whole point then, it never was 100%, lets take SCE judicators who are mortal heroes reforged by a godly being, they hit on a 3+ so whats that two thirds of the time they hit, as of the game they care not if it is a charging horse, a static gun line or a swirling melee, they find there mark 2 out of 3 shots, so i'm not changing that part as thats a can of worms right there and as no one else is either pointing out that obvious discrepancy, i see little issue with the melee part if you dont draw issue with the to hit versus charging cavalry vs static gun line part but after all thats another tangent, back too melee shooting, my house rule was they hit friendlies on a 1, as they hit on a 3+ that leaves hitting nothing on a 2, seems like a fair spread, Id rather not have it so there's zero chance of hitting the ground after all, that being the largest target.
As for my point to answer the 'goodies' not shooting into combat and there apparently not being a single example of such things what do you reckon happened to all the people in no mans land during WW1/2 that got wounded or just went to ground out of fear or failed charge when they started shelling the each others trench lines again? Thats not accidental green on green, that the horrible truth of wars.
For a more thematic example, romans used to throw javalins at short range over the front lines of melee and I'm sure there has been plenty of times when a block of infantry has been failing or being routed and the commander orders volleys of arrows down onto its foe, or you know he could wait for everyone to die first while the enemy obviously stay put and dont advance while thats happening so they can take turns like in the game?! Seriously shooting into/out of combat maybe op as a game mech but canonically it makes senses and logically is totally plausible.
If you wanna nerf it more be my guest this is a game you play with friends try out different stuff.
You wanna further put the pressure on how about you use my hit friendlies on a 1 rule and add that any friendly casualties count against the shooter for bravery tests, then you could have some flee as they dont like the idea of friendly fire. You could further the effect with a to hit chart for shooting into combat:
To Hit 2+ = miss on 1 = no FF (super human)
To Hit 3+ = miss on 2 = FF on 1 (highly skilled)
To Hit 4+ = miss on 3 = FF on 1 or 2 (averagely skilled)
To Hit 5+ = miss on 4 = FF on 1, 2 or 3 (reckless abandon)
To Hit 6+ = miss on 5 = FF on 1, 2, 3, or 4 (legally blind)

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Unlike the archer, does AoS have a future then?

If people like the models then its likely, as GW seem to be recently positively progressive, which is not normally in there vocab i can see it winning a lot of favor long term as the more stubborn and apposed see more and more changes in GW that they like and agree with.

So they hit 2/3rd of the time, what happens when they miss? Where's the risk/reward part of the strategy? If nothing can go wrong, then it's an automatic to shoot in. If your misses cause hits on your own guys, or the target is randomized somehow, then you at least get to decide if it's worth it.
It's one of these things that for me at least breaks immersion.

Re trenches - a lot of people were killed by suppressing barrages, but the enemy lines were separated.

Re Romans throwing pilum over the front rank; there's still a huge difference between throwing a spear over the man in front of you into an enemy unit you haven't engaged with yet (I don't believe they did it whilst engaged? but even if they did, the risk is pretty low unless you really feth up).

Re opening fire on destroyed friendlies, fair enough.

I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.

Whilst I'm sure I'll get accused of goalpost shifting here (because I was too vague earlier), you still haven't given me a single example of real life willful friendly fire that is an equivalent to the in-game effect we're discussing.

Herzlos wrote:
I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.

You mean like orcs would have? Or chaos? Or undead? Or skaven? Or even a simple nobelman who had just ordered a rabble of worthless peasant militia to engage the enemy's elite soldiers to hold them in place so his archers can kill the much more valuable enemy troops?