<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "For the greater good...or whatever."]]></title>
		<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/16.page</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Latest messages posted in the thread "For the greater good...or whatever."]]></description>
		<generator>JForum - http://www.jforum.net</generator>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Okay, too many times now I have noticed that I will lose all but one model in an assault.  Then, in my following shooting phase, I have tons of available firepower that could blast away at this massive horde of enemies who are about to tear the lone survivor apart AND THEN tear the rest of the army apart...but I can't.  And I want to know how other people think.<br /> <br /> If <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(50);'>GW</span> instituted ANY kind of fire into assault rule I would be happy.  I would be willing to take a fifty-fifty chance of hitting my own guys.  I would be willing to accept that a miss autohits my own guys.  I would be willing to accept that my guys take a wound for every wound the enemy takes.  i would accept it if I had to target and fire on my own unit, and could only shoot at the enemy once I had mercy killed all of my own men!  Anything, anything....<br /> <br /> Does anyone else agree with me?  Or am I wrong?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/971424.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/971424.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:36:12]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Jimsolo]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I see your point, but that rule makes it possible for non <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(95);'>MEQ</span> armies to be able to be able to be assaulty armies.  It would make perfect sense for a bunch of marines to shoot at a gorup of marines that are in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span> with my squishy Dark Eldar, cause T4,3+ save is WAY better than T3, no save (vs bolters).  That would be the end most assaulty armies though.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/971459.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/971459.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:00:25]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ kuro_khan]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Definitely agree. I actually pondered this very topic a few weeks ago when my the left flank of my <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span> gunline got rolled into by Grey Knight Termies. Two of the guardsman survived and managed to save (partly because of the Lord Commissar standing just behind them). It comes around to my turn, and I'm pondering the two Leman Russ Vanquishers w/ HM-<span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(80);'>LCs</span> and <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(51);'>HBs</span> in the sponsons, sitting on a hill about 4" behind the commissar. I know the current rules forbid it, but the cold, hard, fluffy truth is that Mr. Pointy-Hat is going to order the tank crew to open fire if they don't take it upon themselves to do so. I've actually proposed a house rule to my local players letting <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span> units order such attacks using rules similar to the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span> "Orders" rules.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988291.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988291.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:01:44]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>jinshiryuu wrote:</cite>Definitely agree. I actually pondered this very topic a few weeks ago when my the left flank of my <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span> gunline got rolled into by Grey Knight Termies. Two of the guardsman survived and managed to save (partly because of the Lord Commissar standing just behind them). It comes around to my turn, and I'm pondering the two Leman Russ Vanquishers w/ HM-<span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(80);'>LCs</span> and <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(51);'>HBs</span> in the sponsons, sitting on a hill about 4" behind the commissar. I know the current rules forbid it, but the cold, hard, fluffy truth is that Mr. Pointy-Hat is going to order the tank crew to open fire if they don't take it upon themselves to do so. I've actually proposed a house rule to my local players letting <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span> units order such attacks using rules similar to the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span> "Orders" rules.</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> Logically, yes, they would fire into the mob.  But don't you agree this would spell the end to most assault armies?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988363.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988363.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:11:04]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ kuro_khan]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>kuro_khan wrote:</cite><br /> Logically, yes, they would fire into the mob.  But don't you agree this would spell the end to most assault armies?</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> Not really. I think an army built to "assault" would still be able to do so effectively. Just because a commissar orders a tank squadron to blow away two guardsman to kill off a mob of Boyz, isn't going to stop the other nine bajillion greenskins from rolling over your gunline. I will say what it would spell the end of is mixed-tactic armies, like <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span>'s or Eldar, or at least mixed-tactic lists. That's one of the reasons I said it should be some sort of <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>Ld</span> test to do, probably with hefty penalties to the roll, maybe -1 per friendly unit in the melee. That way it becomes an option (it's a sick tactic, but the fluff supports it), but not someting you can rely on.<br /> <br /> ...of course, that brings up the argument of who the Victory Points go to...<span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(84);'>lol</span>]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988407.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988407.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:36:02]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Keep in mind that there is no necessity to take any kind of save against wounds. The rulebook states that you are allowed to make saves, not that you must take saves. So, if you want a unit to die, it should be perfectly in order to refuse to take any saves, increasing their chances of dying, so you can fire into the bunched up enemies.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988455.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988455.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:26:46]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Witzkatz]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>Witzkatz wrote:</cite><br /> Keep in mind that there is no necessity to take any kind of save against wounds. The rulebook states that you are allowed to make saves, not that you must take saves. So, if you want a unit to die, it should be perfectly in order to refuse to take any saves, increasing their chances of dying, so you can fire into the bunched up enemies.</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> The other way to circumvent this issue would be to have armies other than <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span>'s actually have the neurons to realize they just had their butt handed to them and choose to fail the morale test and fall back voluntarily. It's a calculated risk, because they may get overrun and destroyed, and either way the winner gets a consolidating move they can use to try and find cover from follow-up shooting the next phase, so maybe that would be a better solution balance-wise. The assault-army player would just have to be crafty enough to utilize cover (or at least move close to another unit and hope they hold still for the cover save). But then <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(50);'>GW</span> would have to come up with a new way to make <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span>'s better than everyone else, since that's effectively what Combat Tactics does for you.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988486.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988486.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:56:51]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Shooting your own models will take away the assaulters only "cover" (outside of real cover-saves) from beeing shot to pieces.<br /> <br /> I dont think this could be balanced with hitting your lonely surviviors (which are already to die).<br /> <br /> The solution i would suggest is to allow barrage to aim at locations rather then units.<br /> May work like a barrage order in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(324);'>DOW</span> ( <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(331);'>pc</span>-game ), so more focus at the meaning of "barrage".<br /> <br /> This should also mean a barrage hits both armies, so you're able to make any assaulters suffer a lot before reaching the gunline.<br /> <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(114);'>OTOH</span>, such tactic wont help against infiltrators or outflankers.<br /> <br /> Maybe:<br /> <br /> - declare aimed area at begining of your shooting phase.<br /> - set a unit on 'barrage' mode. This unit does nothing than barrage the target area for the next turn.<br /> - unset of 'barrage' mode should cost a turn. Sustained barrage should go on until you order them to unset ( cease fire ).<br /> - every trespasser of this area receives a full salvo of the units set to barrage this area.<br /> - normal rules still apply, but scatter is always measured from the middle of the target area ( place marker? )<br /> <br /> I see the "shoot your own to spare them from horrific deaths" or "shoot your sacrifical units"  from a fluff perspective as viable,<br /> but i believe it is hard to justify the change this would make to game-balance.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988502.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988502.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:07:32]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ 1hadhq]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Play Space Marines and make use of Combat Tactics to fail your <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>LD</span> test after losing the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span>.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988650.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/988650.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:22:32]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Alkasyn]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I would personally love to see the end of assaulty armies, in a universe with las cannons and plasma guns, nobody should be trying to get close. It's like saying a guy in a bomb squad suit with a chainsaw should beat a guy with an 50. cal...]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/989421.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/989421.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:29:51]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Norade]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>Norade wrote:</cite>I would personally love to see the end of assaulty armies, in a universe with las cannons and plasma guns, nobody should be trying to get close. It's like saying a guy in a bomb squad suit with a chainsaw should beat a guy with an 50. cal...</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> Well, .50 cal machinegun rounds are relatively slow . . .]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/989855.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/989855.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 21 Sep 2009 03:03:24]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Writerski7]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ So you think everyone should just have shooty armies.  Yeah, that would be a fun game.<br /> <br /> Turn 1:<br /> Player 1<br /> I don't move any of my guys.<br /> I shoot<br /> Player 2<br /> I don't move any of my guys.<br /> I shoot<br /> Turn 2:<br /> Player 1<br /> etc...<br /> <br /> Such excitement... like a NASCAR race.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/990068.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/990068.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 21 Sep 2009 05:35:46]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ kuro_khan]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>Norade wrote:</cite>I would personally love to see the end of assaulty armies, in a universe with las cannons and plasma guns, nobody should be trying to get close. It's like saying a guy in a bomb squad suit with a chainsaw should beat a guy with an 50. cal...</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> The thing is, the Warhammer was based on Dune for the most part.<br /> <br /> In Dune, personal shields are so powerful that any gun is obsolete. Besides the lasgun of course, which is ridiculously powerful. Oh and contact between the two creates huge explosions.<br /> <br /> Anyway, a lot of armor in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(3);'>40k</span> is like that. Except no explosions.<br /> <br /> I just think that assault shouldn't be so powerful. If there wasn't run and the ever-abundant 4+ cover save, then assault wouldn't be nearly as bad. In fact, it would be quite balanced. ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/990082.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/990082.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 21 Sep 2009 05:45:41]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Quintinus]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>Writerski7 wrote:</cite><br /> Well, .50 cal machinegun rounds are relatively slow . . .</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> Depends on the .50 -&gt; <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWmg5bXvCW4" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWmg5bXvCW4</a><br /> <br /> <blockquote><div><cite>kuro_khan wrote:</cite>So you think everyone should just have shooty armies.  Yeah, that would be a fun game.<br /> <br /> Turn 1:<br /> Player 1<br /> I don't move any of my guys.<br /> I shoot<br /> Player 2<br /> I don't move any of my guys.<br /> I shoot<br /> Turn 2:<br /> Player 1<br /> etc...<br /> <br /> Such excitement... like a NASCAR race.</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> Only if you're duking it out in Kansas. Any decent amount of terrain is going to force movement of units to accomplish objectives and obtain <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(85);'>LOS</span>. The most boring games I've seen are usually assaulty armies, to be honest...<br /> <br /> Move, Run, Move, Run, Move, Charge (Lather, Rinse Repeat)....<br /> Unless they're <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(305);'>GK</span>'s, then it seems to be Move, Shoot, Move, Shoot, Move, Shoot, Charge.<br /> <br /> To be honest, how &quot;exciting&quot; a game is going to be has nothing to do with the army &quot;type&quot;, it's going to be a factor of the table layout and the experience/tactical skill or the players involved. And all the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(280);'>OP</span> was commenting on was a way to avoid situations where one poor schmuck with a popgun is surrounded by a horde of chainsaw-wielding maniacs and the rest of your army has to stand around like they have ringside seats and watch him get turned into meatloaf the next phase. There are specific situations/weapons/armies that have an out for this, but I <i>think</i> the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(280);'>OP</span>'s post was just a post on how assaulty the game is oriented. And that particular argument is not only a matter of personal opinion, it changes from edition to edition, and even the codices alter it from time to time.<br /> <br /> I don't want to see the &quot;end&quot; of assaulty armies. Assault doesn't necessarily mean chainsaws and spiky meat cleavers either. If you consider anytime a unit had to take a bunker in WWII, or a modern SWAT team going through the front door of a house, those are all assaults. Short-range, lethal, maybe some <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(58);'>HtH</span>. I do think any army which relies heavily on assault should have to use speed, cover and stealth to accomplish it's mission (or hordes of troops).<br /> <br /> Having had a few days to consider it, I can see where someone might use a rule allowing you to fire into a close-combat as a way to truly slaughter assault-based armies. Send a cheap squad to assault the enemy, use a line formation so some of the units remain &quot;unengaged&quot; in the back and tie them up in assault, hope they survive the next round and open fire on the poor remaining fodder/enemy combo. At the same time, I've seen that exact tactic used in reverse, to allow an assault-heavy army to tie up a gunline with cheap, fast units, then use that delay to move the chainsaw maniacs up to finish the job. There is no perfect scenario, no completely balanced set of rules. Anytime you try to model a situation with artificial rule systems, some things end up being made arbitrary or unconsidered, because a ruleset to cover even <i>most</i> of the possible situations would take a few semis to tote around. And anytime you start creating an artificially constrained environment like wargaming rules, there are going to be people who figure out how to use certain rules/combos/loopholes to their advantage. I personally would love to have a way to withdraw my troops from a close-combat without having to play vanilla <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span>'s. I like <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span>. I'd like my troops (hell, I'd settle for officers Orders) to be able to fall back when that 'nid swarm overwhelms them. I'll take the chance on losing them in a Sweeping Advance, they're meatloaf anyway. But as much as I might want it, it's not going to happen (outside of a friendly match house rule), so I have to try and think ahead and decide if it's worth leaving them in the trenches for the cover, or having them fall back and suck up the loss of the cover save while they reposition. That's my responsibility as the &quot;leader&quot; of the army. IF you have an assaulty army, it's your responsibility to use cover and speed to close up before the big guns can perforate your force. More importantly though, it is the responsibility of all of us to remember that wargame should be written war<i><u>game </u></i>and concentrate on having fun. ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/992611.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/992611.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:34:58]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I agree completely with the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(280);'>OP</span>. I have always wanted to do it. Especially since I pretty much always played Chaos I felt it was appropriate. ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/992629.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/992629.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:43:52]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Deuce11]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ can i just say that this pisses me off alot, becuase like a majority of the poeple here I would rahter sink a bunch of shells into that squad and take a 50/50 chance hitting my guys or based on numbers in line of sight and ratio of enemy to allie troops rather than not shoot just cuase i "can"t shoot and a pile of squishy targets that happen to be crazily attacking somone. Oh and fluff wise i think almost every army would do it.  Let see <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span>, oh yeah there will be a pie template on that squad, tau, OH hell yeah for the greater good.  dont get me started on that.  Spacemarines, definate check. Orks common they put snotlings in a gun to shoot at people ofcourse they are going to shoot an assaulting mob of people. only time i can see it not happening is if maybe its a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>hq</span> in close combat and still alot of armys would still shoot.  In fact in every video game and all the pictures you see units taking fire and being in melee combat at the same time. So i say. Time for a change.   <br /> <br /> OH and for all the assalt type armys they all just got a buff with the run rule so no more qq ing.<br /> <br /> <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(17);'>btw</span> this should be a poll question and be sent to games workshop with the millions of votes it gets ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/992906.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/992906.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:28:49]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Gold tooth Jerry]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I would play it as something like this:<br /> <br /> "During the player's shooting phase, controlling player may fire at enemy units locked in combat at Normal <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(14);'>BS</span> unless the fireing unit's <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(14);'>BS</span> is 4+ whereby the unit will use <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(14);'>BS</span> 3. If any shots fail to hit then the controlling player's unit which is locked in the same combat must take the hits, whereby roll the to wound and save rolls as normal. The same <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(14);'>BS</span> modifications apply to blast weapons. <br /> <br /> Sniper weapons and similar xenos counterparts are not affected by the above <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(14);'>BS</span> modifier."<br /> <br /> I know the language is a little shaky and would need work if it were to be published but I think it gets the point across.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/993901.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/993901.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:27:41]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Deuce11]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Sure, that would be great for marines.  Oh, i hit my own guy?  (Shrugs) T4 and 3+ save means I probably didn't hurt him.<br /> <br /> Ooh.. squishy eldar.. only need to roll a 3+ to wound, and he's toast!<br /> <br /> Eh, well that seems to be what <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(50);'>GW</span> and most marines players want, all marines all the time!]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/993937.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/993937.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:43:31]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ kuro_khan]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>kuro_khan wrote:</cite>Sure, that would be great for marines.  Oh, i hit my own guy?  (Shrugs) T4 and 3+ save means I probably didn't hurt him.<br /> <br /> Ooh.. squishy eldar.. only need to roll a 3+ to wound, and he's toast! </div></blockquote><br /> <br /> I see your point... however I wouldn't imagine the dying race that eldar are to sacrifice precious comrades. <br /> <br /> Eldar seems to be the best example of where this tactic would not work as they are elitists, so their points are relatively high although not <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(95);'>MEQ</span>. But generally speaking, horde armies can afford the sacrifice and <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(95);'>MEQs</span> can risk it do to their save. Tau simply have no better choice! Eldar are naturally caught in the middle as is the nature of the army as whole <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(72);'>IMO</span>.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/994027.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/994027.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:26:01]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Deuce11]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I just hate how many <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span> armies are in your lines on their turn 2 for assault. I mean really, <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(334);'>wtf</span> is the point of even haveing a shooty army since on average you get one maybe two turns of shooting before you are killed. That and everyone now gets a 4+ save (unless you are an idiot and place stupidly) ontop of Run/fleet.<br /> <br /> Awsome, thank god I have six turns total on average. That means 4-5 turns of hand to hand I have to try to deal with.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/994440.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/994440.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:06:08]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jp400]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ In <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(86);'>LotR</span>, only Evil models are allowed to shoot into melee, and it is random who you hit. ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/994457.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/994457.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:14:37]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ dietrich]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ You do realize this would make ranged models effective at every range they can hit while decreasing how effective assault units would be Because now there dieing even after there shooting gallery run across the board.<br /> <br /> There is a bit of finesse too two assault army's fighting too. you have to decide weather it worth it to charge now for the extra attacks or can you move a bit more for a more favorable unit.<br /> <br /> All in all it be fine with me if you could shoot in to <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span> but then when i kill a unit ( or you do ) shouldn't I be able to consolidate in to your guys and finish off the rest of my attacks if i can any left ?   ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/995399.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/995399.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:07:55]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ deviant cadaver]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I gave it some thought, and I've come up with what I think is a decent "house" rule. I've tried to be as even-handed as possible and hopefully covered most contingencies as well. I know quite a few people, especially those who run assault-heavy armies won't like the rule at all. I'm not suggesting this should be placed into an errata as an official rules update, just offering it as an option to players who would like to use such a rule. Thoughts, tweaks, suggestions, scenarios/issues I've missed or neglected and constructive feedback would all be appreciated.<br /> <font color='green'><b>_______________________________________________________</b></font><br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[1] "But Sarge', those are <i>our</i> men..."</b></span><br /> During their shooting phase, any unit may choose to fire into a close combat, rather than shooting as normal. All of the normal rules for shooting apply, and range is determined by measuring to the closest <i>enemy</i> model(s). Normally, troops will be hesitant to fire into close combat (compassion for their fellow troops, no clear lines of sight to individual targets, preservation of assets, etc). In order to fire into a close combat, the unit must make a successful Leadership test. Any rules which would modify the unit's <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>Ld</span>, or apply to the unit's Morale checks  (<i>eg</i>:  a Lord Commisar's <b>Aura of Discipline</b>, or Cato Sicarius' <b>Rites of Battle</b>]) apply as normal for purposes of making this check, even though it is not actually a Morale test (although, yes, a commisar's <b>Summary Execution</b> rule [is]should[/i] apply) should probably also appl. This represents leaders being able to enforce their will on their troops. If the unit passes the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>Ld</span> test, they may then fire into the close combat. If they fail the test, they cannot choose an alternative target. They are assumed to have lost their nerve, failed to get even a mediocre line of sight, etc).<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[2]"...on these coordinates..."</b></span><br /> <b>[2a] Firing with standard (non-template/non-blast) weapons:</b><br /> The unit rolls to hit as  normal, but before rolling to wound, the opposing player is allowed to roll the <i>equivalent</i> of a cover save (4+) for being obscured by an intervening unit. Any hits which are negated by this special circumstance "save" are applied to the friendly unit instead of against the enemy unit. Wounds are then rolled for and distributed as normal (in the interest of emotional fairness, the opposing player should be allowed to make the Wound rolls against the friendly unit). Normal saves (or other methods of resisting/ignoring wounds) apply for all the combatants.<br /> <br /> <b>[2b] Firing with template and blast marker weapons:</b><br /> Since the models are only a static representation of a "swirling" melee, it is unfair to allow the player to simply place the template as normal, as it would be too easy to place the template where it only touched enemy models. Instead, the player places the template so it covers as many enemy models as possible (the normal way). Enemy models which are under the template are allowed the same 4+ "cover save" (even though template weapons normally disallow cover saves) as above, with successful saves being applied to the friendly unit instead. <i>In addition</i>, any friendly model which falls under the template takes an automatic hit, in addition to those incurred by the opponent's "cover saves". After determing hits, roll for wounds and normal saves as you typically would.<br /> <br /> <b>[2c] Firing with blast marker weapons:</b><br /> Blast markers are placed as normal, with the exception that any model in the melee, friendly or enemy may be the initial target. Roll for scatter as normal and any model (friend or foe) under the marker takes a hit as normal.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[3] "Friendly fire isn't..."</b></span><br /> Soldiers typically will not stand around when their own artillery starts dropping shells on them. At the end of the Shooting phase, any friendly unit involved in a close combat you fired into must make an immediate Morale check, <i>even if they suffered no unsaved wounds</i>. There is a penalty of -1 for every friendly unit or squadron that fired into the combat. In addition, each blast or template weapon used incurs a further -1 penalty. If the unit fails the Morale check, they fall back immediately. All rules for sweeping advances and consolidation moves apply as normal. If the friendly unit is completely wiped out, the enemy unit may make a consolidation move (if they are normally allowed one). Units without a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>Ld</span> stat do not need to make this check.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[4] "Cadavera vero innumera..."</b></span>s<br /> If there are multiple units for one or both sides engaged in close combat, simply roll randomly to distribute hits from standard and template weapons. Blast weapons are handled normally.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[5] "Tanks a lot..."</b></span><br /> If one or more units involved in the combat is an engaged vehicle, all of the above rules apply normally, substituting "vehicle" where it says "unit". Hits against the vehicle are applied against the facing as they would normally be determined.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[5] "To the victor go the spoils..."</b></span><br /> Friendly units that are damaged/destroyed by firing into close combat are counted as victory/kill points for the opposing player.<br /> <font color='green'><b>_______________________________________________________</b></font>]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1003980.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1003980.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:14:00]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ These rules are well thought out and reasonable unbiased. <br /> <br /> The only things i can see trouble with is your making shooting units better while making assulting units worse.<br /> <br /> any rules suggestions to even this out ?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005073.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005073.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:40:35]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ deviant cadaver]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>deviant cadaver wrote:</cite>These rules are well thought out and reasonable unbiased. <br /> <br /> The only things i can see trouble with is your making shooting units better while making assulting units worse.<br /> <br /> any rules suggestions to even this out ?</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> I have given it some thought, but to be honest, I'll probably have to do some playtesting before I can work on tweaking it won way or another. A lot of the "advantage" this is giving to shooty armies is offset by the damage you're doing to your own unit. The ultimate goal is to make it a last-ditch option, not a "viable tactic". Perhaps a better "cover save" for the enemy unit. At the moment, the 4+ is basically making it a 50/50 chance you hit your guys or the opponent's. I'm not sure I would want to see it lowered to a 1/3 chance to hit the enemy, but then, perhaps that might be better, especially since it stems from the frustration of having one guy stuck in melee with a beefy assault unit about to overrun them. Or perhaps working up rules for squads to carry smoke grenades with them so they can provide cover for themselves. Soldiers have been using that technique for decades (centuries if you allow for things like units advancing after cannon batteries have pounded the enemy and filled the battlefield with smoke and dust).<br /> <br /> Other options I am thinking about are working the optional "fallback" rule back into the game (so your mauled unit can try to get the hell out of the way), or to create some sort of rule allowing <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span> units to "order" troops to fall back. I know a subject like this is always going to be a point of contention among players, and it's probably going to go back and forth with every edition as they "tweak" the rules. I personally feel that with the new rules making transports more survivable and a ton of ways to get cover (including the cheesy two squads giving each other cover as they advance "loophole"), that the balance in this edition has shifted to assault-heavy armies. <br /> <br /> The two caveats I would point out to that are that 1) I like shooty (probably left over from being USMC), so my opinion can be said to be biased and 2) <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(50);'>GW</span> has always modeled the game very heavily on WWI trench-style warfare, with a liberal sprinkling of WWII airborne and bunker assaults thrown in for flavor. So the game is naturally going to have a heavy bias towards close-combat. The "reality" of  modern warfare is very different, and chainsaw wielding maniacs would just be fodder unless they outnumbered the opponent heavily, but it's not really possible to try and project "reality" into the mix, because you would have to basically rewrite the entire thing into a new game. All we can do is roll with what <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(50);'>GW</span> gives us and if we make "house" rules, try to make something that is consistent and balanced, that allows everyone to play what they want and have fun with it.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005251.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005251.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:09:21]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ i think it should depend heavily on the army to modify the leadership test necesary to pass like chaos or orks would get a -2 to the result nearly always being able to shoot them but things like tau and eldar would get a +2 weakinging their ability to shoot at their allys]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005313.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005313.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:48:53]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ deffskullz]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>deffskullz wrote:</cite>i think it should depend heavily on the army to modify the leadership test necesary to pass like chaos or orks would get a -2 to the result nearly always being able to shoot them but things like tau and eldar would get a +2 weakinging their ability to shoot at their allys</div></blockquote><br /> It could also be argued that the Eldar are willing to make sacrifices (Exarchs sacrificed to summon the Avatar, the Solitaire is condemned to have their soul consumed by Slaanesh) and the Tau come with an option to turn one of their battlesuits into a suicide bomber in case they get overrun.<br /> <br /> I did actually consider that certain armies might get a bonus or penalty when I came up with the rule, but then I decided that 1it was already enough of a change to the game flow/balance to make it further without further complicating the balance issue by making certain armies more or less likely to do it (chaos <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span>'s vs loyalist <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span>'s comes to mind for that one). In addition, once you start down that line of "detail" those modifiers would be likely to change depending on certain special units/models being on the board(Lord Comissars, Chaos Lords), which units are being fired at (Orks wouldn't think twice about firing on squigs or grots, but probably not the warboss), which units are doing the shooting (heck, a Chaos dreadnought might do it anyway even if his side is winning, just because he's psycho) and any army becomes more likely to do so as their numbers dwindle (calling down that last desperate artillery strike on yourself as you're being overrun so to speak). All in all, it just becomes a big swamp of numbers that just penalize or reward certain armies based on fluff (which makes a certain amount of sense), but it's hard enough to keep the game balanced as it is, so ultimately I decided to pass on army/unit-based mods for those reasons.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005434.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005434.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:58:11]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ just so I understand, you roll a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(24);'>d6</span> per hit to determine wound distribution (enemy or friendly hit)... THEN you roll saves? <br /> <br /> I can live with that... makes my <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(167);'>tac</span> marines wearing the equivalent of 2+/4+ armor <img src="/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gif" border="0">]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005450.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005450.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:10:54]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Horst]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>Horst wrote:</cite>just so I understand, you roll a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(24);'>d6</span> per hit to determine wound distribution (enemy or friendly hit)... THEN you roll saves? <br /> <br /> I can live with that... makes my <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(167);'>tac</span> marines wearing the equivalent of 2+/4+ armor <img src="/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gif" border="0"></div></blockquote><br /> <br /> Correct. For every successful hit, you roll a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(24);'>d6</span> and on a 4+ (so it's 50/50) the wound is taken by the friendly unit, not the enemy unit. The unit still gets any saves it would normally get (armor, cover, invulnerable) that it would get as if it were being fired on without being in a close combat. The exception being weapons which use a blast marker, where hits are taken based on which models are under the template. If the marker ends up over four enemy and one friendly unit, then the enemy squad takes 4 hit and the friendly squad takes 1, with no "special cover save". Just straight up being allowed to fire blast weapons (like an earthshaker cannon) into the fray.<br /> <br /> I'm also considering if there should be some sort of provision based on number of models remaining in the unit or something like that. The biggest way I can see this being abused is for high armor/toughness units (dreadnoughts, terminators, wraithlords) wading into melee to up units so they can't maneuver, advance or fire and then the engaged unit being subjected to incoming fire as well. The idea behind the rule is that if a unit is battered and about to be overrun anyway (that poor single guardsman or fire warrior standing idiotically defiant in the face of the ten possessed space marines who just chewed through the squad) might find itself the lucky recipient of a "Captain Harris" to protect the remainder of the force.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005466.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005466.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:21:07]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ The only thing about that is the ratio of friendly to enemy troops. If you have 1 <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span> Captain vs a mob of 30 Orks... you're much more than likely to hit the Orks than the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span>. Though I suppose the problem with that line of thought is it's 'realistic' and <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(3);'>40k</span> is FAR from that...]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005478.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005478.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:33:40]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ anticitizen013]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ thats a good point anti...<br /> <br /> maybe add a modifier to the 4+ dice off depending how many friendly models you have in the close combat?<br /> <br /> say, if you outnumber them 2 - 1, its a +1 to the roll in their favor. (so it hits a friendly 66% of the time)<br /> <br /> if you outnumber them 3 - 1, its a +2 in their favor. (so it hits a friendly 83% of the time)<br /> <br /> this is a good idea, to prevent people from just holding say a unit of space marine terminators with thunder hammers with a block of 40 conscripts with a lord commissar behind them...]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005484.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005484.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:41:00]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Horst]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Your rules seem fair, ive always wanted something like that in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(3);'>40k</span>....its such a grim/dark place, with some of the most heartless examples of humanity (and inhumanity) anywhere, and we cant shoot into a combat?  Doesn't seem to fit.<br /> <br /> Only thing I would add is that I think the wounds caused by said shooting should be added to combat resolution...maybe with a modifier for the friendly side for being shot at (after all, having your own side shoot you is quite a shock).  What do you think?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005554.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005554.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:32:57]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ ChristmasMarine]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>ChristmasMarine wrote:</cite>Only thing I would add is that I think the wounds caused by said shooting should be added to combat resolution...maybe with a modifier for the friendly side for being shot at (after all, having your own side shoot you is quite a shock).  What do you think?</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> I considered that, but since the attack is going to occur during the shooting phase, I thought it would be better that have a separate Morale check instead of modifiying the combat resolution. Normally models in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span> don't have to make Morale checks, but in this case I think it would be warranted.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><div><cite>anticitizen013 wrote:</cite>The only thing about that is the ratio of friendly to enemy troops. If you have 1 <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span> Captain vs a mob of 30 Orks... you're much more than likely to hit the Orks than the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span>. Though I suppose the problem with that line of thought is it's 'realistic' and <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(3);'>40k</span> is FAR from that...</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> I had considered that as well, but didn't want things to get too math intensive, but...<br /> <br /> <blockquote><div><cite>Horst wrote:</cite>thats a good point anti...<br /> maybe add a modifier to the 4+ dice off depending how many friendly models you have in the close combat?<br /> say, if you outnumber them 2 - 1, its a +1 to the roll in their favor. (so it hits a friendly 66% of the time)<br /> if you outnumber them 3 - 1, its a +2 in their favor. (so it hits a friendly 83% of the time)<br /> this is a good idea, to prevent people from just holding say a unit of space marine terminators with thunder hammers with a block of 40 conscripts with a lord commissar behind them...</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> This seems reasonably simple to implement. The question there being should it go the other way as well? If the friendlies are outnumbered 2-1 then a -1 penalty to the 4+ roll, 3-1 then a -2penalty?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005964.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1005964.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:29:54]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ The only problem I have with it now is what happens if you finish of your own unit then can you shoot at them normally? <br /> <br /> The biggest thing that i see that makes it fair is that after your shooting phase its combat then my turn so I get a chance to react before too much has happened.<br /> <br /> How so you feel about a 4+ cover if they where in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span> at the start of the turn from shooting. In all fairness the whole army should be shooting at once.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1009625.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1009625.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:52:21]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ deviant cadaver]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>deviant cadaver wrote:</cite>The only problem I have with it now is what happens if you finish of your own unit then can you shoot at them normally? <br /> The biggest thing that i see that makes it fair is that after your shooting phase its combat then my turn so I get a chance to react before too much has happened.<br /> How so you feel about a 4+ cover if they where in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span> at the start of the turn from shooting. In all fairness the whole army should be shooting at once.</div></blockquote><br /> I'm a bit torn on that one. Without the cover save (if you wipe out all of your men) it makes them more vulnerable. The counter-argument is that typically if a unit is destroyed (or a vehicle explodes), the models are removed from the board and no longer block line of sight. The counter to that being this isn't a typical situation. The entire issue sort of revolves around the idea that your opponent might 20-30 orks (as an example) basically "hiding behind" a single guardsman or the like (it prevents firing just as well as a wall to hid behind does). <br /> <br /> Honestly, unless it's advanced well ahead of anything else even remotely threatening, that assault unit shouldn't draw everyone else's fire. And if it does... well, you sent your <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>cc</span> troops in unsupported (aka suicide mission), because you either meant for them to draw fire to let the rest of your army advance (so drawing the fire is what you want), or you made a tactical error (live and learn) or you had a battle plan that involved dropping a heavy-hitting <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>cc</span> unit close to the opponent's gunline and use the assault rules to wipe them out one unit at a time and consolidate move into/behind cover (whether terrain or up close to another unit). Admittedly, it's not as bad as it used to be when an assault unit could consolidate straight into another <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span>.<br /> <br /> In my opinion, the cover save should go away once the last remaining member of the unit dies, but that's only my opinion and I've already admitted to being "shooty" biased. What's everyone else think?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1009885.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1009885.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:41:39]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I think if you cant' consolidate into <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span> then keeping the cover save could be fair.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1046130.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1046130.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:48:38]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ deviant cadaver]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Way back you used to be able to voluntarily lose an assault and let your guys try to run for it. I think going back to that system would be best. Even if it means the remains of that unit are auto-destroyed, it is just 90% of the time a huge detriment to one player (usually the losing player) to have one last man standing who only will be defeated in their assault phase leaving their opponent able to move, shoot, then assault again, chaining their assault across the table. I think this happens more often than it should be "fair." Give players more latitude with tests.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1046199.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1046199.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:08:32]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Skinnattittar]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ It's a fine idea and I don't really see assault armies being completely ruined by it; they can shoot into combat as easily as the other guy after all.  Nurgle <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(22);'>CSMs</span> would love this rule; they would run in through a hail of friendly fire and wipe whole units.  Especially since chaos is immune to all the psychological stuff anyway.  I don't see the Tau doing it (based on fluff), but then tau screens of drones could be an exception (who cares if a little robot gets shot up?).]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1046286.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1046286.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:36:35]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ agnosto]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ The problem with a "shoot into assaults" rule is that, I think, pretty much all but a handful of the armies would actually do it in the fluff. So if this rule would be given to everybody, well, people would do it whenever they feel it would provide benefit towards winning the game rather than whether or not their army would be doing it at that time. So I think it would water down the flavor of the game some more. As you said, Agnosto, Nugle Marine players would do it as a matter of course, regardless if real Nurgle Marines would do it in reality. I don't think anyone likes getting shot in the back, whether they think it won't harm them or not, getting that one in fifty pink in the back of your head, thus killing you, is not a fun prospect.<br /> <br /> Some armies it is in their fluff to do it as a matter of course/disregard for the safety of their own troops.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1046451.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1046451.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:40:40]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Skinnattittar]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Alright, how about this, All missed shots have a 50/50 chance of hitting your own people? It's simple, straightforward, and you can do it on a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(24);'>d6</span> roll.<br /> <br /> Step 1: Roll to hit.<br /> Step 2: Remove all dice that rolled misses and put them into a pile.<br /> Step 3: Use the remaining dice to roll to wound, saves, whatever<br /> Step 4: Take the dice that were previously put in a seperate pile.<br /> Step 5: Roll to hit. All hits wound, unless wounding is impossible (Strength to Toughness test)<br /> <br /> It's appropriately dangerous, but with potential to still be useful. What do you think?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1046619.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1046619.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:22:53]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ crazypsyko666]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I'd only be moderately ok with it if wounds and saves happened BEFORE the 50/50 split happens. <br /> <br /> My squad of <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(27);'>DE</span> Wyches are in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span> with your tin cans.<br /> <br /> (making up random #'s here)<br /> You shoot into combat, 20 bolters<br /> 14 hit<br /> 8 wound (vs T3)<br /> Wyches don't get a save against bolters, so 8 unsaved wounds.<br /> <br /> <br /> THEN you do the 50/50, that way on avg 4 wyches and 4 marines die.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1047676.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1047676.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:23:30]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ kuro_khan]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I think We should make use of the leadership and Initiative. They should make both rolls, if they fail one of the two they cannot shoot into close combat but if they passed they can. I mean it makes since.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1047698.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1047698.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:37:30]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Zarco]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I've thought about it, And I like what jinshiryuu said, but with a few added on things.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><div><cite>jinshiryuu wrote:</cite><br /> <font color='green'><b>_______________________________________________________</b></font><br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[1] "But Sarge', those are <i>our</i> men..."</b></span><br /> During their shooting phase, any unit may choose to fire into a close combat, rather than shooting as normal. All of the normal rules for shooting apply, and range is determined by measuring to the closest <i>enemy</i> model(s). Normally, troops will be hesitant to fire into close combat (compassion for their fellow troops, no clear lines of sight to individual targets, preservation of assets, etc). In order to fire into a close combat, the unit must make a successful Leadership test. Any rules which would modify the unit's <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>Ld</span>, or apply to the unit's Morale checks  (<i>eg</i>:  a Lord Commisar's <b>Aura of Discipline</b>, or Cato Sicarius' <b>Rites of Battle</b>]) apply as normal for purposes of making this check, even though it is not actually a Morale test (although, yes, a commisar's <b>Summary Execution</b> rule [is]should[/i] apply) should probably also appl. This represents leaders being able to enforce their will on their troops. If the unit passes the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>Ld</span> test, they may then fire into the close combat. If they fail the test, they cannot choose an alternative target. They are assumed to have lost their nerve, failed to get even a mediocre line of sight, etc).<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[2]"...on these coordinates..."</b></span><br /> <b>[2a] Firing with standard (non-template/non-blast) weapons:</b><br /> The unit rolls to hit as  normal, but before rolling to wound, the opposing player is allowed to roll the <i>equivalent</i> of a cover save (4+) for being obscured by an intervening unit. Any hits which are negated by this special circumstance "save" are applied to the friendly unit instead of against the enemy unit. Wounds are then rolled for and distributed as normal (in the interest of emotional fairness, the opposing player should be allowed to make the Wound rolls against the friendly unit). Normal saves (or other methods of resisting/ignoring wounds) apply for all the combatants.<br /> <br /> <b>[2b] Firing with template and blast marker weapons:</b><br /> Since the models are only a static representation of a "swirling" melee, it is unfair to allow the player to simply place the template as normal, as it would be too easy to place the template where it only touched enemy models. Instead, the player places the template so it covers as many enemy models as possible (the normal way). Enemy models which are under the template are allowed the same 4+ "cover save" (even though template weapons normally disallow cover saves) as above, with successful saves being applied to the friendly unit instead. <i>In addition</i>, any friendly model which falls under the template takes an automatic hit, in addition to those incurred by the opponent's "cover saves". After determing hits, roll for wounds and normal saves as you typically would.<br /> <br /> <b>[2c] Firing with blast marker weapons:</b><br /> Blast markers are placed as normal, with the exception that any model in the melee, friendly or enemy may be the initial target. Roll for scatter as normal and any model (friend or foe) under the marker takes a hit as normal.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[3] "Friendly fire isn't..."</b></span><br /> Soldiers typically will not stand around when their own artillery starts dropping shells on them. At the end of the Shooting phase, any friendly unit involved in a close combat you fired into must make an immediate Morale check, <i>even if they suffered no unsaved wounds</i>. There is a penalty of -1 for every friendly unit or squadron that fired into the combat. In addition, each blast or template weapon used incurs a further -1 penalty. If the unit fails the Morale check, they fall back immediately. All rules for sweeping advances and consolidation moves apply as normal. If the friendly unit is completely wiped out, the enemy unit may make a consolidation move (if they are normally allowed one). Units without a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>Ld</span> stat do not need to make this check.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[4] "Cadavera vero innumera..."</b></span>s<br /> If there are multiple units for one or both sides engaged in close combat, simply roll randomly to distribute hits from standard and template weapons. Blast weapons are handled normally.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[5] "Tanks a lot..."</b></span><br /> If one or more units involved in the combat is an engaged vehicle, all of the above rules apply normally, substituting "vehicle" where it says "unit". Hits against the vehicle are applied against the facing as they would normally be determined.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[6] "To the victor go the spoils..."</b></span><br /> Friendly units that are damaged/destroyed by firing into close combat are counted as victory/kill points for the opposing player.</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;"><b>[7] "The Price of Victory..."</b></span><br /> Because of the close proximity of the fighting, Your men have just as much chance to hit one of theirs as they do to hit the others. All missed shots are re-rolled and aimed at their own soldiers. They share the same 4+ cover save as the targeted squad, but no armor or invulnerable saves can be taken, and the soldiers are expected to fail all rolls to wound as well (Unless the strength of the weapon isn't high enough to have any possibility of doing damage.)<br /> <font color='green'><b>_______________________________________________________</b></font>]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1048886.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1048886.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:54:35]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ crazypsyko666]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>dietrich wrote:</cite>In <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(86);'>LotR</span>, only Evil models are allowed to shoot into melee, and it is random who you hit. </div></blockquote><br /> <br /> but that would put space marines at a disadvantage...there's no chance <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(50);'>GW</span> would ever do that in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(3);'>40k</span> <img src="/s/i/a/39ea8e0dbfb45dcc6b802cd0e198dba3.gif" border="0">]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1049031.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1049031.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:08:58]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Gorechild]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Honestly, I see the points and the cons in this. Personally I think it should go by fluff. I do NOT think <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span> would shoot into there own ranks. You guys that think so are incredibly out of your minds. They are far too disciplined to murder there own brothers. You <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span> players are just pissed that when you crunch the numbers, you cannot kill a horde army with shooting. You cannot kill a horde army in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(19);'>CC</span> either (usually because there are more AND we are better at i then you. Mius <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span> of course <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(84);'>lol</span>)<br /> <br /> I dont think Eldar would do it, <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span> would for sure. Orks..............do I really have to even comment on this? Sheesh we should get a BONUS to wound the warboss if doing the shooting only for "Im da biggest, an make a betta boss den youz" kind of mentality. <br /> Hmm... Im not sure about Tau, the greater good saving everyone blah blah blah. But at the same time, I would see them thinking, we will kill some to save many. I guess really no <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span> and no Eldar. <br /> Sorry <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span> players. You guess dont fluff wise AND rules wise. You have better chances of saving then anyone in the damn game.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1049988.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1049988.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:08:31]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ KingCracker]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ You're trying to apply realism to a game balance issue and that's doomed to failure. If you're saying that <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span> would realistically fire into combat that's probably true but realistically they also wouldn't have time to decide that. Contrary to the turn sequence the guys in combat aren't just chilling having a chat until the next assault phase, guys don't stop running because it's not their turn to move. <br /> <br /> Turns effectively happen simultaneously but to make the game work at all you have turn about. So your <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span> squad gets charged by some Orks your Demolisher tank is already aiming and firing at the same time, it doesn't have time to see how the combat is going over there before weighing in with some Demolisher shells. <br /> <br /> I think the only way to make it fair on both sides is When the assault is declared in your opponents turn you declare the units which are going to fire into it in your turn. I.E. it's a terrible idea to fire into combat. If you're squad gets wiped out the you fire at the assaulters, if you win the combat and wipe out the assaulters, bad luck someone is already loading the breach. <br /> <br /> Aramoro]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1056182.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1056182.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:22:43]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Aramoro]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Actually, the more I look at this issue, the thornier it gets. "Realism" vs "fluff" vs game-balance, etc, etc, etc. Since the initial post was lamenting the issue of having one or two models who managed a miraculous <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>Ld</span> save basically standing around waiting to get massacred, it seems like the real problem isn't needing to be able to fire into combat (in "real" life, support for close combat operations usually comes from other infantry closing in to make accurate shots (aka "joining the fight"). The real problem seems to be that dice roll that takes the tactics out of the player's hands. I was out of the hobby for awhile, but I her a lot about how the voluntary fallback mechanic was broken. It seems like the real option would be to come up with a working version of that. Opinions?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1056411.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1056411.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:07:05]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ jinshiryuu]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>For the greater good...or whatever.</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Allow a losing unit to voluntarily fail their leadership roll. It makes sense (SOP; if you're fethed, GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE!!), it is simple, and it solves the main problem. The trade off is that those guys will have to suffer the possibility of being run down by a Sweeping Advance, so 'tough' units, or ones with lots of guys left, may not want to risk it, but those small remains might want to take the chance and make a get away before their buddies start pounding what is left of the enemy unit(s). ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1056916.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/256444/1056916.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:54:39]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Skinnattittar]]></author>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>