PDA

View Full Version : Banning shooting into close combat contradicts fluff



magnificent*
06-04-2005, 23:12
To be consistent with a dark and grim future you should be able to risk the lifes of your own men with your own fire when you think the situation warrants it. If you are sacrificing your own grots our chaos cultists maybe the stress caused the commanders brutal indifference to his own troops causes all your "cannon fodder" troops to take a break test. I always assumed that the rule about not shooting into close combat was to prevent people being annoying but what beardy behviour could they get up to?

PlagueLord
07-04-2005, 00:06
Besides crushing every assault based army, nothing ;).

The rule isn't terriblely reallistic, but it's there for game balance. People already put "speed bump" units infront of their lines to set assaulters up for some rapid firing death, if they could shoot you while you were engaged with the "speed bump" assault armies would need a signifigant points drop.

Urrg, this computer doesn't have a spell checker.... bear with me ;)

sigur
07-04-2005, 00:35
The game itself doens't have much to do with the fluff any more. Just look at it as 2 things that are loosely connected.

grizzly ruin
07-04-2005, 02:20
Fluff is for reading, rules are for playing.

There is a distinct difference, and I'm happy that it's kept that way.

Ouroboros
07-04-2005, 02:53
This rule exists pretty much because trying to work out who gets hit with shots in a combat between 2 nid warriors, a hive tyrant 7 space marines, 14 gaunts a carnifex and 3 termiantors with nothing but d6s is going to be a giant pain in the ass.

mostholycerebus
07-04-2005, 03:16
Per the fluff, a 5-man marine squad should kick enough ass to be worth 2000 points.

GuardianoftheFlame
07-04-2005, 03:45
Fluff is for reading, rules are for playing.

There is a distinct difference, and I'm happy that it's kept that way.

This about sums it up.
The fluuf moves the game along and gives some people ideas on how to convert their armies. If fluff decided how the game was played we would need to use 20 sided dice as a minimum. Also certain creatures like tryanids would destroy any human, marines would kill everything (Movie Marines anyone) and the dark eldar would own all with their horrifying and grim executions.

Hortwerth
07-04-2005, 05:32
According to fluff, everyone would own anyone. Even Grots have their heroes.

And Librarians? They are damn close to Alpha level psykers... "turning thousands inside out with a twist of their thought"

You wouldn't even bother to play with Tzeentch on a tabletop - all would be manipulated thousands of years earlier in such a way as to fit the Tzeentch's mystarious scheme.

grizzly ruin
07-04-2005, 05:43
This rule exists pretty much because trying to work out who gets hit with shots in a combat between 2 nid warriors, a hive tyrant 7 space marines, 14 gaunts a carnifex and 3 termiantors with nothing but d6s is going to be a giant pain in the ass.

My post is horrendously OT.

I just need to take this moment to thank you Ouroboros, for bringing a smile to my weary face, after a day that has been nothing short of lunacy in a week that has been nothing short of hell.

You have my gratitude.

Karhedron
07-04-2005, 07:09
The fluff reason for not shooting into CC is that troops are generally not willing to do it because they might find themselves in the same position soon. Even in the grim darkness of the 41st millenium (tm), most armies need a certain amount of trust between their basic troops to function. That is why it is not allowed, even if the high level commander (which the player represents) migtht think it is a good idea.

Of course this reasoning only holds true for more "civilised" armies. I am sure Chaos Marines would think nothing of shelling cultists if it meant they could also crush the loyalists they were fighting. Still, the rules do not always make sense but at least applying a consistent rule about close combat keeps it fair on everyone.

Drabant
07-04-2005, 08:11
And simple, which I think is the real point of this rule. We used to be able to shoot into close combat, but with the current squad vs. squad instead of man vs. man combats it's harder to determine who is hit. Shooting into close combat would take too long.

Though personally, I would still like it if the opportunity was there.

Black Ambience
07-04-2005, 09:32
Per the fluff, a 5-man marine squad should kick enough ass to be worth 2000 points.

Ack ack, you mean "per the Imperial fluff", right? The Marines may be good, but there is also plenty of fluff that describes them being opened up like a tin of beans without much trouble on the part of the enemy.



Back on topic, a group of my friends and I once tried out some basic "shooting into combat" rules we'd come up with. It was a nightmare, and what's more it changed the whole balance of the game. Needless to say, we agreed things were better without any shooting into assault.

Gaebriel
07-04-2005, 11:03
No one would go to war, if the next thing could be being shot not only by the enemy, but by the own comrades.

DantesInferno
07-04-2005, 11:16
Look at what Commissars do to Guardsmen, mate. Getting shot by your own side is standard discipline in many regiments of the Imperial Guard. It's actually quite an effective motivational tool, when used properly...

Drabant
07-04-2005, 11:27
No one would go to war, if the next thing could be being shot not only by the enemy, but by the own comrades.

Not true, there are loads of people in the US Army.

Besides, some of the ihabitants of the 40k universe are so crazed that they wouldn't care or even notice the possibility.

Gaebriel
07-04-2005, 11:38
There are always exceptions to the rule, but in general, an army is build on comradeship, which keeps the morale up, which is what holds the whole thing together. Though you could probably fuel an army on fear, an army fueled on ideals will beat them two out of three times.

The whole idea of coordinated tactics is based on people doing and achieving what they're told to - people are capable of accomplishing enormous feats and find enormous courage when they know they're in it together with the others on their side. This is build on trust - trust to your comrades, trust to your officers. This can't be built up if you know that the next thing after being jumped by the enemy will be being shot in your rear (instead of your comrades jumping in as well).

There will always be exceptions - like imperial commissars, based on WWII-experiences, alien races whose mind concepts are not the same as human's - see the "gretchin shield" (or however these mini-orks are called), but I think the basic concept forbids to make this a general rule.

Gaebriel
07-04-2005, 11:39
Not true, there are loads of people in the US Army.
...
Sorry, my main emphasize was on the second half - being shot by the own people - on default.

Or does the US Army train that? ;)

(No insult intended)

de Selby
07-04-2005, 12:47
The rules should always reflect the background as far as possible. Saying 'the two are different things' is just a cop-out. The whole point of playing 40k is that the table-top stuff should look and feel as much like the 41st millenium, as there are much better generic wargaming systems out there that you could use if this was not a concern.

Sometimes balance and playability concerns will rule this out however, and shooting into close combat is a) hard to work out, and b) a crushing disadvantage to assault based armies.

If you really want to do it, I'd suggest:

1. The unit intending to fire must pass a leadership test in order to fire into a close combat.
2. BS is not used to hit. Instead, any roll of a 6 is resolved as a hit against the enemy models in the combat (suspend the rules for rending weapons or any other 'hits on 6' rules), and any roll of a 1 is resolved against the friendly models in the combat.
Resolve all hits against friendly models first (in the usual way for enemy fire), then resolve all the hits against the enemy models.


This shouldn't be too difficult to resolve, or too overpowering I would have thought.

Eversor
07-04-2005, 13:08
Look at what Commissars do to Guardsmen, mate. Getting shot by your own side is standard discipline in many regiments of the Imperial Guard. It's actually quite an effective motivational tool, when used properly...

There's a difference between summary execution and shelling your own troops. Both have effects on the morale and fighting spirit. But only one has the effect you want...

Deserters were commonly shot during WWII (especially on the German/Russian fronts), both by officers and regular troops. That's far from the same thing as directing machinegun or artillery fire on troops assaulting the enemy.

DantesInferno
07-04-2005, 13:16
Oh I don't dispute that, I was just answering this comment:


No one would go to war, if the next thing could be being shot not only by the enemy, but by the own comrades.

Thing is, the IG doesn't care much about the morale of the soldiers, just as long as they don't mutiny or run away.

Black Ambience
07-04-2005, 13:37
Not true, there are loads of people in the US Army.

Heh, that is alarmingly funny! :p

Gregorus
07-04-2005, 15:24
I always assumed that the rule about not shooting into close combat was to prevent people being annoying but what beardy behviour could they get up to?
The first that croses my mind - tieing a tooled up 'Fex with a squad of conscripts and a commisar and blowing the bug to pieces with heavy weaponry, while the critter tries to get rid of the guards...

Hell's Angel
07-04-2005, 21:10
If you really want to do it, I'd suggest:

1. The unit intending to fire must pass a leadership test in order to fire into a close combat.
2. BS is not used to hit. Instead, any roll of a 6 is resolved as a hit against the enemy models in the combat (suspend the rules for rending weapons or any other 'hits on 6' rules), and any roll of a 1 is resolved against the friendly models in the combat.
Resolve all hits against friendly models first (in the usual way for enemy fire), then resolve all the hits against the enemy models.


Thats not too bad of an idea... I still think It could be abused by a gunline horrificly, but nice and simple regardless.

khorgor
07-04-2005, 23:54
hmmm...

I reakon only "evil" armies should be allowed.

Rules? Simply get the skaven army book :D

inquisitorautry
08-04-2005, 01:49
You also have to remember that bullets/power packs cost money, the dead cost nothing. If your comarades are going to kill a few enemies while they 'clear your field of fire' more power to them.

Essia
08-04-2005, 03:18
This rule exists pretty much because trying to work out who gets hit with shots in a combat between 2 nid warriors, a hive tyrant 7 space marines, 14 gaunts a carnifex and 3 termiantors with nothing but d6s is going to be a giant pain in the ass.

like Ouroboros ' quote, how will the rule suggested adress this? it will slow the game down quiet a bit.

Gotrek
08-04-2005, 03:42
a nice option would be use the previous sugestion and then alocate the shots each side gets hit with.

sulla
08-04-2005, 04:25
Surely we want less simplification like this in the game? Rules to allow shooting into combat treat your own troops as nothing more than chess pieces to be sacrificed to protect the king.

If you do include rules for shooting your own troops, shouldn't you also include rules for mutinies, 'fragging' and the reaction of the shelled friendlies...do they immediately surrender to the enemy? Do they automatically break? Do they fire back at the offending artillery? etc

Iuris
08-04-2005, 07:15
I would permit it, but:
-the shooting unit must pass an Ld test
-the friendly unit automatically falls back to show the demoralization. A -1Ld penalty would also be possible.

Ouroboros
08-04-2005, 07:43
Really guys I wasn't joking around with my previous post (though I do feel good about making grizzly happy:D) that is why the rule exists. It's not like stuff like that NidvsMarine scenario doesn't happen either. I pretty much just pulled that example right out of a recent game.

When you start randoming like that 1s vrs 6s thing that was proposed you end up with a situation where you've got 40 gaunts held up by one marine and when some one pours shots into the pile that one marine is statisitcally just a likly to eat as many shots as that huge cloud of gaunts.

Wow, sucks to be him eh. The magnetic pants probably weren't such a good idea afterall, even if they did look cool.

Essia
08-04-2005, 08:03
at the same time multiple units fighting will also be a great problem.

maybe work out shooting into the huge mob, hitting and wounding plus armour saves using mixed mob rule. then work out how much more outnumbered the two sides are like when working out morale. that's the likelyhood of being injured (outnumbered 6:1 as maximum possibility). remove models as they drop to 0 wound.

of course this still presents the problem of gunline armies misusing the rules to fire upon meatshield troopers from your side.

pullsyjr
08-04-2005, 11:28
Wow, sucks to be him eh. The magnetic pants probably weren't such a good idea afterall, even if they did look cool.

Now that's funny.

de Selby
08-04-2005, 17:51
Really guys I wasn't joking around with my previous post (though I do feel good about making grizzly happy:D) that is why the rule exists. It's not like stuff like that NidvsMarine scenario doesn't happen either. I pretty much just pulled that example right out of a recent game.

When you start randoming like that 1s vrs 6s thing that was proposed you end up with a situation where you've got 40 gaunts held up by one marine and when some one pours shots into the pile that one marine is statisitcally just a likly to eat as many shots as that huge cloud of gaunts.

Wow, sucks to be him eh. The magnetic pants probably weren't such a good idea afterall, even if they did look cool.


There are already rules in 40k for allocating wounds with mixed armour and toughness in play, so they should still work if you treat all the models from any one side as a single unit (counterexamples?). Even with mixed friendlies too, it won't ever take more than twice as long to work out as situations that are already covered.

What about the magnetic marine? If he's not expendable don't shoot at him. If you like you can imagne that the distraction afforded by being shelled from his own side makes him more prone to being pulled down by the gaunts. If the rule EVER allows a player to fire into close combat at little or no risk of hitting his own side the potential for abuse (unrealistic player decisions rather than just the usual loopholes in the rules) increases dramatically.


And in general: all the rules that I pull out of my ass are opponent's consent only, so you're unlikely ever to get to use them in a situation where your opponent feels he's at a massive disadvantage. It's a simple approximation which retains some fairness.

InIronClad
09-04-2005, 04:38
i use GW rules as guidelines and add houserules to whatever we think would be more appropriate to the rules. one example is me and my friend is thinking of having a -1 to hit instead of a invul save, since hiding in grass doesnt protect you from a lascannon but might prevent the lascannon from hitting the person (since the gunner cant see him). so yea. my 2 cents. could try making a rule where you can shoot enemies who are not in BTB contact with another model?

Hell's Angel
09-04-2005, 05:03
Id get pissy when my units get held up by stormtroopers and then the IG start dropping Pie Plates on us... I know that any guardsmen will be killed by their commanders because of their proximity to chaos, but that could be abused horribly. :rolleyes:

Ouroboros
09-04-2005, 12:14
i use GW rules as guidelines and add houserules to whatever we think would be more appropriate to the rules. one example is me and my friend is thinking of having a -1 to hit instead of a invul save, since hiding in grass doesnt protect you from a lascannon but might prevent the lascannon from hitting the person (since the gunner cant see him). so yea. my 2 cents.

OMG OMG so much overcomplication!!!!1!!!!!!1 it must take you guys lik wut 27 hours to finish a game! none fur me thanx! LOL


There are already rules in 40k for allocating wounds with mixed armour and toughness in play, so they should still work if you treat all the models from any one side as a single unit (counterexamples?). Even with mixed friendlies too, it won't ever take more than twice as long to work out as situations that are already covered.

Work out my example then if it's so easy. :D

Remember d6s only and I want those target sizes respected to.

de Selby
09-04-2005, 14:02
I said that the current rule was there for reasons of balance and playability, but I suggested some new rules for those who want to try. Thus...


Ok, 7 bolter shots and a missile launcher shot (assuming the marines pass their leadership test) fired into:
7 space marines and 3 terminators
vs.
2 nid warriors, a hive tyrant , 14 gaunts, a carnifex

Player rolls two ones, three misses and two sixes for the bolters, plus a 6 for the missile launcher (lucky!).

The two ones are hits on the marines; toughness 4, rolls one wound. Majority armour type is power armour, rolls a successful save so no effect.

The sixes are hits on the nids, majority toughness three (hormagaunts), rolls one wound plus the autowound for the missile launcher, majority armour type is also that of the hormagaunts so no saves against AP5 or AP3, remove two hormagaunts as casualties.



There are no to-hit modifiers for target size in the current rules, so I dont see the need to introduce them here.

Also, 3) any casualties inflicted count towards combat resolution in the following assault phase. (now I come to think about it)


Is this perfect? No.
Are the current 40k rules perfect? No.
Is this better or worse than the enemy simply becoming invisible when they get into close combat? Is the extra complexity (and ambiguity, potential for disagreement etc.) worth it? That's up to the players, who are free to invent new rules and house conventions, whenever they want to represent something new in the game.

Cacodemon
09-04-2005, 14:20
Rule like this would be simple:

1. Count out which side has more models in combat (Tyranids in this case)

2. Roll d6, 1-2 hits the minority (Marines), 3-6 hits the majority (Tyranids)

3. Randomize which unit is hit on a d6,
- If Tyranids are hit: 1 Warriors, 2 Tyrant, 3 Gaunts, 4 Carnifex, 5-6 reroll
- If Marines are hit: 1-3 Terminators, 4-6 Marines

4. Work out shooting

Ouroboros
10-04-2005, 04:44
is this perfect? No.
Are the current 40k rules perfect? No.
Is this better or worse than the enemy simply becoming invisible when they get into close combat? Is the extra complexity (and ambiguity, potential for disagreement etc.) worth it? That's up to the players, who are free to invent new rules and house conventions, whenever they want to represent something new in the game.

So you can't take the sizes into account thus giving the large creatures an unfair and unrealistic advantage as predicted.

I don't see how this adds anything to the game that needs to be there and I'm usually the guy bitching about them dumbing it down too much.

All I see these rules doing (in addition to introducing something else silly with the size and magnetic pants things) is creating yet another reason to play a 3+ army and we certainly don't need that now do we. You've essentially created a situation where marines especially can freely RF into combats now since they know their fire will likely do little to their buddies relative to the other unit they're fighting, unless of course that unit is also another 3+ unit.

de Selby
10-04-2005, 11:44
Actually, I think we don't even need to use the mixed... rules for multiple enemy units in close combat. We could just allow the player to pick which enemy unit he wants to target and use mixed... rules (when necessary) to resolve friendly fire, making things simpler for everyone. If a carnifex is no longer safe from shooting when he's in CC with marines, he shouldn't be safe from shooting because he's in CC with marines and hormagaunts.

I'm pleased you're now talking about games balance instead of complexity, but I don't think marines will benefit disproportionately from this, no. They're BS4, always outnumbered and expensive to sacrifice. The important things (if we want to allow firing into CC at all), are that CC shooting should

a) generally be less effective than shooting at units NOT in CC, so it doesn't become a default tactic, and

b) always be dangerous for the friendlies involved, regardless of how many there are. Otherwise you get horrible manipulation involving use of little tiny speedbump units and whatnot. I don't give a damn about target size, it doesn't affect to-hit rolls anywhere else in 40k and I'm not going to start here.

Ordnance, blast and template weapons all need their own little rulettes too.
I reckon (revised suggestion).


1) Enemy units in CC may be targeted, subject to the same restrictions as enemy units not in CC. In addition, they never count as the closest target for target priority purposes and the shooting unit must always pass a leadership test to fire.

2) BS is not used to hit. Any to-hit roll of a 6 is resolved as a hit on the target enemy unit (suspend the 'rending' and any other 'hits on 6' rules). Any to-hit roll of a one is resolved on the friendly unit(s) in CC with the target unit. Resolve hits on friendly unit(s) first, treating them as a mixed toughness, armour unit if necessary. Then resolve hits on the enemy unit.

Blast weapons. On a to-hit roll of 1, your opponent may place the blast template over any one of your figures from a unit in CC with the target. Note that whoever places the template, figures form both sides may still be caught in the blast.

Barrage, Ordnance and Ordnance barrage weapons. Some weapons do not normally roll to hit, using the scatter dice instead. Because of the increased difficulty of precision targetting in a swirling melee, all such weapons scatter automatically. Use the small arrow on the HIT symbol to determine the direction of scatter.

Template weapons. You may place the flamer template as normal to determine the number of hits (on figures from both sides). However, if your opponent can reposition the template to hit a greater total number of figures (from either side), he may do so. Weapons using the flamer template are effective but indiscriminate close combat weapons.

3) Casualties inflicted by shooting count towards combat resolution in the following assault phase.


What are we adding to the game? Flavour, and an option of last resort.

Ouroboros
10-04-2005, 12:40
I don't think marines will benefit disproportionately from this, no. They're BS4, always outnumbered and expensive to sacrifice. The important things (if we want to allow firing into CC at all), are that CC shooting should

a) generally be less effective than shooting at units NOT in CC, so it doesn't become a default tactic, and

b) always be dangerous for the friendlies involved, regardless of how many there are. Otherwise you get horrible manipulation involving use of little tiny speedbump units and whatnot. I don't give a damn about target size, it doesn't affect to-hit rolls anywhere else in 40k and I'm not going to start here.

b) is pretty much mission failed in the case of space marines or other 3+ troops. Bolter and basic weapon fire is of trivial consequence to space marines as are things like frag missiles. Frag missiles let alone flamer templates which you're also allowing, are on the other hand going to completely sweep units like Hormogaunts, orkboys, Most Eldar and Dark Eldar, pretty much anything not in 3+ armour really. These units die fast enough when they're NOT bunched base to base for templates as they will be in a close combat.

I'll just pull a unit out of my own army to take on point a). Seriously as soon as you mentioned templates and ordnance the idea of this fire being less effective went right out the window.

For example lets take my witchunters.

Lets say one of my sisters foot units gets charged by a mob of my friends hormogaunts, not an uncommon occurance. The combat plays out and both units sweep in, the gaunts forming a thick BTB mass around the sisters.

Next turn I roll up with my celestians with heavy flamer, flamer and BoHF and let loose.

If there's a single hormogaunt left after that I'll be very very surprised.

On the other side of the table the same thing has happened to a squad of space marines my ally in this hypothetical 2v2 game is using. No problem he says as he drops a Whirlwind shot strait on the combat. "I only wound my own guys on 3's and they get saves. His guys just die on 2s and wow, look how many of them I just hit."

With many weapons when I hit my own 3+ troops it's no biggie. I'll take wounds and make the majority of saves. Is it dangerous sure but not dangerous enough to not make it a complete and utter no brainer given the potential rewards and the brutal effectivness of these weapons against my ensnared and BtB enemy. Those sisters or marines were going to die anyway probably and doing this before the hormies can attack again in the assault phase will almost doubtlessly kill less of them and way way way more hormogaunts than my likely less than ten str3 attacks would ever manage.

I thought you said you wanted to eliminate no brainer stalling tactics with small units. You've done the opposite. These rules of yours encourage the use of small stopper units in order to bunch up enemy assaulters for inevitable and swift template death. The trick then becomes to make sure that your own unit is cheap enough to make its potential loss or damage worth the destruction of the enemy unit. And to make sure that it can last through at least one, possibly two, rounds of assault so you can cluster the enemy in order to kill them.

If all weapons affected all troops roughly equally this might work alright but that's not 40k. You're kidding yourself if you don't think this gives massive advantages to troops like marines and Necrons that are extremly resilient to the same basic weapon, heavy bolter, frag and flamer template style fire that can by contrast utterly decimate many of the unit types that will be potentially assaulting them. I could probably even come out well ahead flamering gaunts off my carapaced guardsman.

Eversor
10-04-2005, 16:37
There was some rule somewhere (5:th edition Warhammer Fantasy?) where firing into close combat simply allocated half of the hits to each side, with odd hits going on your own models.

This is a simple - if a bit abstract - way of solving the issue. But personally I hate the notion of firing into assaults. I've had way too many heated debates on the matter...

de Selby
10-04-2005, 19:10
Ouroborous, I can see your point regarding bunching up vs. templates, but I'm more than happy for my opponent to use heavy bolters or basic weapons against my gaunts in assault (hitting on 6s) instead of against almost anything else I have that's not in assault (hitting on 3+ or 4+). The point is not that shooting should always hurt your own assaulting troops as badly as the enemy, because if they're tough it shouldn't. It should be generally much less effective than firing the same unit's weapons against another target that isn't in CC; this is enough to prevent it being a default game winner. In this sense, casualties on friendlies are a bonus.

So I suggested rules that reduce your ability to control where a template goes. If this isn't enough, because of assault bunching, then it's easy to nerf flamer and ordnance templates a bit more to deal with the bunching-up effect. For example, all models covered count as partially covered. Or, On a roll of 4+ your opponent can place the template. Or, On a roll of 4+ no target presents itself and the weapon may not fire. Or on a roll of 3+... It's not beyond the wit of man, is it?

Eversor, on the other hand, occupies the respectable position of not wishing to use any rules that allow firing into assaults. So nothing I could suggest would be useful to him, which is fine.

Ouroboros
11-04-2005, 06:28
There's a lot of stuff I'd like to see changed in 40k but at the same time I realize it's often just not possible to do it without writing the codex books over.

The idea of shooting into HtH might be an interesting one to explore in a new edition but it's not going to work in this one for reasons I've already stated. Certain units are so greatly devalued by the ability while other units, and weapons especially, are made so much more powerful that any attempt to fit this in without points adjustments is quite plainly going to break the entire game. The current points values simply do not reflect what units like dominions or havocs would be capable of in an environment where they weren't restricted from firing into combat.

While it's true you could cobble something together with patch after patch after patch to eventually arrive at a long list of exceptions and one off situational rules alterations that would make firing into close combat possible; I however question if even after all that a decent balence could actually be attained between the literally dozens of sources of modern 40k that would have to be consolidated against each other. There's bound to always be something that slips through the cracks and some unit or army that gets screwed over by a set of new rules as bold as these and I don't really see the need to do that over shooting into combat. It's not like when I tapped a merry jig when screening was removed, consequences be damned. Shooting into combat isn't something that I really yearn for all that badly really.

de Selby
12-04-2005, 18:18
Right, here's my finalized suggesions for anyone who still cares to try. They're final not because they're the best or the only way to do things, but because we've now covered all the major issues and anyone with any initiative and the desire to playtest will be able to make improvements for themselves.


1) Enemy units in CC may be targeted, subject to the same restrictions as enemy units not in CC. In addition, they never count as the closest target for target priority purposes and so the shooting unit must always pass a leadership test to fire.

2) BS is not used to hit. Any to-hit roll of a 6 is resolved as a hit on the target enemy unit (suspend the 'rending' and any other 'hits on 6' rules). Any to-hit roll of a one is resolved on the friendly unit(s) in CC with the target unit (no re-rolls allowed). Resolve hits on friendly unit(s) first, treating them as a mixed toughness, armour unit if necessary. Then resolve hits on the enemy unit.

Blast weapons. On a to-hit roll of 1, your opponent may place the blast template over any one of your figures from a unit in CC with the target.

Barrage, Ordnance and Ordnance barrage weapons. Some weapons do not normally roll to hit, using the scatter dice instead. Because of the increased difficulty of precision targetting into a swirling melee, first roll a D6. On a roll of a 6, place the template as usual. On a roll of a 1, your opponent must place the template over one your models.
On any other result, the shot is assumed to scatter wide and have no effect, or the weapon never even fires becaue the crew are arguing with each other about the wisdom of allowing firing into close combat.

Weapons using the Flamer template. Before placing the template, first roll a D6. On a roll of a 6, place the template as usual. On a roll of a 1, your opponent must place the template to cover the maximum possible number of your models. On any other result, no target presents itself and the weapon may not fire.

Note that whoever places a template, figures form both sides may still be caught in the blast.

3) Casualties inflicted by shooting count towards combat resolution in the following assault phase.


Allowing shooting into CC necessarily boosts the shootier side of the game. If your opponent is gracious enough to let you try these rules when they clearly disadvantage his army (eg. Nids or World Eaters), I'd suggest letting him have a points break, say 10% extra army free to begin with.

Jmitchell
15-04-2005, 22:02
You can always take comfort in knowing that fire arms are being used IN combat, such as for extra attacks with pistols.

It's just nice imagery of a marine carving through a guardsman with his chainsword and then levelling his boltpistol straight into another ones face, and firing point blank. Hey hes a marine, he can do what he likes!

dugaal
29-07-2005, 15:26
despite balance issues, you still have to take into account the skill of the shooting squad involved, but you COULD limit it with modifiers and such... here is my take,

squad wishes to fire into CC
squad takes leadership test
squad targets enemy units first, at -1 modifier
if friendlies outnumber approx 3:2 rounding up, at -2 to hit,
if 2:1 or over, -3 to hit, but never past a 6 (making it barely worth it)
all failing dice hit on the original modifier used, on your own units (so if 1:1 units, hit your own on a 1, 3:2=2 2:1=3 (keep in mind that if these are the dice that already failed, then they have a much higher likelyhood of getting 1's, 2's 3's etc)

the modifiers could be altered a bit, and you could have some kind of point rules on who can fire on who, as to whether they are an expendable unit. Or you could simply base it on fluff logic, determined before the battle, to stop space marines from firing on their own, etc.

one other thing to keep in mind is that in certian cases, based on fear of the enemy, and FAILED morale checks, fluff wise it becomes likely that a squad will fire into CC. picture a wall of tyranids in combat with 3 guardsmen left, while another guardsmen unit is within 6 inches, you think they are going to wait for the first combat to break before opening fire? they would probably freak out, figuring better those unfortunate saps that will be dead soon anyways get shot, then them getting their turn being torn to shreds a second later

sulla
29-07-2005, 20:11
Why should generals be able to direct fire into close combat?

It assumes that the friendly troops being fired upon have no fre will of their own and are suicidal.

If you implement a rule to allow shooting into cc, I suggest you also include a rule to test if command models were 'fragged' before the game in revenge for previous friendly fire.

There are always consequences to actions.

Gil
29-07-2005, 20:28
Unless I am mistaken there is a rule for shooting "into" combat on the ( is it 4th edition?) rules. But I dont have my handy dandy massive rule book here so this is all on memory.

I think the restrictions are that, since assault blocks LOS, the unit shooting has to have a direct LOS into the enemy and can only fire into the enemy models that are outside of the 2" kill zone.

Im not positive and the rules might be different, or I could just be wrong. But eh...

Hortwerth
29-07-2005, 21:00
There's a heading in the BGB called "shooting into close combat" (IIRC), and then there's a rule that clearly states it's not allowed under any circumstances.

The outside 2" kill zone targetting possibility was in the Trial Assault Rules.

Xyon
29-07-2005, 21:01
well I just skipped half the stuff on this last page, but here's my input for the rules De Selby posted.

why not make Flamers and small blast weapons allow no armour save for anyone hit by them in close combat? But roll to wound as normal, and in the case of blast templates on a roll of 6 you place it, on roll of 1 your opponent places it.

This balances it fairly enough, I think. As more of a diversion tactic, sure your flamer might have killed all those gaunts anyways, but it will now allow no saves for your termies or marines either.

here is another idea, if a unit with a flamer shoots into close combat, whichever unit that loses the next round of combat gets an additional -2 ld modifier, instead of inflicting wounds and removing casualties from the flamer. So instead of the flamer actually killing people, it just affects moral, as it mostly should do.

BloodiedSword
29-07-2005, 22:39
There's also the problem of a three way battle - Marines aren't going to be polite enough to stand by watching Hormagaunts fighting Striking Scorpions fighting, they're going to be only to happy to pour random firepower into the combat..

You could justify them not being allowed to as "they can't be 100% sure there aren't any Marines involved in the combat that they can't see" or "they are happy to let the enemies occupy each other for as long as possible while they pursue other objectives", but it's annoying that they don't even have the option of firing at them.

LostTemplar
30-07-2005, 00:05
@de Selby: I enjoy those rules. However, as stated before, they will greaty benefit high armour armies.

Here's a simple change that you could do:

Forget all template rules, and replace them with this:

A flamer, given the proximity of friendly fighters, is used in controlled bursts. It causes d6 Attacks at its base strenght, each hitting a friendly model at a roll of to hit of 1, and an enemy in a roll of to hit of 4+. Reason for this: The flamer fires small gouts at specified individuals.

Blast weapons deal D3 Attacks. A roll of 1 wil lhit a friendly model, a roll of 6 will hit an enemy model. Disregard template placement.

Ordenance weapons. No change whatsoever from their standard rules. They kill everyone and everything. However, from that point in the game forth, every friendly unit (From the Ordenance shooter) will suffer a -1 LD modifier. Everytime a Ordenance
weapon is fired upon a friendly unit, an aditional -1 LD modifier applies. In addiction, the unit fired upon must imediatly test to regroup, subjected to the normal rules (and contending with beign at -1 LD).

zealousheretic
30-07-2005, 00:51
The outside 2" kill zone targetting possibility was in the Trial Assault Rules.

I was very, very happy to see this part of the TAR not make it into 4th edition. In my group, at least, I lost so many gaunts to ordinance dropped on the not-locked-in section of the unit. It got tiresomely predictable: there would be a picket of space marines, I'd assault them because the alternative was to get shot at, and then whirlwind blasts would murder anything that wasn't in the killzone.

Iracundus
30-07-2005, 02:09
Of all the armies, I'd say the Tyranids should be the one most allowed to use this rule. That whole rationale of troopers not wanting to fire on comrades in case they find themselves in similar position in future doesn't hold true when Tyranids are individual cells under the Hive Mind.

That fluff bit aside, a Ld test to do it (with penalties depending on race) could prevent everyone from doing it whenever they wanted to.

typhus22
30-07-2005, 16:18
im sorry to have only skimmed through this post but has anyone mentioned the 2nd edition rules of random hits in a mixed combat situation. granted the armies were a whole lot smaller back then that it felt like skirmish rules but still the concept was there.

Helicon_One
30-07-2005, 21:20
The 2nd Ed style of dividing hits equally between combatants is much too abusable - see the example above of tying up Carnifexes with cheap cannon fodder and then shooting lascannons into the combat. If anybody is contemplating house rules for shooting into combat then they should reflect the desperate 'last hope' nature of such an act.

So I'd do it like this: if a player elects to shoot into combat, his opponent allocates the hits between the models involved in the combat in any way he chooses, exactly as for shooting against squads. Just like regular shooting, no model may be allocated 2 hits until every model involved in the combat has been hit once. In practise, of course, this means the opponent is going to allocate all the hits as 'friendly fire' unless there are more hits than friendly models.

That allows the option for when things get really desperate, whilst providing a strong deterrant for anyone looking to try it too often. Bear in mind that in 4th Ed casualties from template weapons don't have to be taken from beneath the template any more. I'm also tempted to go along with the suggestion that the squad being shot by their comrades should automaticly lose combat (and maybe automaticly break too) as a result.

Tim

de Selby
31-07-2005, 12:21
Holy Mackerel, this thread has come back (it's been three months).

Plenty of suggestions coming up, some slightly over-complicated I feel. One thing I think everyone should bear in mind is that shooting into CC doesn't need to kill as many friendlies as enemies to be balanced (actually, if we're going to introduce the rule we ought to be sure it will introduce some advantage sometime, or no-one will ever use it and it's not needed). It does need to kill substantially fewer enemies than shooting at an enemy not in CC, or than assaulting, mostly, so that players will much prefer not to do it.

The morale question is wide open. I don't feel that 40k troops behave in a very realistic fashion as regards psychology. If my guardsman is nutty enough to pick up a plasma gun, then he's nutty enough to fire it at some marines in CC on the off-chance.

Karloth Valois
31-07-2005, 13:15
The fact is it would rarely if ever happen in reality in the 40k universe, and it would never ever work rules wise on the gaming table.

So my grots 3 point are in close combat with a squad of 15 point marines, is it fair to distribute hits equally? People would simply use cheap squads to tie people up in CC while they blast the crap out of them. Equally hits could not be divided based on toughness or armour of points cost because it just wouldn't make sense.

Being able to shoot into cc would change the game totally, we'd see it happening all the time, is a player really going to worry about 3 guardsmen that will die in the assualt phase anyway and NOT shoot at a squad of Khorne beserkers to preserve thier lives?

Nah, the game rules and the fluff need to be seperate for things to work. Otherwise the rules would be silly, or the fluff rubbish.

Mark

zealousheretic
01-08-2005, 07:16
The big thing about 2nd edition's shooting into CC was that since most weapons modified armor saves, even Space Marines had to think twice about doing it; a heavy bolter or assault cannon reduced a Marine's save significantly, thus making shooting such weapons into a combat involved Tyranids or Orks fighting Marines rather risky (as it should be).

FoolsJourney
01-08-2005, 09:28
Oh, this could get so confusing.

Fluffwise, I don't think there is a single army in the 40K universe that wouldn't shoot into a close combat. Nids, orks and chaos would, without question. Tau probably would if it was for the greater good. The Ordos of the Inquisition have cleansed entire friendly planets because of rumours of a chaos artefact, so they're not going to think twice about it. A Commissar led IG force would be too scared not to. And anyone facing thousands of swarming Nids would just shoot the bejeezus out of anything that moved.

But there are way too many variables. If you were Space Marines and you had 'Trust in your Battle Brothers" as a trait, would you shoot into a combat with your own troops. Probably not, because you have faith that they would be able to handle it themselves.

Large creatures like a carnifex should be able to be picked out because of the double height thingy, but then majority toughness shouldn't apply. If you are shooting at the tough thing, then it should be tough and get its normal save.

But then, if a model is hit, even if it makes a save, would it be able to hit back in the assault phase?

If I were going to do it (which I'm not), I'd suggest that every friendly model that takes a hit but survives takes an individual leadership test. If they fail they are moved back D6". If that takes them out of unit coherency the model gets no attacks in the following assult phase. Or something.