"Shooting into melee" Topic

I see this done a lot of different ways in games, so I wanted to get a discussion going.

When two or more people are engaged in melee (close combat, hand to hand, whatever you want to call it), do you think someone else should be allowed to shoot at them?
Do you flat out say "no"? So melee would provide immunity to ranged attacks, in a sense.
Or are you okay with it?
Do you think the shot should have a chance of hitting either person? What about if there are more than two people in melee?

Personally I think you should be able to shoot into a melee. Ideally the shot would have a chance of hitting either target, but that just means more rules and more confusion.

What about in a historical sense? Did it depend on the general/commander? Was this ever a common tactic?

When two or more people are engaged in melee (close combat, hand to hand, whatever you want to call it), do you think someone else should be allowed to shoot at them?

Like a lot of other things it depends … on who the antagonists are and their attitude to the possibility of hitting someone on their own side. Generally speaking, in a "conventional" war setting, I wouldn't allow it.

Personally I think you should be able to shoot into a melee. Ideally the shot would have a chance of hitting either target, but that just means more rules and more confusion.

Up to you, it's your game. If you allow it, I think it should be a straight 50/50 chance of hitting the right guy.

Was this ever a common tactic?

Not that I'm aware of.

I agree with Margard. Some should be able to do it, others would not. It depends on the shooter and the target.

If uber-ninja night is fighting a bunch of Dr. Helmet's recyclable drone-bots Dr. Helmet will probably shoot the wide-arc flesh melta ray at the whole lot of them.

If Professor Tomlinson is watching his much younger, fitter and secret agent wife struggling against his arch nemesis and he has a shot gun, he probably won't be firing into that close combat.

In mass combat, I generally allow it from the side or rear. I am more generous than most. I often feel that 2/3 of the hits score against the enemy and 1/3 against allies. My rationale is that many troops are supporting those in direct contact with the enemy and those are the enemies being targeted. I am only speaking for ancient/medieval/fantasy mass combat rules.

With skirmishes, I would say 50-50.

Depends upon what a game considers "melee." For instance, in Stargrunt, that includes short range shooting, hand grenades, and such. In that case, someone with some overwatch forces should be able to shoot at the enemy (with a low chance of hitting friends.) On the other hand, if "melee" is ONLY knivbes, swords, clubbed rifles, entrenching tools, and fists, then I'd say "no" to shooting into the melee.

There could be exceptions to that, though!

Rob

Cornwallis famously had his artillery fire into a melee to save his army at Guilford -- and lost some of his own as well as the Continentals they were fighting.

More generally, I'd say, is it man-to-man? a small group fuzzball? or a large battle between shieldwalls? In other words, how much movement is there, and are the opposed combatants all mixed up together, circling and such?

And what is being shot? Shotgun buckshot or cannister/grape? Or a single shot arrow or rifle bullet?

You suggested 50/50 rule sounds like a simple compromise, unless you want to get REALLY complicated.

For skirmish games our general rule is yes with a chance of hitting either party based on line of sight. For larger unit based games it is situational, but usually not allowed.

I agree with corporalpat.

Yes, particularly if you are with the forces of evil, or you are Legolas, with no chance of missing, unless Gimli is standing next to you.

What religon said…

In my single-man-few-seconds-per-turn skirmish setting, I allow this.
First you have to score a hit on the fighters in melee and then check for the target actually hit: the more aimed is the shot the more are the probability to hit the proper target.

In my case I was talking skirmish scale, so half a dozen people per side. Generally shooting a mix of weapons though, but mostly laaaaaaasers.

I also like the 50/50 rule, except in the case of a 2vs1 fight, where the math gets uglier and it goes from "on an odd number I hit my own guy" to "Uh, okay, on a 1-2 I hit this guy, on a 3-4 I…"
Any clever schemes for avoiding that?

The only scheme I've ever seen was to have many different sided die. But you are still rolling dice.

Any clever schemes for avoiding that?

Other than numbered chits drawn from a cup? Not really.

I think it should be permitted, but if you miss you hit someone else instead.

The side hit should be a proportional ratio of side A's and side B's troops. Roll for that, separately.

@Religon-I think you should downgrade the overall effect of shooting into a melee on the basis that at least some of the troops would prefer to miss entirely than risk hitting their own guys.

For example, on D-Day a lot of the bombers who were supposed to hit the German beach defenses as the first wave went in, delayed their drop a second or two in order to avoid hitting their own side. And thus missed the defenses entirely, which probably led to more casualties.

Unlike at Guilford Courthouse our troops are only lead (or plastic) and will be fit to fight next game, 100% recovered.

Roll to hit the first guy in line of sight. If that misses, roll to see if the next one (likely your own guy) gets hit.

There should be a rule where any model soldier who has been subject to deliberate friendly fire by a wargamer will disappear at the end of the game, and not be found by his original owner.

The ruleset my group uses the most allows all misses to be rolled again targeting the friendly unit. It is common for one player with high armor value to shoot into melees involving his troops.

It allows highly skilled archers to better miss their allies.

Locally, in the old white box D&D days one DM's rule was almost universally adopted: Before rolling to hit, roll a D4 for each friendly in the melee. Roll in order closest to the shooter on out. The first that comes up a 1, roll to hit that friend. No 1s, congrats! Roll to hit the enemy, your intended target.

(If a friendly model was smaller than the enemy target, you used a D6. Larger, a D3.)

It had just enough probability to give people pause. If one friendly was badly wounded, you might not fire.

Depends on the size of the crowd. If it's your buddy getting attacked by a single enemy, heck, if you have a clear shot you take it. But if it's a group melee, I seriously doubt anyone would consider shooting into a crowd. Consider this. A .30-06 round fired into a mob is probably going to pass through several people before it stops, and it's not going to pick its victims.

If you DO allow it then the shooter should have to make a morale check (with minuses) if he kills his own guy.

But in general I don't think it should be allowed at all.

For my French Foreign Legion and Old West skirmish games I allow fire into melee. The rule is that if you are firing into a 1 on 1 melee then you have a negative fire modifier for your target (don't want to hit your friends). If you miss the target then you roll again with the same roll to see if you hit your friend. If that roll misses also, then noone is hit. If there are multiple targets then you randomly determine which one might be hit and roll for him. I consider melee in my games to be a chaotic whirlwind of mayhem (think Bugs Bunny cartoons).

Declare the target. If you miss, flip a coin.

Heads = hits the closest guy on the left.

Right = hits the closest guy on the right.

The issue I have with this is movement during the time of the arrow's flight, and gamesmanship, where someone may choose to shoot at a central enemy fig, flanked by two of those.

While that doesn't sound unreasonable on the face of it, as the arrow flies to the target, if they turn, then a friend might be in the line of fire. That's why I think the percentage issue is better for allocating misses to groups in melee.

I have less of an issue with it for bullets, which should arrive more quickly, but it is still a concern.

There is also the impact on morale by getting hit by your own side. Its one thing to be shot by the enemy but its a lot worse knowing that your own side is shooting at you.

Also it depends on what is shooting, most firing doesnt actually aim at an individual but at an area, even archery.

As a general rule don't allow it, unless its something like shelling your dug in troops that are being overrun.

Generally speaking, in a "conventional" war setting, I wouldn't allow it.

and I absolutely would!
Roll to hit. If so, roll again to see WHO he hit…
I would roll the odds in the favor of the enemy (60 to 40 chances). The extra is the fact that the same army guy would do his best to try NOT to hit is pal.
If he does, and wounds, a morale check for the shooter with the grief of shooting his side…
IMO.

It's more of a question of rule mechanisms than anything else.
The distinction we as wargamers make between melee and fire is more a result of them being seperate phases in the rules rather than clearly seperate actions on the battlefield. Depends on the scale and period as well.

I would not allow it, just to simplify things. The combat resolution engine for resolving melee should preferably be written such that a melee is resolved within one round, such that when shooting comes around, the question never pops up.
Skirmish games (1 man = 1 figure)could be the exception.

Generally speaking, in a "conventional" war setting, I wouldn't allow it.

and I absolutely would!

Remind me not to stand anywhere near you in a firefight …

Generally not, the fire support team usually ceases fire having allowed the suppressed the enemy enough to all the assault team to close to assaulting distance. It is considered bad form to shoot your own men in the back as they charge.

Close Quarter Battle may of course involve a degree of short range shooting, was well grenade throwing, bayonet poking etc.

In higher level games I might allow units to call artilery fire on their own positions.

What genre are we talking about?

Historical 30 Years War – no way.

Over the top Wild West starring Clint Eastwood* – yes.

* Not while talking to chairs, mind.

In short, for historical battles, not at all or highly unlikely.

Pulp games? As you like it.

I don't allow shooting into a melee.
UNLESS, there is an obvious defensive position like a fort wall or similar that separates the two combatants. Since most rules call that fight a melee, I would allow shots at the opponents on the opposite side of the barrier.

Oh heck, why not. As John Brunner predicted in his novel Stand on Zanzibar, modern police tactics now include firing wildly into civilian bystanders:

link

… modern police tactics now include firing wildly into civilian bystanders …

Yes, but I don't think that was "firing into melee". More like "not backstopping your fire" … which is also something that most rules don't really deal with.

Hmm, so seems like a majority vote for not letting people shoot into melee.

I like the suggested idea of allowing shooting, with a 50/50 chance to hit either opponent. Then if more than two people are involved in the melee it becomes too massive to even bother shooting into. Definitely saves on workarounds with 33% odds per target or numerous extra dice rolls.

So to continue with the idea of not allowing shooting, and this is getting more into game mechanics, do you try to resolve the melee in a single turn/activation? Or can the melee keep going and provide immunity to ranged fire to all participants for numerous turns? Can people freely leave melee?

Definitely a lot of interlocking parts. I find that if you can't shoot into melee, it's easy to get bogged down and "locked in" for a painfully long amount of time.

Mass battle: Only if ordered by a commander, and there should be a penalized morale check and/or discipline check to follow the order. You could modify the penalty depending on situation— that is, if the battle or security of a situation depends on it, troops might be more likely to follow the order. Also, the more disciplined and/or experienced the troops (or more fanatical), the more likely to obey. If it's a fantasy setting, "Good" troops would be less likely to obey an order to shoot into their friends, while "Evil" troops would have no penalty or not even need an order.
The above assumes that a target in melee is in LOS of the shooting unit; intervening friends engaged in combat block LOS, so in that case, the shot cannot be made simply because there's no clear target to shoot. The shooter will need to be facing an unengaged enemy flank or rear to make the shot.
Then divvy up the hits evenly between the two targets, with extra hits going against the enemy (presumably the shooting unit is at least attempting not to hit its friends). Apply all other rules as usual. Oh, and both melee combatant units must make a morale check due to sheer shock at the unexpected volley.

Skirmish/RPG: At this level, the shooter's skill becomes a factor, and yes, I would allow the shot. ("Take the shot."— M to Eve, Skyfall). In this case, simply treat the target as "behind cover" (which I assume would penalize the shot). If the attack hits, it hits. If the attack misses, point to each intervening potential target in order, starting with the target closest to the shooter, and roll an "attack". In this instant, a "hit" is actually a miss, while a "miss" hits the unintended target. Once something is hit, stop rolling. The reason the latter attacks reverse the "hit" and "miss" results is to represent that the shooter is technically aiming to "miss" his friend.
If the friend is hit and the attack is made with a broad/sweep gun (like a scatter gun, shot gun or a full-automatic weapon) or a very powerful gun (that might pass through human tissue), the weapon might still hit the intended target (roll another attack), with the friend treated as "soft cover" in terms of preventing damage, assuming the system has such sort of rules.
Regardless of the outcome, friends in melee must roll a morale check or be "stunned" (temporarily unable to take some actions), simply at the shock of being put at such great risk by their buddy.

Example: Captain Justice and his sidekick Skip are locked in mortal combat with the evil Master Malevolenz above his mystic Pit of Power— the source of energy that will set off his diabolical Death Cloud Device in less than 6 seconds! "Eagle Eye" Bailey, expert marksman, spots the fight, and, seeing his pals in desperate straits and the clock ticking, aims his long rifle at the villain. He takes the shot, which zips past Captain Justice and over the head of Skip, striking Master M and knocking him down into the swirling vortex of the Pit. Skip stares upwards in amazement that "Eagle Eye" would take the risk and can do nothing (morale failure). But Captain Justice takes the event in stride, hurling his famous Bouncing Blade into the one vulnerable spot on the Death Cloud Device (conveniently marked "Do NOT insert metal here"), shutting it down and saving the day.
"Geez, Cappy, I can't believe Eagle Eye took that chance! We could have been killed!" cries Skip.
"He had to, my young friend," replies the stalwart Captain. "When the world is on the line, no risk is too great— even the risk of losing one's pals."
Skip nods, but slides away from the Captain, moved to reconsider his current affiliations.

I'm all for firing into melee combat. I despise rule sets that allow units to hide from the guns through the close combat impenetrable shield.

My druthers would be for every firing instance into melee, every hit goes against the foe and every miss gets rolled again by the foe player to see if it hits the first player's troops.