Two of my players are in a melee with a Pit Thing.

One of them has a revolver (lol right?) and fires into the melee that his team mate is also involved in.

Do the "firing into melee" aka "friendly fire" rules apply to him still even though he is also in the melee?

I want to say yes. But I have no definitive proof other than it just makes sense - "common sense ruling."

If so, he just popped his team mate.

He's using the Revolver in melee, not firing into it. Subtle but important linguistic difference. Yay! No penalty.

Just because it isn't written doesn't mean it isn't implied - which, sadly is the case for a lot of FFG content.

After I've had more time to think on it, I ruled on the side of common sense on this one. Here is why:

If semantics is what we are talking, then it can be inferred that "using" a ranged weapon in melee is, in fact, firing into melee. How else would one "use" a revolver other than fire it? He **** sure wasn't using it as a melee club.

Secondly, there is another PC in combat just feet away from him. Melee combat is not static - the rules dictate that during a melee it is implied that both PCs and NPCs are constantly moving and weaving, avoiding blows and essentially trying to deliver them to kill each other. This is why PCs lose the Point Blank (+30) bonus when firing a weapon while in a melee.

In that chaos, PC 1 decides to fire a weapon and misses within the range of friendly fire. Why shouldnt he be liable to hit his friend? Surely not because of a subtle difference in wording.

This is the grim dark future. Fire a pistol at a moving mass of bodies and something is bound to get hit. The Emperor's hate is eternal.

You're missing the subtle difference here:

He's not firing INTO Melee.

He's firing IN Melee.

The penalty only exists when firing INTO Melee.

I believe I have addressed this "subtle difference." And I believe that you are missing the power of a common sense ruling.

And once again, I understand the difference and assure that that would mean absolutely nothing in regards to hitting another person involved in that same melee. They are both dancing around the same enemy and gunfire is erupting in their tiny circle of influence.

But thanks for your feedback.

Okay, let's go with the common sense ruling if you'd rather disregard the written rules:

If I can swing a huge battleaxe towards an enemy who's fighting my buddy, with a great big wind-up and absolutely no finesse whatsoever (IE an All-out Attack with a Great Weapon) while he tries to dodge and my buddy is fighting with him, I should be able to jam a pistol into his belly and pull the trigger.

Common sense makes it a matter of positioning and conscious evasion. If the enemy sees your gun, he can dodge it and make you hit your comrade. If you're shooting him square in the back, different story.

Common sense makes it a matter of positioning and conscious evasion. If the enemy sees your gun, he can dodge it and make you hit your comrade. If you're shooting him square in the back, different story.

True, but the same could be said for Melee weapons. If I'm swinging with all my might with an enraged all-out attack, he could very easily duck it and try to make me hit my ally.

There's even a TVtropes page about this! http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeadlyDodging

Then again, the Dark Heresy combat rules are an abstraction. They can never be perfectly clear or accurate, in the same way that Warhammer 40k isn't a perfect representation of war and that Call of Duty is only a simulation of dating a girl. (I never played Call of Duty.) You can argue that an enemy could try and do lots of things but in the end you're left with a set of abstracted rules, and while you can house rule whatever you would like, the rules themselves say you won't hit an enemy in melee when you fire your pistol in the same melee.

Okay, let's go with the common sense ruling if you'd rather disregard the written rules:

If I can swing a huge battleaxe towards an enemy who's fighting my buddy, with a great big wind-up and absolutely no finesse whatsoever (IE an All-out Attack with a Great Weapon) while he tries to dodge and my buddy is fighting with him, I should be able to jam a pistol into his belly and pull the trigger.

Yes, that is true IF YOU PASS YOUR BS TEST.

But since you didn't, you didn't jam your pistol into anything. In the case I am referencing, what you did was shoot and miss not by a lot, but by just enough to hit your team mate were you shooting into combat from a range of ONE METER farther back.

You think that being one meter closer to something makes friendly fire non existent?

And you are right. There will never be any black and white rules for certain things (and that is good, I like it that way) because not every situation can be accounted for.

Which is why we have these outlets. At the end of the day, GM has to make their most educated decision on the subject. On this one, you and I would differ.

Mikmaks has the right of it. The same argument can be said if fail your WS test with that all-out attack.

When firing INTO melee from range, odds of hitting your friends are quite significant because the combatants are weaving about, circling each other and generally getting in the way of each other. But in melee, this proximity does not interfere with your targeting ability.

Using ranged weapons in melee isn't all that great, though. You get no bonuses from Range (no Point Blank) and no aid from any targeting equipment (red dot). And you can only shoot single shots. Meh.

Okay, let's go with the common sense ruling if you'd rather disregard the written rules:

If I can swing a huge battleaxe towards an enemy who's fighting my buddy, with a great big wind-up and absolutely no finesse whatsoever (IE an All-out Attack with a Great Weapon) while he tries to dodge and my buddy is fighting with him, I should be able to jam a pistol into his belly and pull the trigger.

Yes, that is true IF YOU PASS YOUR BS TEST.

But since you didn't, you didn't jam your pistol into anything. In the case I am referencing, what you did was shoot and miss not by a lot, but by just enough to hit your team mate were you shooting into combat from a range of ONE METER farther back.

You think that being one meter closer to something makes friendly fire non existent?

Once again, ignoring all the rules and the fact that this game was an abstraction...

First off, you'd only ever possibly hit your ally if you were both attacking from complete opposite sides of the enemy or you were an outright HORRENDOUS shot. 'Melee' assumes that, for the most part, you're within arms reach of the opponent, or at least the reach of a sword or a staff. If your ally is two inches from the enemy and you're standing two meters back, you're not in melee. The mere idea of being in Melee assumes that you're fighting forward, moving in, trying to actually, you know, FIGHT IN MELEE rather than merely taking potshots from a short range.

And, even if your ally was on the opposite side of the enemy, and you fired at the enemy and you missed or whatever, you still wouldn't be likely to hit your buddy, because he's on the opposite side of the enemy that you just missed. You'd need a magic curved bullet, or else you'd have to be firing off to the side to hit him realistically.

And, once again, IT'S AN ABSTRACTION. The rules pretty clearly say that you only take the penalty and only hit the enemy when you fire at an enemy who is engaged with combat, but that you're not engaged with. For firing 'Into' and not 'In' melee. This IS black and white as far as written rules go, the only thing it's not black and white on are the reality of the situation, but since it's an abstraction that doesn't matter.

If you want to extremely analyze every rule issue and nonsense bit that has some kind of discrepancy, you can go ahead, but your combat will all take days to finish because a lot of rules make no sense. Being able to fire a pistol in melee is a balance issue, so that non-melee character's aren't completely hopeless if they get charged or assaulted. It's certainly not overpowered.

Now, if you want to house rule it however you want, that's fine. I have absolutely no reason or power to stop you. But, it's not a rules issue, it's a matter of house-ruling, because the rules are very clear and common sense need not apply.

But in melee, this proximity does not interfere with your targeting ability.

As an avid shooter of twenty or so year, I don't find this to be the case. This is what pushes me to rule the way I did. Which is why subjective experiences are going to drive common sense rulings as well.

Either way, you are right. I told him that firing while in melee was really, really not optimal for his character from any standpoint (RP) included. I think he is just tired of everyone making fun of him for not contributing. I hope it doesn't kill him.

But in melee, this proximity does not interfere with your targeting ability.

As an avid shooter of twenty or so year, I don't find this to be the case. This is what pushes me to rule the way I did. Which is why subjective experiences are going to drive common sense rulings as well.

Either way, you are right. I told him that firing while in melee was really, really not optimal for his character from any standpoint (RP) included. I think he is just tired of everyone making fun of him for not contributing. I hope it doesn't kill him.

As for this... Shooting at a static target or even a moving target is NOTHING like firing a gun in a guy who's swinging a sword at you. I don't have personal experience with this, but it's pretty easy to observe. Aim no longer becomes an issue of making sure you have the gun lined up or sighted correctly, it becomes a matter of tracking the target as he moves and firing so that you'll hit at the right time while not being hit. It is completely an issue of blind, useless hip-shooting and has nothing to do with your ability to hit a target at range.

MUCH more importantly, if your player is tired of everyone making fun of him for not contributing, you really, really shouldn't make a house rule that makes it even more difficult for him to contribute. It's not a GMs job to go easy on players for not trying, but if he's making a genuine effort to do something, you shouldn't smack him down because the abstract rules don't fit your personal experience of non-abstract real life.

If you edit, this post will make no sense, but you currently didn't add any content that I see in your above post.

But in melee, this proximity does not interfere with your targeting ability.

As an avid shooter of twenty or so year, I don't find this to be the case. This is what pushes me to rule the way I did. Which is why subjective experiences are going to drive common sense rulings as well.

Either way, you are right. I told him that firing while in melee was really, really not optimal for his character from any standpoint (RP) included. I think he is just tired of everyone making fun of him for not contributing. I hope it doesn't kill him.

As for this... Shooting at a static target or even a moving target is NOTHING like firing a gun in a guy who's swinging a sword at you. I don't have personal experience with this, but it's pretty easy to observe. Aim no longer becomes an issue of making sure you have the gun lined up or sighted correctly, it becomes a matter of tracking the target as he moves and firing so that you'll hit at the right time while not being hit. It is completely an issue of blind, useless hip-shooting and has nothing to do with your ability to hit a target at range.

MUCH more importantly, if your player is tired of everyone making fun of him for not contributing, you really, really shouldn't make a house rule that makes it even more difficult for him to contribute. It's not a GMs job to go easy on players for not trying, but if he's making a genuine effort to do something, you shouldn't smack him down because the abstract rules don't fit your personal experience of non-abstract real life.

Yeah, you really missed the point on that one.

But in melee, this proximity does not interfere with your targeting ability.

As an avid shooter of twenty or so year, I don't find this to be the case. This is what pushes me to rule the way I did. Which is why subjective experiences are going to drive common sense rulings as well.

Either way, you are right. I told him that firing while in melee was really, really not optimal for his character from any standpoint (RP) included. I think he is just tired of everyone making fun of him for not contributing. I hope it doesn't kill him.

As for this... Shooting at a static target or even a moving target is NOTHING like firing a gun in a guy who's swinging a sword at you. I don't have personal experience with this, but it's pretty easy to observe. Aim no longer becomes an issue of making sure you have the gun lined up or sighted correctly, it becomes a matter of tracking the target as he moves and firing so that you'll hit at the right time while not being hit. It is completely an issue of blind, useless hip-shooting and has nothing to do with your ability to hit a target at range.

MUCH more importantly, if your player is tired of everyone making fun of him for not contributing, you really, really shouldn't make a house rule that makes it even more difficult for him to contribute. It's not a GMs job to go easy on players for not trying, but if he's making a genuine effort to do something, you shouldn't smack him down because the abstract rules don't fit your personal experience of non-abstract real life.

Yeah, you really missed the point on that one.

Then make the point more clear to me. I thought the two points were that your experience told you that proximity did not effect targeting ability, and that you thought your player shouldn't be able to contribute in the way he was trying to. Please clarify, since I apparently missed the mark.

The original comment was that proximity DOES NOT interfere with targetting.

I argued the opposite. It could be a misunderstand between Darth and myself, but the fact that you are in melee with something makes targetting no longer a viable option. Your retort to me that you absolutely had to make, was actually agreeing with me. But apparently argumentation is the more favorable medium here.

Secondly, I think my players can contribute in any way they see fit. This has nothing to do with that. What it has to do is this: if you fire a weapon at an enemy that your teamate is currenly dancing with, they are liable to get hit. End of story.

I clearly misunderstood you there, whoops. Sorry.

As for your players, though, you still shouldn't bar them from trying to *follow the rules of the game* in such a way as to try and assist the team, especially when they are having a bad time because they're not assisting the team enough. He's not firing a weapon at a target that his teammate is currently dancing with, he is dancing with the same opponent. When he fires, it can easily be assumed that he positioned himself so that the shot couldn't possibly hit his ally, or that he was just jamming the gun into the enemy before pulling the trigger. Once again, he's in Melee, he's not standing several feet back and firing while the ally fights in melee. He's dancing just as much as everyone else.

If you want to argue that, while dancing and fighting in melee, a gun could still hit the ally, then why can't the ally using a sword hit the guy with the gun? A longsword or big axe could very easily miss and just keep going, especially if the person wielding it is making an all-out attack or even if the weapon was just pretty heavy.

At this point, you're not arguing rules, you're trying to justify the existence of a house rule because you feel the rules should be different. That's fine, go ahead, but I'm going to exit the discussion here because it's no longer a matter of rules and you're very clearly set in your opinion that firing a gun to help in melee shouldn't be an option.

Jesus, what are you talking about, dude?

I don't bar my players for "trying to follow the rules." The fact is actions have consequences. If they wanted to play a game where nothing bad ever happened then they have Monopoly and Jenga. This is Dark Heresy.

I have no idea how you are inferring all of that about my players and our really tight knit group. But what happened was an action was made that none of us were sure about, and after I posted this we ALL came to the conclusion that shooting in this situation could have consequences. As it turns out, the team mate he hit took no damage.

If you would take your own advice, as you already stated, "I can't force you to blah blah blah." I agree. Why are you still arguing about it? I get it. You disagree. Cool!

If you would take your own advice, as you already stated, "I can't force you to blah blah blah." I agree. Why are you still arguing about it? I get it. You disagree. Cool!

Possibly because you made a thread to ask a question you'd already answered for yourself?

If you would take your own advice, as you already stated, "I can't force you to blah blah blah." I agree. Why are you still arguing about it? I get it. You disagree. Cool!

Possibly because you made a thread to ask a question you'd already answered for yourself?

I made the thread because I like as much feedback as possible with things others may have had more experience with concerning the game. It wasn't until speaking with my players after I had posed this question that the final decision was made.

I did not make the thread to argue something I had already answered.

My comment was my frustration at both of us having polarized views of how this should be handled, which we had both argued to a standstill from opposite sides, agreeing that we cannot change one anothers mind, and then still getting told why I am wrong.

Frustrating to say the least.

At this point, you're not arguing rules, you're trying to justify the existence of a house rule because you feel the rules should be different. That's fine, go ahead, but I'm going to exit the discussion here because it's no longer a matter of rules and you're very clearly set in your opinion that firing a gun to help in melee shouldn't be an option.

And this is spot on. I asked a question to get a rules understanding that, according to two people is written for a specific purpose.

I think it is silly and this did ultimately become a question of house ruling something.