Ill have to look at my book when i wake up. But as a general rule. "Specific Instance rules" generally supercede "general rules" which is WHY they are spelled out.

RAW says "a despair rolled while firing at an enemy engaged with an ally is AUTOMATICALLY spent to make the shot hit your ally."

My Interpretation of the Despair rule means that the Ally is hit, but doesn't cancel the attack on the Target. So both are hit.

Success + Despair means Friend and Target shot.

Failure + Despair means Friend Shot.

Success means Target shot.

Remember, each combat action is suppose to be a minute, so multiple shots can be narratively fired, allowing for both to be hit.

Now, I also break from the "You Must" portion of the Despair, especially since I'd rather the Despair be used to allow my villain the ability to escape from both the Shooter and the Melee'r. That "MUST" really feels against the spirit of the rules. (And my First House Rule that I can call out that I use. Only one I can think of too.)

Ill have to look at my book when i wake up. But as a general rule. "Specific Instance rules" generally supercede "general rules" which is WHY they are spelled out.

RAW says "a despair rolled while firing at an enemy engaged with an ally is AUTOMATICALLY spent to make the shot hit your allys

As with advantages and triumphs, keep in mind THESE ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE THE ONLY OPTIONS AVAILABLE. AS ALWAYS (WE DO KNOW WHAT ALWAYS MEANS RIGHT) GM'S MAY INVENT OTHER WAYS TO SPEND threats and DESPAIRS.

ALWAYS

So in short the GM ALWAYS HAS THE OPTION TO MAKE UP WHAT EVER HE WANTS FOR A DESPAIR RESULT.

READ IT LEARN IT UNDERSTAND IT.

THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.

SO despite what was written about Automatically you as a GM Have been told you can ALWAYS choose what a Despair Result is.

Wait, so you think a rule printed found in "Perform a Combat Check," under section "Step 5. Resolve Threats and Despairs" should somehow take precedence over a rule printed under the clearly titled section "Making Ranged Attacks While Engaged" in a topic titled "Shooting Into Engaged?"

Really?

The specific rule replaces the more common general rule. Life has told me there are always exceptions to nearly every general rule.

Common phrase in a driver's manual: "You should always drive a vehicle at or under the speed limit while obeying all traffic controls".

I sometimes respond to emergencies in an emergency vehicle. When I do, I automatically turn the lights & siren on, speed, and disobey traffic controls.

This being said, I will have to think about what Richardbuxton said about the practicality of shooting at an opponent engaged in melee combat with your buddy, realistically.

My Interpretation of the Despair rule means that the Ally is hit, but doesn't cancel the attack on the Target. So both are hit.

The rules do say "instead of hitting the target". But it makes sense to me to spend despairs to cause additional hits on allies (probably for base damage) regardless of the original attack's success or failure. That keeps it from negating a success, but still makes it something to avoid.

I see the red dice representing the fact that no matter how good the shooter, another meleer could step into the shot just as the trigger is being pulled.

That said, I have no problem with not counting boost dice when tabulating the damage against a friendly, as the aiming really wouldn't make a difference. Just leave them off.

Alternately, bend the rules a little and use the despair elsewhere. "You see your friend jump into line of fire and manage to pull your gun away in the nick of time. Unfortunately due to your hasty movements you shoot the energy cell sitting under your ship, blasting a hole in your landing ramp." Or some such.

Alternately, bend the rules a little and use the despair elsewhere. "You see your friend jump into line of fire and manage to pull your gun away in the nick of time. Unfortunately due to your hasty movements you shoot the energy cell sitting under your ship, blasting a hole in your landing ramp." Or some such.

That's pretty much my take, though it's not so much "bend" as "generally disregard."

So I have this player that hasn't gone down the melee/lightsaber path, and uses a repeating blaster.

So when he shoots, he has 4 yellow dice. That's pretty wizard. Now when he shoots while a friend is in a combat and rolls that red despair he hits them - and does a whole bunch of damage because he is such a good shot.

What?

So when he told me he was going to forego aiming because it might do even more damage to his buddy, I realized that this is inherently broken. Why would a 4 skill point person have the same chance of hitting their mate as a 1 skill point person? Does a trained Navy Seal really shoot his melee-fighting friend as much as a drunken blind man? And also, when they do hit, why does the trained soldier do more damage to the person they are NOT trying to hit?

Anyone have a good house rule to this one? I was thinking of letting Triumph cancel Despair or something. I like the threat of hitting your teammate, I just think it needs to take your awesomeness into consideration.

Well,

Your player roll 4 yellow dice, so there is chance to roll Triumph, and every Triumph cancel despair. So trained shooter have less chance to hit melee fighting ally then drunken blind men.

Anyone have a good house rule to this one? I was thinking of letting Triumph cancel Despair or something. I like the threat of hitting your teammate, I just think it needs to take your awesomeness into consideration.

Your player roll 4 yellow dice, so there is chance to roll Triumph, and every Triumph cancel despair. So trained shooter have less chance to hit melee fighting ally then drunken blind men.

The inherent success from a triumph will cancel the inherent failure from a despair, but a triumph effect does not cancel a despair effect.

Thats just it really. When people are moving in unpredictable ways in combat, even the most skilled marksman can make a mistake that would cut the fight short. It's part of what should make a melee character really dangerous in close quarters; if there is a guy engaged then the shooters could end up gunning down their own friends instead of the target. But the other advantages/trumphs can be used to make the terrible result more bareable. Such as inflicting damage to both, knocking prone e.c.t

In a group that has a mix of melee and ranged specialists, PCs are supposed to be smart enough to pick a different target or smart enough to not run into melee against targets they know their buddies are going to open up on.

If they don't, the despair represents the guy who brought a vibro-knife to a blaster fight stepping in front of your really good shot. It is not a reflection of a lack of skill on the shooter's part, it is a reflection of the fact that in a combat situation accidents can and do happen.

One PC in my group died because in the chaos of combat, a grenade was tossed into the largest group of enemies. Unbeknownst to the PC that threw it, another PC was in melee in the middle of that group of enemies. It can happen at any time. He died, just about everyone at the table cried in real life because their character's friend was killed. It cemented their resolve to hunt down the master of the minions that they were fighting and take him down once and for all. The next character he made wasn't a melee fighter working in a blaster toting society.

I prefer RAW.

Bad guys are subject to the same rules.

And I'm telling you the general section overrides it.

No.

Sam stewart has stated in answers to other questions the following:

The rules offered in the skills chapter are simply guidelines for using those skills if no other rules apply.

From that we can infer when a character is shooting into a melee "other rules apply" since in fact there are specific rules for shooting into melee.

Those specific rules are:

When attacking a target engaged with an ally, the attacker upgrades the difficulty of the check by one (for more on upgrading difficulty, see page 29). In addition, if the attacker’s check succeeds but generates at least (1) Despair, that Despair is automatically spent to make the attacker hit one of the individuals engaged with the target (of the GM’s choice), instead of hitting the target.

So, specific rule trumps general rule.

Success with no Despair hits the target.

And I'm telling you the general section overrides it.

No.

Sam stewart has stated in answers to other questions the following:

The rules offered in the skills chapter are simply guidelines for using those skills if no other rules apply.

From that we can infer when a character is shooting into a melee "other rules apply" since in fact there are specific rules for shooting into melee.

Those specific rules are:

When attacking a target engaged with an ally, the attacker upgrades the difficulty of the check by one (for more on upgrading difficulty, see page 29). In addition, if the attacker’s check succeeds but generates at least (1) Despair, that Despair is automatically spent to make the attacker hit one of the individuals engaged with the target (of the GM’s choice), instead of hitting the target.

So, specific rule trumps general rule.

Success with no Despair hits the target.

Success with Despair hits an ally engaged with the target.

Failure + Despair misses entirely.

You have missed 1 thing. On a Success with Despair the shot can hit anyone engaged with the target, including NPC's it doesn't have to be a PC. It gives the GM a chance to be a little lenient in the right circumstances

You have missed 1 thing. On a Success with Despair the shot can hit anyone engaged with the target, including NPC's it doesn't have to be a PC. It gives the GM a chance to be a little lenient in the right circumstances

The right circumstances being that there is more than one ally engaged with the target? Because, the shot doesn't hit an enemy.

My interpretation is that GM's choice must be made from any allies (be they PC allies or NPC allies) engaged with the target.

If there is one ally engaged with three enemies, on a Success with Despair, your ally is hit.

If there is three allies engaged with one enemy, on a Success with Despair, the GM's choice of those three allies is hit.

Personally, I assign a range of numbers to each engaged character going clockwise around the table and then roll a d6 or a d8 to determine which one is hit.

I do something similar in standard combat as well. that way it keeps me honest that I do not single out a player to attack.

Granted, after the party's heavy opens up with his heavy blaster rifle, or the Jedi ignites his lightsaber, they usually end up with a bigger chunk of the number range.

It makes sense for them to draw more fire after they establish themselves as the bigger threat.

You have missed 1 thing. On a Success with Despair the shot can hit anyone engaged with the target, including NPC's it doesn't have to be a PC. It gives the GM a chance to be a little lenient in the right circumstances

The right circumstances being that there is more than one ally engaged with the target? Because, the shot doesn't hit an enemy.

My interpretation is that GM's choice must be made from any allies (be they PC allies or NPC allies) engaged with the target.

If there is one ally engaged with three enemies, on a Success with Despair, your ally is hit.

If there is three allies engaged with one enemy, on a Success with Despair, the GM's choice of those three allies is hit.

Personally, I assign a range of numbers to each engaged character going clockwise around the table and then roll a d6 or a d8 to determine which one is hit.

I do something similar in standard combat as well. that way it keeps me honest that I do not single out a player to attack.

Granted, after the party's heavy opens up with his heavy blaster rifle, or the Jedi ignites his lightsaber, they usually end up with a bigger chunk of the number range.

It makes sense for them to draw more fire after they establish themselves as the bigger threat.

"...that Despair is automatically spent to make the attacker hit one of the individuals engaged with the target (of the GM's choice), instead of hitting the target."

I don't see the part where it says it has to be an ally.