According to the RAW firing into melee gives a -20 penalty and that’s it.

I have two problems with this. a) There is no chance to accidentally hit an ally, which is the real danger when firing into melee. b) Firing full-auto into melee is no more dangerous then firing a single shot.

I’ve thought of three possible solutions to problem a)

1) When firing into melee, if the shot misses by less then 20, an ally is hit.

This the rule my group typically uses. I don’t like it as this exact rule exists for a creature when it has attached itself to a player (its in Creatures Anathema I think). Having the same penalty for just being in melee seems a bit harsh, and it makes the creature far less dangerous.

2) When firing into melee if the shooter rolls X or higher an ally is hit.

I don’t like this as it this sort of thing is already handled by the weapon jamming rules. Moreover, it would make good/best quality weapons more likely to hit an ally and I don’t want to make better quality weapons worse than lower quality ones. Lastly, if the range is two small this will rarely come up, if it’s to large then it might overlap with actual hits and I want to avoid that.

The advantage of this rule as is does combine well with my solution to (b)

3) When firing into melee, if the shooter gets two or more degrees of failure (ie misses by more than 20), an ally is hit.

This is the rule I’m thinking of using in my group. I like it for several reasons. First, it punishes characters with worse BS more. I’m okay with the idea of a gunslinger/sniper so skilled he can casually shoot into the thick of combat. On the other hand less skilled shooters should either be cautious (aim, get into point blank range) or switch to melee weapons.

Second it uses a concept already contained in the rules, degrees of failure. Lastly it combines really nicely with my solution to (b).

My solution to (b), that is making it dangerous to fire automatic into melee, is this.

When firing full or semi automatic into fire each successive round that does not hit is considered as having been rolled at 10 higher than then the original roll for determining whether an ally is hit.

Here is an example using this with option 3:
Adam is being hacked at by an ork nob. Adam’s ally Ben fires his bolter full-auto at the nob hoping to kill it this turn. Ben if 50 meters away from the melee, so he is rolling against his BS of 45 (-20 for firing into melee, +20 for full auto) and will hit Adam on anything over 65.
Ben rolls a 43, success with no degree. The first boltshell hits the nob, but the remaining three miss. The second round is treated as a roll of 53, the third 63, and the last 73. This is over the threshold of 65 so the last round hits Adam.

I think this does a good job of discouraging reckless automatic fire into melee. I’m considering making semi-auto only add +5 per miss to make up for the difference in bonuses and give semi-auto a boost. I’m also considering a cap to the number of hits the ally takes so that heavy bolters etc aren’t more dangerous to allies than enemies. Either half the number of rounds fired, 1d5 hits, or a flat 3 hits.

I’d be interested in hearing your opinions on this.

I like this solution....I will float the idea in my group...although, they really don't have the idea of shooting full auto into a melee, as that thought seemed to shock them when it came up in the tabletop discussion...

We've always handled it like this: If a shot misses because of the "firing into melee" penalty you hit your ally instead. Somewhat risky with single shot, almost guaranteed to hit an ally if using full auto.

I like it better than my prior DH rule. My take on it is this:

Firing into melee- When firing into melee, if the shooter gets two or more degrees of failure (ie misses by more than 20) someone/something else is hit. (Random roll if multiple targets.)

When firing full or semi automatic into melee- When firing full or semi automatic into fire each successive round that does not hit is considered as having been rolled at 10 higher than then the original roll for determining whether someone/something else is hit. (A random is used roll if there are multiple valid targets.)

Example: Grog is being hacked at by an ork nob. Grogs’s ally Gunho fires his bolter full-auto at the nob hoping to kill it this turn. Gunho is 50 meters away from the melee, so he is rolling against his BS of 45 (-20 for firing into melee, +20 for full auto) and will hit Grog on anything over 65.

Gunho rolls a 43, success with no degree. The first bolter shell hits the nob, but the remaining three miss. The second round is treated as a roll of 53, the third 63, and the last 73. This is over the threshold of 65 so the last round hits Grog.

In the groups I play we randomize. Melee combat isn't static, but a whirling frenzy and we decided that shooting into melee was a dangerous thing to do. Simple and fast, no penalties for shooting into melee...but the victim of the shot is random. (1-5: friend, 6-10: foe)

Multiple enemies? quickly assign numbers to them (1-3: friend, 4-6: enemy 1, 7-9: enemy 2, 10=reroll)

Firing full-auto? no probs.. roll to hit as usual (still no penalties), roll a d10 per hit, see table above.

Size modifiers are the only thing modifying the "target die" IE: friend vs hulking enemy = (1-4:friend, 5-10: foe)

Prone targets count as being a size smaller.

It quick and easy.

On page 248 there is a Stray shot (optional) rule that covers this. It says if you fail by one degree or less than you hit the other guy in the melee.

Graspar said:

I'm probably using the same rule as you, but I word it differently: Determine how many hits would be made with the firing into melee penalty. Subtract that from the number of hits you would get without the penalty. That is how many hits land on other characters in the melee.

Now I'm not saying you're wrong and I don't have a solution but if you use a simple ratio of hits and misses to your allies based on their simple failure to 'hit' their target what is there to stop JoBob McHorribleshot to say, "Well **** Cleatus you went and got into hand to hand with dat dere Genesteelar and I'm a horrible shot wit mah 'BettyJo' (heavy stubber) so instead of aiming for the Genesteelar that I'm neva gonna hit I'll jus aim fer you and sure right as rain I'm gonna land all mah stubs in dat dere purple freak..."

It would become the favorite tactic of Cultists that are crappy shots with crappy weaponry when the 'Evil Genius' overlord realizes if they just aim for their own men they obliterate their enemies...

I wish I had a thought as to reconcille this and make it work without GM fiat in saying well if you aim for your friend you will only hit them...

Barring only hitting the other guy if you are in that -20 range that is

In DH, there was an effective 20% chance of hitting the target in melee that you didn't want to hit (-20 to BS, but if you rolled a number that would have been a success without that -20, then you hit the target you didn't want to hit). Since that was a bit clumsy and didn't translate to full auto firing into a melee fight very well, I took the idea of 20% of hitting the target you don't want to hit and did the fallowing simple house rule:

• If you are shooting into melee, you suffer no additional penalty (that -20) for doing such.
• However, if any of the damage dice rolled for a successful attack matches either of the numbers for the successful attack test, then that round hits the target you did not want to hit. If the weapon used utilizes multiple d10's for a single damage roll, then any dice that matches the to-hit roll is assumed to be damage from the shot passing through one target and into the next.

Example: Captain Billy sees his mate engaged in a fight for his life against an ork and decides to help him out by shooting the ork. Captain Billy has a BS of 40, is in close range with the ork, and takes a half turn to aim giving him a total of 60 (40+10+10) for the attack test with his autogun. He rolls a 34, a success! When he rolls his damage, the dice comes up as a 4 meaning ol' Captain Billy just shot his friend for 7 pts (4+3) of damage.

Distressed by his failure and his mates declining condition under the ork onslaught (and his own bullet), the not too bright Captain Billy decides to really even the odds and opens up with a full auto burst giving him a 70 for the attack test (40+10+20). He rolls an 09 for a total of 8 hits with his autogun. For damage, he rolls a 2, 0, 4, 6, 2, 7, 9, and a 1... a truly bad day for his friend. While the ork takes hits of 5 pts, 7 pts, 9 pts, 5 pts, 10 pts, and 4 pts for the 2, 4, 6, 2, 7, and 1 rolled, his shipmate takes hits of 22 (the GM made Captain Billy check for Righteous Furry on that 0 rolled and ol' Captain billy succeeded and scored an additional 6+3 pts of damage) and 12 for the 0 and 9 that were rolled. The ork was able to easily weather that onslaught of lead and, somehow, Captain Billy's mate is still standing as well, but just barely.

Fearing the ork will finish off his poor mate at any moment, the ever dim Captain Billy makes a command decision and orders one of his men with an MP Lascannon to blow the ork strait to the Eye. The man protests, but is put in his place and promptly aims his braced lascannon at the ork. The man only has a BS of 30, but ramps it up to 50 due to close range and half a turn aiming. He pulls the trigger and rolls a 28, a success. A big handful of dice is scooped up and rolled for the damage that should, by all rights, end the ork, scoring a 4, 2, 9, 7, and a 1. As one of the numbers matches one of the numbers to hit, it is not added into the total damage done to the ork but, instead, will be reserved for yet more damage to be dealt to Capitan Billy's friend. The ork suffers a hit worth 31 pts (4+9+7+1+10) of damage (killing it) while his mate suffers anouther hit worth 12 pts (2+10) of damage as the Gm describes the mighty las beam slicing clean through the ork and right into the poor fellow the ork was trying to chop into little pieces.

I prefer this method as it takes into account multiple shots fired into melee, weapons that can blow through a body or three easily, and requires no additional rolling and no real additional math.

Arbentur said:

This is why is specifically used the term "ally" in my posts. If you shoot at the enemy and miss by a lot you hit your ally. If you shoot at your ally and miss by a lot you... still hit your ally.

That said the -20 range might be the right idea as those are normally described as "near misses" and those likely to hit another member of the melee, whereas very high rolls are often described as going totally wild.

I understood the 'ally' point of veiw but I was looking more for a blanket perspective to equally apply no matter what the situation.

In the end I agree that using just that -20 range of failure that would be a near miss would be the best area to say it hit someone besides the person you were aiming at that is also in the melee. It makes the most sense in my mind.

When you're talking semi auto, you make an extra hit for every two DoS, one would then extrapolate that if you moved your 'DoS' into that -20 range the 'extra round' could hit someone else in the melee, same thing with the auto fire....walk the 'sucesses' into that -20 range and they hit something else in the melee.

It would ensure the 'careful' aimed shots that seem to be more accepted in shooting into a melee, and rightly discourage someone using an autogun or heavy stubber to 'spray the melee down' unless they were willing to accept possibly hitting friendlies.

The obvious answer (to the original issue and also to the gaming the system problem) is that you use probability, just like in real life; that penalty for shooting into combat is the additional difficulty involved in putting the shot where you want on whom you want when they are involved in a melee but a miss within that range could still be a hit as desired, by pure luck, as follows:

One Ally is fighting one Opponent, the ratio is 1:1 so the chance is 50% whichever way you cut it - a 'miss' that would have hit without the penalty will still hit either your friend or his adversary, roll for it.

One Ally is fighting two opponents (which is bad, incidentally, although being a 'bad-ass' like one of the RT's companions will go a long way here), the ratio is now 2:1 so the chance to hit your friend is only 33% (1 / 3) - a 'miss' that would have hit but for the penalty is twice as likely to hit a bad guy but it could still hit your mate in the back, your call.

This is such an obvious failure on the part of so many game systems that I'm pretty bored of reading their rules on the issue, actually, it's really not very hard maths.