Hey,

What are the penalties, if any, for shooting an enemy when there is an ally between you and the enemy? The ally and the enemy are not in close combat.

Thanks!

It would probably depend on the situation and how much of an obstruction the ally is posing. Firing over the head of a prone or crouching ally shouldn't be a problem for a competent marksman.

If the situation is such that the ally is partly or fully obstructing a foe then the penalties for shooting into melee might not be inappropriate.

Personally I'd rule that you'd determine which parts of the target are obstructed by the ally and shoot as normal (without penalties), any hit to an obstructed location will hit the ally instead. If a character wants to avoid such a mishap they would make a called shot instead.

I'd say they provide 1 point of cover per TB. Plus their armour of course.

I'd say they provide 1 point of cover per TB. Plus their armour of course.

I'd assume it's a little more - this would mean that any bullet that manages to make you lose one wound enters and exits the body when it's more likely that the one wound is a mere bruise with the bullet being held up by your armour. For humans, I'd consider TB+Armour+5 to be appropriate, with some weapons not penetrating at all - a bolt shell specifically will generally explode in the first larger body it encounters.

Possible proportional to their wounds, or TB+SB? And technically you are going through 2 layers of their armour although that probably doesn't double.

All in allies in the way are seriously going to reduce your damage output. Mind you, as cover, if you are reading the other you might want to apply armour pen to them and the opponants armour so there still hope if you are using a plasma gun or better.

So far, there are only house rules in this thread.

Allies being in the way has no impact on shooting.

Um... no. When something is in the way of a shooter's path to his target, that's what's generally called "Cover" and what's covered by the cover rules (ahem). There's merely no rule about how much AP human cover generally represents.

DarknessEternal said:

Other than common sense. There is no explicit rule covering friendly fire when firing at a target outwith melee combat.

However, if you let rip with a heavy stubber while your mate is standing directly infront of the target it is not necessarily a house rule to say that the target gets a cover bonus from your soon to be ex-friend. Similarly if a character goes out of their way not to shoot a team-mate in the line of fire they are making a called shot.

For the most part these things can be abstracted away and ignored unless you specifically want to include them at which point you have to interpret the rule-set because it doesn't cover every possible situation that may occur in a gaming session.

Face Eater said:

For what it's worth, the mission included in the RT core rulebook has a battle start in a crowded marketplace. For the first few rounds everyone has a chance to gain 8 points of cover against an attack as one of the crowd gets in the way.

Sounds about consistent with my assumption then - they're probably not armoured and have a TB of 3. Add five and you get your 8.

That seems a little ridiculous to me. In the case of the Rogue Trader adventure, you get to use humans as cover because it's a milling horde and isn't quite aware of what's going on yet so hasn't reacted properly. A trained character in a fight will not simply be standing still and absorbing bullets, so counting them as cover isn't appropriate to me. Unless of course they're playing bodyguard, and are in fact attempting to soak up fire headed in one way or another.

In the case that your ally is simply in the line of fire between you and your opponent, I would perhaps provide a penalty to hit but no penalty to damage a la cover. But even then, I would most likely follow the rules.

The rules do not state that allies being in the line of fire reduces your chance to hit or damage. Therefore they do not, with the exceptional case of quite literally using them as a human shield.

My rationale is simply this: if your ally is in the middle of a firefight, he is not standing up still waiting to get shot. He's crouched and dodging and trying to make a small target of himself. This is of course presuming that the ally is not in melee combat with someone. Also, remember that a one meter square is by no means the size of a person... most people don't even break 2 meters tall, let alone one meter wide. He's dodging and moving and ducking and crouching and doing all manner of things to not be shot and that represents his 1meter square.

If your ally is, in fact, in melee combat he cannot be crouched or laying flat or trying to avoid being a bullet sponge actively. The -30 to fire into melee represents this, as the onus becomes yours to avoid hitting your ally with your bullets.

Indeed, have to agree with At Last Forgot. The PC will not take up the entire 1m square, and a round is a.. What, 3-5 second window? The character in the way would be able to duck out of the way or hunch down at the very least, while if they are in melee they are more focused on other things and their movements are going to be far more erratic. Give them a penalty if you want, but I don't see why you would treat it as them standing dumbly there.

By RAW only the cover rules might come into effect.

But yeah realisticly there should be a ad-hoc penalty as the shooter needs to time his shots so not to hit his comrade. In combat you would be very careful about shooting at a target if your friends were running towards it.

Since firing into melee is already -20, I wouldn't apply more than -10.

Or... just ignore it and play it cinematically and assume your friends are at the right place at the right time.

@At Last Forgot

The rules do not state that allies being in the line of fire reduces your chance to hit or damage. Therefore they do not, with the exceptional case of quite literally using them as a human shield.

The rules do state that anything being the line of fire is considered cover.

My rationale is simply this: if your ally is in the middle of a firefight, he is not standing up still waiting to get shot. He's crouched and dodging and trying to make a small target of himself. This is of course presuming that the ally is not in melee combat with someone. Also, remember that a one meter square is by no means the size of a person... most people don't even break 2 meters tall, let alone one meter wide. He's dodging and moving and ducking and crouching and doing all manner of things to not be shot and that represents his 1meter square.

There certainly are a lot of ways to shoot around someone in a 1-metre square - and about the same amount of ways to hit him, especially when you're really gunning for someone also crouched, dodging, trying to make a small target of himself and staying in cover . Personally, I'd simply give every shot hitting the torso or the legs a 50% chance of hitting the involuntary cover first, but that's just my idea.

Cifer said:

The 50% chance unrelated to skill means it will be folly to shoot in the first place. Also it would mean it's almost easier to shoot someone in melee with a friend than with just a friend in the line of fire.

The 50% chance unrelated to skill means it will be folly to shoot in the first place. Also it would mean it's almost easier to shoot someone in melee with a friend than with just a friend in the line of fire.

Not quite - firstly, there's always the possibility of simply calling the shot towards a hit location unaffected by the cover, which may or may not be easier than shooting into melee since the latter is not affected by Deadeye and Sharpshooter. Secondly, there's IMO a difference between a blanket "in melee" which may mean your friend is in front of, behind, below, or beside the enemy and the more specific "in the line of fire" - which very explicitly denotes that yes, he's blocking part of the target.

Cifer said:

Well then that begs the question; Why would anyone use anything but called shots in this situation? If you do you have no chance of hitting your friend, and only -20 to your roll at worst which unless your BS is horrid is still much better than the 50/50 chance of hitting target AFTER making a successful BS test.

Which boils down to a -20 for most people with less or no penalties for talented marksmen.

Well then that begs the question; Why would anyone use anything but called shots in this situation? If you do you have no chance of hitting your friend, and only -20 to your roll at worst which unless your BS is horrid is still much better than the 50/50 chance of hitting target AFTER making a successful BS test.

Firstly, it's not 50/50. It's 50/50 if you roll one of three zones - if I remember correctly, that's "only" 70%, making for a combined chance of 35%. Secondly, there's the matter of full auto firing. As soon as you score more than two hits, shots begin to wander, possibly over the guy in between. Which makes sense as avoiding that while spraying lead might be considered... improbable.

Which boils down to a -20 for most people with less or no penalties for talented marksmen.

Or a -0 if you just don't care and have a weapon with enough penetration. It's an unfriendly universe and some allies are... expendable.

Cifer said:

Hmm well 35% chance is still a bit too risky compared to the plain -20 BS. What would be the chance if you have 35 BS and +10 short range? Either 25% to hit enemy without risk OR.. ? My probability skills are not so good.

As for the full auto I am in agreement it should carry a risk. Using full-auto into close combat means dividing hits between target and ally in my game.

Most people care about hitting friends. Uncaring universe or not, acolyte better hope such a careless hit is lethal, and soldiers will generally not want to shoot their combat buddies (innocent bystanders is another matter - innocence is no excuse). Raving mad Pilgrims of Hayte on the other hand...

Hmm well 35% chance is still a bit too risky compared to the plain -20 BS. What would be the chance if you have 35 BS and +10 short range? Either 25% to hit enemy without risk OR.. ? My probability skills are not so good.

45 effective BS in melee = 25% chance of hitting the target, 20% chance of hitting the other target, 55% of hitting nothing

45 effective BS in cover = 30% chance of hitting the target, 15% chance of hitting the cover, 55% chance of hitting nothing

Only for higher BS ratings the 50% chance becomes worse - in which case you'll probably have deadeye/sharpshooter and can ignore it altogether

Most people care about hitting friends. Uncaring universe or not, acolyte better hope such a careless hit is lethal, and soldiers will generally not want to shoot their combat buddies (innocent bystanders is another matter - innocence is no excuse). Raving mad Pilgrims of Hayte on the other hand...

You've requisitioned a squad of PDF/Guardsmen who you're not expecting to survive the mission anyway - if they do, you'll probably have to purge them yourself for corruption and security reasons. They stand between you and a daemon slightly below Greater level and have just failed their fear test, quivering in fright while the daemon picks them off at his leisure. You've got a sanctified meltagun.

We have house ruled that the penalty for shooting through "dynamic cover" (i.e. people, moving parts of some grand device, etc.) is - 10 To Hit. The argument is that this penalty is easily overcome by simply Aiming (Half-Action +10) which is basically what you have to do to shoot around something in your way to the target.

Although no rules directly address this issue, they do state things in the line of fire provide cover and there are rules for shooting through cover (AP reducing damage) although they don't work well with Wound Points.

This is actually something that I think should be officially errata'ed.

-Cynr

I'm thinking that if an ally is in the way you work out (ask the GM) what parts of the enemy is covered by the ally and if you hit one of those parts you hit your ally instead.

Don't want to risk it? Called shot to a bodypart not covered. It's not like you should use autofire with allies in the way anyway.

The local gaming group I game with apply a -10 to the BS test. Simple and fast.

Dan.

Cifer said:

Hmm well it's not too bad. I would still do called shots in most cases though - having expendable allies is a rare situation for my group.

Can you really sanctify guns? So far they've done it to a couple of swords. If they learn they can do it to their guns they will do it to all of them. It's ridiculously cheap.

Hmm well it's not too bad. I would still do called shots in most cases though - having expendable allies is a rare situation for my group.

Can you really sanctify guns? So far they've done it to a couple of swords. If they learn they can do it to their guns they will do it to all of them. It's ridiculously cheap.

Since we're already requisitioning guardsmen and stuff, we're of course using the Sanctified trait from Ascension that isn't limited in what weapons could theoretically have it, which also brings us a sanctified melta-weapon: The Hellax Infernus. Admittedly, it's a unique relic of the founder of the Tyrantine Cabal, quite likely in the personal possession of Lord Inquisitor Anton Zerbe, but hey! If you can gain access to that, requisitioning a squad of guardsmen and finding a Greater Daemon to fight won't pose a problem either.