Jump to content



Photo

Being in a melee, firing into that melee, friendly fire as a result?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 Mikmaxs

Mikmaxs

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 11:51 PM

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.


  • Darth Smeg and Hawker like this

#22 pearldrum1

pearldrum1

    Member

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 11:54 PM

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!


  • segara82 likes this

#23 ColArana

ColArana

    Member

  • Members
  • 250 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 12:34 AM

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? 


  • Keffisch, Hawker and Mikmaxs like this

#24 pearldrum1

pearldrum1

    Member

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 12:43 AM

 

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.



#25 pearldrum1

pearldrum1

    Member

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 12:44 AM

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.



#26 Mikmaxs

Mikmaxs

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 01:08 AM

This is not entirely related to the discussion, just my opinion on where this argument went wrong:
The thread started out looking for a rules clarification, or at least it appeared that way.
I clarified the rule.
You clarified that you were in fact, not looking for Rules As Written, but seeing if anyone interpreted them as you did.
I misunderstood, since my explanation relied on the contrast between 'In' and 'Into', and you were still using the word 'Into.' Therefore, I explained the same thing as before.

Here's where things went downhill.
At this point, you explicitly stated that you didn't care about the rules as written, which confused me because this forum subsection is for clarifying rules. I had no knowledge that you were also discussing the issue with your players.
From this point on it devolved into a series of ignored explanations, different interpretations of real-life combat, misunderstandings,and a disagreement over how important the written rules were in a primarily character-based game.
Since, personally, I'm a huge believer in following all rules as closely as possible (Since, if you disregard some of them, why bother with them at all? You need guidelines to know how you can act, and if the guidelines constantly move then you can never plan anything,) and you apparently subscribe to the philosophy of 'Realism over Abstraction' or else possibly 'Game Flow over Rules' or some other opinion, we clashed in this regard.
Seeing as this was a conflict of opinion over general playstyle, (And you had made up your mind to change the written rules with your team, though we didn't know that) the subject of argument ceased to matter.

So, yeah... In the future, I'd reccomend moving over to the House Rule subsection once you've decided to depart from the Rulebook itself, and I'll try to get the hint that you don't care about my opinion more quickly. :P
  • pearldrum1 likes this

#27 Darth Smeg

Darth Smeg

    Lord Nitpicker

  • Members
  • 1,671 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 01:35 AM

My point about the proximity may have been unclear. I meant that when engaged in melee it is assumed you time and control your attacks such that you do not accidentally hit your team-mates, even if wielding Unwieldy or Flexible weapons like Eviscerators or whips. This also applies to pistols used in Closed Combat.

 

Later rulesets declare this in more precise wording, so the intention of the rules is quite clear. You are of course free to House Rule as you please, but as a general warning I would tell you to not worry too much about common sense in a fantasy/sci-fi game where space-wizards shoot lightning and flying cathedrals shoot bullets the size of city blocks at the space-elves ship :D


Tarald - The Dark Lord of Smeg

You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on

 

My House Rules for using Only War (and more) for Dark Heresy games


#28 Alox

Alox

    Member

  • Members
  • 329 posts

Posted 31 August 2014 - 02:15 AM

If two players are in melee together with an enemy they are as likely to hit each other as they are to hit the enemy. I mean if the thug dodges your axe, your friend may be next in line in the arc of the swing. So by that reasoning you really shouldn't interfere in a melee at all, no matter what weapon you intend to use.

 

On the other hand, you may assume that the acolytes have trained together and know a bit about each other, so they can work together in the melee situation. But then again, it wouldn't matter what weapons they bring to the fight, because they of course trained that scenario.

 

In my campaign I allow players to use their pistols if they are locked in melee as a normal ranged attack without the range modifiers. I.e. they can aim and use semi/full auto etc.


Edited by Alox, 31 August 2014 - 02:18 AM.


#29 Keffisch

Keffisch

    Member

  • Members
  • 806 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 12:42 AM

To me it comes down to,

 

Do you want to play by the rules that make sense in the setting, or do you want to bend them so that they fit with the physics and circumstances that are involved in a real-world brawl - with a gun.

 

? :)


  • Darth Smeg likes this

#30 pearldrum1

pearldrum1

    Member

  • Members
  • 670 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 02:02 AM

To me it comes down to,

 

Do you want to play by the rules that make sense in the setting, or do you want to bend them so that they fit with the physics and circumstances that are involved in a real-world brawl - with a gun.

 

? :)

 

 

Right. That is what we ended up agreeing on.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS