Jump to content
Stormtrooper721

New rule needed regarding Creatures in melee combat

Recommended Posts

It should be allowed to shoot at Creatures (like Tauntauns and Dewbacks) even if they are in combat. They are a target well above the height any foot soldiers they are attacking, so units friending to foot soldiers being engaged by Creatures should be allowed to help their comrades out by firing at the Creatures attacking them. Even the target they are in melee with should be allowed to shoot them. The reason shooting is not normally allowed in melee is because the opposing soldiers are grappling with each other in close combat. Sorry, but a Tauntaun or Dewback simply is not grappling with opposing soldiers' guns. Creatures the size of Vehicles should be treated like Vehicles not Troopers in melee, especially since they can leave melee combat like Vehicles can. I think this will also tone down a lot of the impact Tauntauns will have on the game without the need of a nerf or more card errata. Please let me know what you think of this proposal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree with this, at least for other units.  The unit engaged still shouldn't be able to shoot, but there's no reason why Tauntauns should get all the benefits of melee, but none of the downsides.  Balance and game issues aside, it just doesn't make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

I'll agree with this, at least for other units.  The unit engaged still shouldn't be able to shoot, but there's no reason why Tauntauns should get all the benefits of melee, but none of the downsides.  Balance and game issues aside, it just doesn't make sense. 

Why not? It's no different than melee with people on horses, which means the rider may be low in the saddle to engage the infantry, not to mention the Tauntaun having it's head down to ram/headbutt people. There would also be infantry trying to pull the rider off, which often means pulling themselves up on the saddle, so it wouldn't be as clear cut as "fire above head height." Not to mention the risk of yanking the trigger and firing too low. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly? Shooting at anything shorter than an AT-ST would be an unacceptable risk in a melee, especially since close range anti-vehicle engagements often involve climbing onto said vehicle. Accuracy in combat situations is rather low, and the risk of friendly fire would be way too high.

Edited by Squark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Why not? It's no different than melee with people on horses, which means the rider may be low in the saddle to engage the infantry, not to mention the Tauntaun having it's head down to ram/headbutt people. There would also be infantry trying to pull the rider off, which often means pulling themselves up on the saddle, so it wouldn't be as clear cut as "fire above head height." Not to mention the risk of yanking the trigger and firing too low. 

 

 

Except you always could fire at someone on horseback, even if they're fighting someone right beside them.  At that point, you're not shooting at the person, you're shooting at the big freaking animal standing there.  Look at an Infantry square of Napoleonic warfare.  The fixed bayonets were only part of the equation; being able to mutually support one another with fire was another.  Horses, and by extent, all animal based cavalry, will always be more vulnerable to enemy fire than a smaller person would be.

Another way to address this would be to make it so that dodges can't be spent in melee; if the tauntaun has stopped to fight, they shouldn't get the "moving fast" bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

Except you always could fire at someone on horseback, even if they're fighting someone right beside them.  At that point, you're not shooting at the person, you're shooting at the big freaking animal standing there.  Look at an Infantry square of Napoleonic warfare.  The fixed bayonets were only part of the equation; being able to mutually support one another with fire was another.  Horses, and by extent, all animal based cavalry, will always be more vulnerable to enemy fire than a smaller person would be.

Another way to address this would be to make it so that dodges can't be spent in melee; if the tauntaun has stopped to fight, they shouldn't get the "moving fast" bonus.

That's a case for allowing the unit being engaged to fire their rifles in melee, not other units being allowed to fire into a melee. However, with few exceptions most trooper units have a melee attack comparable to their basic ranged attack (Heavy weapons less so, but squad support weapons aren't relevant to your example. No, I do not believe you can fire an LMG or Gatling Gun in a melee). So such a change seems pointlessly complicated for non-characters, and would still involve creating a whole new keyword to allow characters to fire certain guns while engaged in melee.

Edited by Squark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stormtrooper721 said:

It should be allowed to shoot at Creatures (like Tauntauns and Dewbacks) even if they are in combat. .... Please let me know what you think of this proposal. 

I do not like the proposal. Keep current rule as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alpha17 said:

Except you always could fire at someone on horseback, even if they're fighting someone right beside them.  At that point, you're not shooting at the person, you're shooting at the big freaking animal standing there.  Look at an Infantry square of Napoleonic warfare.  The fixed bayonets were only part of the equation; being able to mutually support one another with fire was another.  Horses, and by extent, all animal based cavalry, will always be more vulnerable to enemy fire than a smaller person would be.

Another way to address this would be to make it so that dodges can't be spent in melee; if the tauntaun has stopped to fight, they shouldn't get the "moving fast" bonus.

I have no really problem with the dodge adjustment. To be fair, a square also worked because the cavalry were not intermingled with the infantry. Once cavalry intermingled, things became a bit more complicated, since it wasn't usually a 1:1 fight. Especially since if the infantry are loosely formed, the cavalry wouldn't stop, just strike and ride through. Most of the horses used by the French army were only around the height of an infantryman at the shoulder, so with people pressed all around as melee in Legion is represented, there wouldn't be a lot of horse to target that isn't behind fellow infantrymen. 

Counterpoint: If we allow for targeting of creature troopers, then there should be an action a unit can take which causes them to "take a knee" or "drop down" allowing for surrounding units to fire at engaged units, but at some cost. Or allow for Standby to trigger from friendly Disengage actions. But we're starting to get a bit complicated for a simple game with some of these changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we should be allowed to shoot a Creature trooper when it is engaged simply because it opens up another kind of non-sense situation, like shooting them with flamethrowers or grenade and yet not damage the unit they are engaged with.

But, if they were to allow it, maybe gives Cover 2 to the target and prevent the use of Blast weapons? I don't think it would overcomplicate things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Squark said:

That's a case for allowing the unit being engaged to fire their rifles in melee, not other units being allowed to fire into a melee. However, with few exceptions most trooper units have a melee attack comparable to their basic ranged attack (Heavy weapons less so, but squad support weapons aren't relevant to your example. No, I do not believe you can fire an LMG or Gatling Gun in a melee). So such a change seems pointlessly complicated for non-characters, and would still involve creating a whole new keyword to allow characters to fire certain guns while engaged in melee.

Considering melee range is the equivalent of being in the same room/grappling, there's no reason why a rifle or pistol would go bang and a LMG couldn't.  SAWs aren't the best for room clearing, but it can be done.  If anything can shoot, any non-cumbersome weapon should be allowed to fire.

9 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I have no really problem with the dodge adjustment. To be fair, a square also worked because the cavalry were not intermingled with the infantry. Once cavalry intermingled, things became a bit more complicated, since it wasn't usually a 1:1 fight. Especially since if the infantry are loosely formed, the cavalry wouldn't stop, just strike and ride through. Most of the horses used by the French army were only around the height of an infantryman at the shoulder, so with people pressed all around as melee in Legion is represented, there wouldn't be a lot of horse to target that isn't behind fellow infantrymen. 

Counterpoint: If we allow for targeting of creature troopers, then there should be an action a unit can take which causes them to "take a knee" or "drop down" allowing for surrounding units to fire at engaged units, but at some cost. Or allow for Standby to trigger from friendly Disengage actions. But we're starting to get a bit complicated for a simple game with some of these changes.

Agreed, but there is not real method of allowing for close-formation troopers to do anything in the game.  And yes, we're getting really complicated with these rules, but that's what happens when FFG tries to interject a new unit type into the game that breaks several preexisting rules.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Red Castle said:

I don't think we should be allowed to shoot a Creature trooper when it is engaged simply because it opens up another kind of non-sense situation, like shooting them with flamethrowers or grenade and yet not damage the unit they are engaged with.

But, if they were to allow it, maybe gives Cover 2 to the target and prevent the use of Blast weapons? I don't think it would overcomplicate things up.

It may be easier to just give them the new "immune range 1" keyword. That covers the grenades and flamthrowers with the death trooper's grenade thrower being the only exception (I think).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could do this for shooting into melee, but it would be clunky and complicated:
When shooting into a group of engaged miniatures after rolling attack dice and converting surges (but before applying cover) take the following step:

Roll a number of white defense dice equal to all minis in the melee.  Roll one additional white die for each medium base figure and two additional white dice for each large base figure, do not convert surges 

Take the total number of blocks and surges and divide the hits as evenly as possible among those results (for odd numbers weight should be given to the blocks).  Hits assigned to block results will be counted as hits against the attacking units opponent.  Hits assigned to surges will be counted as hits against forces friendly to the attacker.  Cover granted by terrain will be counted, do not count cover granted from suppression or keyword Cover(X).   Dodge tokens may not be used by defending minis. Roll defense dice as normal and apply wounds.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

Considering melee range is the equivalent of being in the same room/grappling, there's no reason why a rifle or pistol would go bang and a LMG couldn't.  SAWs aren't the best for room clearing, but it can be done.  If anything can shoot, any non-cumbersome weapon should be allowed to fire.

Agreed, but there is not real method of allowing for close-formation troopers to do anything in the game.  And yes, we're getting really complicated with these rules, but that's what happens when FFG tries to interject a new unit type into the game that breaks several preexisting rules.  

I have seen systems that just give penalties to shooting certain weapons in certain situations (engaging in melee, fighting in rainy weather, the operator is feeling a bit gassy that day), at which point is turning into a simulation/rpg less a simplish tabletop game.

Honestly, I think the "easier" fix is to force Creature Troopers to Disengage to get out of melee combat rather than allowing them to freely move out of combat.  This represents the difficulty of getting out of melee range with infantry grabbing onto tack, mount, and rider. But yes, in a game where actions are precious, a unit that can effectively take SEVEN actions in a single turn, and is a new unit type with few downsides (not being able to interact with some objectives), is a bit of a conundrum on how to effectively  and consistently deal with it using a similar number of points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:

Considering melee range is the equivalent of being in the same room/grappling, there's no reason why a rifle or pistol woul go bang and a LMG couldn't.  SAWs aren't the best for room clearing, but it can be done.  If anything can shoot, any non-cumbersome weapon should be allowed to fire.

Friendly fire is the issue. Big, unwieldy weapons like LMGs have too much spread and recoil to be used in the manner a pistol or bayoneted rifle would in a melee.

Room clearing is range 1. Grappling is r0.

Edited by Squark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly fire would still be a problem. Yes, the animal is big. But it's not just standing there, the melee is in constant motion and you could easily hit a friend.

When Dewbacks come out and people get more practice against tauntauns it'll probably level off and be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer them to be able to be shot or not be able to walk away for rules consistency if nothing else. Previously we had vehicles, which cannot be engaged and troopers which can and then suffer/gain the dis/advantages of doing. I would have preferred Creature Troopers be treated like one or the other as we are starting to pile a lot of rules on this game with troopers / emplacement troopers and now creature troopers all having their own exceptions. FFG could also have just left their melee rules the same as standard troopers and given them the Disengage rule that post-amputation Luke has.

I'm not terribly interested in arguing 'realism' as there always special cases to be made for one side or the other. For example, the arguments for not allowing them to be shot could be applied just as easily to AT-RTs and Droidekas. Every bit of added complexity, however small, is cumulative with others and a drag on learning and recalling the rules, so I think the real question is whether this increased complexity is worth that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always disliked the rule of not being able to fire at units in melee.  It should be a choice with consequences, but not against the rules.  Something like, if you fire at an enemy unit in melee with a friendly unit, after converting surges, your opponent rolls your missed dice at your friendly unit.  Makes firing into melee possible, but usually a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Jukey said:

I've always disliked the rule of not being able to fire at units in melee.  It should be a choice with consequences, but not against the rules.  Something like, if you fire at an enemy unit in melee with a friendly unit, after converting surges, your opponent rolls your missed dice at your friendly unit.  Makes firing into melee possible, but usually a bad idea.

Yes, but firing into melee is more of a thing that we as gamers will do since we're playing with toy soldiers as opposed to asking real soldiers to potentially shoot their comrades.

It might be realistic for Droid troopers, but less so for any other army. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Yes, but firing into melee is more of a thing that we as gamers will do since we're playing with toy soldiers as opposed to asking real soldiers to potentially shoot their comrades.

It might be realistic for Droid troopers, but less so for any other army. 

True...but it still occurs in combat situations from time to time.  Not saying it should be often, but every now and then...but the cost of doing so should almost always outweigh the benefit.

The melee moshpits are the one mechanic I find annoying and unthematic feeling in the game.

You could add that the dice rolled against your friendly engaged unit gain pierce 1 and suppressive, as well as the unit shooting takes suppression too.  That would be a pretty hefty risk/reward.

 

Edited by Jukey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the engagement rules for shooting are designed for theme and game balance as much as realism. It would be lame if a squad of death troopers just shot Luke unceremoniously as he was facing off against Darth Vader in a dramatic lightsaber showdown.

I do think it would be cool to introduce a command upgrade or command card that allows you to shoot into melee with some kind of bad consequence. Would be very thematic for Empire/CIS/Saw Guerrera for Rebels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...