Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TK Lafours" data-source="post: 4391905" data-attributes="member: 57570">I have no problem justifying the lack of a 'fire into melee' rule in my head.&nbsp; Put simply,If my enemy is in Melee and....&nbsp; A)&nbsp; I miss:&nbsp; It's because my allies were in the way.B)&nbsp; I hit:&nbsp; It's because my allies provided a good opening and distracted my opponent.&nbsp; Seriously, how hard is it for an ally who knows you are waiting for an opening to feint and step to one side or something obvious like that?&nbsp; The boxing match analogy was a good one, I can't imagine standing behind Mike Tyson and shooting past him to hit Evander Holyfield while they're boxing.&nbsp; But if Mike knew I was there and wanted to shoot, his tactics would change.&nbsp; He'd have no problem moving to one side every so often or otherwise maneuvering to try and give me the opening I'm waiting for.&nbsp; Any disadvantage I suffer from firing into melee is counterbalanced by the advantage I get for firing at someone who is distracted by a more immediate threat.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I think it's reasonable to disagree on this point and see it either way.&nbsp; But if either way of looking at it is reasonable, the rules can't accomodate both of us.&nbsp; In this instance, I'm glad they came down on the side that makes more sense and more fun for me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TK Lafours, post: 4391905, member: 57570"] I have no problem justifying the lack of a 'fire into melee' rule in my head. Put simply, If my enemy is in Melee and.... A) I miss: It's because my allies were in the way. B) I hit: It's because my allies provided a good opening and distracted my opponent. Seriously, how hard is it for an ally who knows you are waiting for an opening to feint and step to one side or something obvious like that? The boxing match analogy was a good one, I can't imagine standing behind Mike Tyson and shooting past him to hit Evander Holyfield while they're boxing. But if Mike knew I was there and wanted to shoot, his tactics would change. He'd have no problem moving to one side every so often or otherwise maneuvering to try and give me the opening I'm waiting for. Any disadvantage I suffer from firing into melee is counterbalanced by the advantage I get for firing at someone who is distracted by a more immediate threat. I think it's reasonable to disagree on this point and see it either way. But if either way of looking at it is reasonable, the rules can't accomodate both of us. In this instance, I'm glad they came down on the side that makes more sense and more fun for me. [/QUOTE]

Verification