I did some digging around in older suppressive fire threads and found that the interpretation of the rules where pretty varied.

After careful reading and rereading of the suppressive fire rules it seems that they directly contradict each other, to be more specific, the first line in the last paragraph and the last line in the same paragraph.





From this we can gather that the following is true.
Moving into or out of a suppressed area you must make a reaction + edge test.

The first line implies that the following is true but is contradicted by the last line.
A stationary character that isn't prone and does not have cover must make a reaction + edge test.
A character can move freely within a suppressed area as long as it does not move into or out of a suppressed area

From this we get only the following.
Anyone moving into or out of the suppressed area must make a reaction + edge test.

This leaves us with the following loose ends.
Does moving with in a suppressed area cause a reaction + edge test? The last line seems to imply that this is true but the first line says the test only needs to be made if you're moving into or out of the area.
Do characters without cover make reaction + edge tests if they are stationary? The first line implies that everyone in this situation makes an immediate test to avoid the suppressive fire yet the last line clearly states that characters that do not move are not at risk.

Thoughts?

I've stuck with the interpretation that assumes there's a slight grammatical error:

1: If you're in the suppressed area (either because you're moving into it during a phase, you spend the entire phase in it, or you started in it but move out of it during a phase), you can take some lead.

1a: If you qualify for the above, but your only movement is to drop flat or to get cover, you manage to avoid taking some lead. Better either stay down or figure out some other way to get rid of this guy, cuz you're pinned.

I've always gotten the impression that the rules were not necessarily written by someone with a studied knowledge of formal logic structures. That's fine... making a call on the basis that "the way it's written lets you pretend to be a statue to avoid getting hit by flying bullets" isn't hard with my group.

This is clearly a case where the authors need to add a few more words. The intent is that if you move into, within, or out of a suppressed area, you must make the defense test. If you stand still and do not take cover and do not drop prone while in the area, you must make the defense test. Not requiring a test to move within a suppressed area simply does not make any logical sense. Not requiring a test to stand still in the area also does not make sense.

Was just talking to someone about that the other night. I had wondered if they had intended it to mean that if you're in the suppressed area, and you don't take any action during your initiative pass (other than dropping prone or getting to cover), then you don't have to make a defense test. this seems to keep in line with the idea that you're using suppressing fire to keep people from acting, not just to attack them.

I agree with this. The other threads I dug up went back and forth with no conclusion.

This is a case of using a little common sense. If you're the open in the middle of suppressive fire, you have to see if you get hit whether you stand still or walk around or whatever. The rules are abstract, but they're not retarded (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)




What they needed was some damn lawyers to draft the rules! And GOOD lawyers. Cuz if you read the crappy way that state and federal law is written, it's clear that there are a lot of bad lawyers out there who think they can draft rules clearly, but they totally can't.

I'm actually a law student, not too far from finishing my contract drafting class, and it teaches us all kinds of stuff that the devs could benefit from, like how to use clear language and avoid ambiguity. I'm available for freelance consulting, if anyone over at Catalyst is interested (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Suppressive fire, the one way less initiative passes is better. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

(We've house ruled Suppressive fire can take up to a combat turn not a single pass, if you have multiple passes though you have the option of stopping or adjusting your area)

That sounds like a great house rule, because otherwise the rules don't make much sense.

As written, if you have only 1 IP, then your 20 rounds fired cover the area for 3 seconds.

If you have 3 IPs, then your 20 rounds cover the area for 1 second, and you have to fire a grand total of 60 rounds to cover the same area for 3 seconds. That implies that people with wired reflexes, for example, are less skilled at suppressive fire. Weird, huh?

I like Nightwalker's solution. The gun's rate of fire shouldn't change based on how fast the person is. Suppressive fire involves holding down the trigger and letting lead fly, right? Your reflexes should allow you to adjust your aim or start suppressing and stop suppressing much more quickly than a normal person, but they shouldn't force you to waste 40 bullets. Especially since it's rare to have a gun with enough ammo for that. Enhanced people aren't just screwed in how many bullets they have to waste per RAW, but with most guns they'll also have to reload, so they won't even be able to maintain constant suppressive fire in most cases.

Or what about this: people can delay their actions. If they choose not to take their delayed actions, they lose them. In theory, you could read this as them not having a subsequent Action Phase. Their next Action Phase would not occur until they stopped passing, or the next Combat Turn. That means that even an enhanced person could suppress an area all Turn for just 20 bullets, totally within the RAW. Pretty slick, huh? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I like that, your passes for a combat turn you can just delay (can only have one delayed at a time of course). Until a turn has passed in which case your firing time is over. In case anyone reads it differently I'll clarify that lasting for 1 combat turn, does not mean lasts until the end of the combat turn, but rather if you start firing on the second pass of the combat turn, you'll stop firing on the second pass of the next combat turn.

You can also think about it this way - if you have 3 IPs, then you can cover the same area in 3 times the amount of suppressive fire, greatly increasing anyone who is stupid enough to stand around chances of getting hit. If it lasts a combat turn and you don't take cover, you make one test to avoid bullets, if suppressive fire happens 3 seperate times in the same amount of time(1 per IP instead of 1 combat turn) then if you don't duck and cover you have to check 3 seperate times to avoid being shot.

I personally let my players choose how long they want to suppress for, up to 1 combat turn. They can spend 20 bullets to suppress for 1, 2, 3, or 4 IPs, it allows more tactical variability.

Chris

The only problem with that is rate of fire. At the third IP, the character is firing 60 rounds per second, which translates to 3,600 rounds per minute. That's a minigun's rate of fire.

Honestly, I try not think too hard about the relative rates of fire as pertains to SR or any other tabletop RPG that I play with guns in it. Generally it just doesn't work out.

Chris

Valid point. I often suspend realism for the sake of gameplay as well, but within reason. If something is just way out of whack compared to real life, then I start to wonder about it. In any event, if that rule makes your group happy, then keep at it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Also, an initiative pass translates to .75 seconds, so firing 20 rounds per IP would translate to 25 rounds per second, or 1500 rounds per minute, less than half a miniguns rate of fire.

Chris

We were talking about 3 IPs. Or, at least I was, so that's how I got 3,600 RPM.

That is actually slower than 4 IPs, 60 rounds in 3 seconds instead of 80. At 3 IPs, it is 20 rounds per 1 second,(3 seconds per combat turn, 3 IPs= 1 sec per IP) and as such even slower than my previous example of 1500 rounds per minute, 1200 RPM to be exact.

Chris

OOOPS. You're absolutely right. Well, it's no wonder that my job does not include math. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Heh, yeah, I'm headed to medical school- hopefully- but I started out in computer engineering. Math is second nature to me, I'm honestly surprised that I didn't catch it till my first post was submitting. Shows how tired I am.

Chris

I'm tired, too, so that's my excuse. Really...

But back on topic, so in that case your house rule of 1 suppressive fire action per IP is pretty reasonable, although that's a lot more die rolling. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Ohhhh, I get it! 3 suppressive fires = 3 tests for everyone in the area who isn't behind cover to avoid being shot! That makes sense. If there's one one suppressive fire action, they make one test, unless they do something dumb like move out of the suppressed area and then back in on their next Action Phase. Well that seems fair.

And THAT must be what they're talking about when they say people who stay still in the suppressed area aren't affected. If you're in the area when the supressed fire starts, you make a test, but you don't have to take more than one test against a single suppressive fire action unless you move through the area...?

I agree with your last statement. Yes, I think you only have to make one test per combat turn per suppressive fire action.

I always thought legal writing was primarily about avoiding ambiguity, and if it was also clear they would say "oh well" and use it anyway.

Yeah, I've always assumed that is the case, Larme. You make a test at the beginning and unless you do something stupid like running around you are fine. You can avoid the first test by dropping prone or diving behind cover.

Chris

Clarity is the opposite of ambiguity. If it's unambiguous, it's also clear... You could of course write in legalese and it would be unambiguous but also really hard to read. But there's a strong movement in the legal community towards using plain english drafting for documents that are not only legally effective, but easy to use. The problem is, the older generation of lawyers refuses to die/retire, so legalese is not all gone yet, not by a long shot.