Suppressive Fire question - Dumpshock Forums

Suppressive Fire question

Kanada Ten View Member Profile	Apr 25 2006, 11:20 PM Post #76
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826	And just making them lose their next free action to drop prone or take cover when the shooting starts - in a manner jsut like full dodge - eliminates most problems, too.

Shrike30 View Member Profile	Apr 25 2006, 11:33 PM Post #77
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98	Hey, there ya go. "Full Dodge" to the ground. :)

CONAN9845 View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 02:54 AM Post #78
Target Group: Members Posts: 65 Joined: 30-May 02 From: South Jersey Member No.: 2,798	I can't believe we are having a debate about the meaning of currently. Wait... yes I can. I think we should apply the whole "wait until the target's turn" to all shooting. It's my turn? Okay, I shoot that guy. 12 hits! Yes! He's SOOO dead! What? What do you mean he's not dead? I have to wait until it's his turn to see if he's dead? But he already acted, and only gets one pass, whereas I get two more? WHAT!? That means I have to wait until next TURN!? WTF! There are no other instances in the rules where pulling a trigger and firing bullets at someone isn't resolved right then and there. It's absurd to think otherwise. It may not be wrong in the RAW, if that's your interpretation, but it just doesn't make any sense. In the end, I stand by what I said before. Use what works in your group. I just know that if my GM was that crazy, I'd be packing it in and going home.

Kanada Ten View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 03:21 AM Post #79
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826	It is applied to all shooting - just look at Full Defense.

CONAN9845 View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 04:39 AM Post #80
Target Group: Members Posts: 65 Joined: 30-May 02 From: South Jersey Member No.: 2,798	That doesn't make it wait until the target's next action. That moves the target's "next" action to when they are being shot, if they decide to go that route. It's completely different.

Kanada Ten View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 04:44 AM Post #81
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826	But it could be treated the same. The only reason not to is to make Suppressive Fire more powerful, which is fine but seems counter to their wording.

CONAN9845 View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 05:34 AM Post #82
Target Group: Members Posts: 65 Joined: 30-May 02 From: South Jersey Member No.: 2,798	Counter to their wording in what way?

Kanada Ten

Apr 26 2006, 05:54 AM

Post #83

Beetle Eater

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826

QUOTE

Somtimes a character may just use full autofire to make his opponents keep their heads down. This type of shooting - where the character saturates an area with bullets without specifically targeting anyone - is called suppressive fire.

However, I think the rules don't follow the intent well.

CONAN9845 View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 06:10 AM Post #84
Target Group: Members Posts: 65 Joined: 30-May 02 From: South Jersey Member No.: 2,798	Neither do I. If you don't get hit by it (whenever you have to roll that), you don't have any incentive to keep your head down, since you know you are safe. There was the same problem in SR3, where it was very hard to hit anything with suppressive fire, and once you weren't hit, you could do anything you wanted without fear. We always made characters roll Willpower checks (TN was 4 plus number of bullets directed at your square, up to the 10 of FA). I suppose in SR4 I will make them roll a Gut Check Attribute-Only Test to see if they can do anything other than drop prone / take cover. Maybe the Threshold can be the number of bullets coming at them. Glitches can be used for that "pissing your pants" moment.

Shrike30

Apr 26 2006, 08:35 AM

Post #85

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 2,556
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 98

QUOTE (Kanada Ten)

But it could be treated the same. The only reason not to is to make Suppressive Fire more powerful, which is fine but seems counter to their wording.

"Treated the same" how? You can already take your advanced Full Dodge action against suppressive fire, if you interpret it as happening on the suppressing character's turn.

I don't see how Full Defense shows attacks happening on the target's turn, rather than the shooter's. All Full Defense does is let you add more dice to your pool when you're trying not to get hit, and it has the option of spending your next action "in advance" to be on Full Defense before your turn actually happens. It doesn't actually change when the shots are fired, or when their effect is resolved.

dcpirahna

Apr 26 2006, 02:28 PM

Post #86

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17-April 06
From: Germantown, MD
Member No.: 8,476

Shrike20, your own examples have the same problems with the shooter being killed that you claim invalidate mine. However mine don't violate the last sentence of the rules and yours do. I look at it as a tactical option of less offensive value as I believe the first sentence points out. You look at it as a more offensive option.

All of my points have been laid out earlier in the thread. Reiterating them to you is unlikely to change your opinion so I won't bother.

James McMurry:

QUOTE

Your interpretation applies the word currently to the future tense and allows for people within the area of suppression to not be at any risk if they are somehow moved before their turn rolls around.

No, they are still at risk. If someone else moves them, then they had still moved into or out of the suppression area while it was suppressed and so would need to roll on their turn to take damage before they get their action.

Hunga

Apr 26 2006, 02:56 PM

Post #87

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 16-February 06
Member No.: 8,272

I strongly agree with Shrike30's example and reasoning of full defense. I also agree with CONAN9845's statement that resolving any kind of shooting during target's turn just doesn't make sense.

QUOTE (dcpirahna)

The "moves in to" and "moves out of" both are quite obviously on the targets turn. There is no reason to conclude the third "or" statement would be otherwise from the text.

I don't think so. We've already dicussed how a target can "move into or out of" hazard area by other means out of turn, such as being dragged, being tossed, standing on a moving conveyor belt, etc. The whole resolving damage on target's turn idea, which is mind boggling to at least a few of us, came from the assumption that a target only moves on his turn, which is false.

Hunga

Apr 26 2006, 03:06 PM

Post #88

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 16-February 06
Member No.: 8,272

QUOTE (dcpirahna)

Shrike20, your own examples have the same problems with the shooter being killed that you claim invalidate mine.

How does Shrike30's example have the same problem when the shooter's killed? The moment the shooter's dead, everyone is in the clear as there is no longer any suppressive fire. The people who were in the area and should be at risk had already made roll the moment suppressive fire started.

Basically, A opens suppressive fire at B and C. B uses his left over free action to drop prone, so he's safe. C doesn't have one left, so he rolls (as supported by rule "currently in").

Scenario 1:
On C's turn, he can drop prone now or move behind cover (that's near by) without having to roll again (as supported by the last sentence of the rule).

Scenario 2:
On B's turn, before C, he kills A from prone. So on C's turn, he can stay where he is without moving with no risk from suppressive fire again.

Aku View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 03:13 PM Post #89
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769	i'm not sure if i've stated this yet, but heres my take on it. unless you drop prone ro take cover when supressive fire begins, you need to roll. if you take any action within the surpressed area, and don't STAY prone or behind cover, you need to roll. so Goon A gets cought in some surpressive fire and can't take his free action (because he hasnt taken his first action yet and so can't take a free action, which is how i understand that rule) and so he rolls. if he does anything other than drop prone/take cover on his first ip, he has to roll again because the bullets are still flying his way.

James McMurray

Apr 26 2006, 03:36 PM

Post #90

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE

No, they are still at risk. If someone else moves them, then they had still moved into or out of the suppression area while it was suppressed and so would need to roll on their turn to take damage before they get their action.

So they would roll to see if they were retroactively killed? What about the effects taht would ahve on the other parts of the turn that already happened? Do you roll back?

For example, Mr. Runner lays some suppression fire on mooks A and B. On A's turn he takes the fire and drags B away. Mr. Runner's buddy, Mr. Otherrunner, takes his turn, which he uses to run up and grapple B. Now B's turn rolls around, he makes his defense roll because he was moved, and he dies. Why on Earth did Mr. Otherrunner risk his life leaving cover to grapple a dead guy?

dcpirahna View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 03:56 PM Post #91
Target Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 17-April 06 From: Germantown, MD Member No.: 8,476	I honestly don't want to argue it anymore. By forcing people to roll immediatly you break the last sentence in the book. "Characters who are in the suppressed area who do not move other than taking cover or dropping prone are not at risk." If you allow them to drop prone immediatly, you break the rules (p.135) regarding taking a free action before your action phase. My interpretation does not break any rules in the book. If FanPro releases more information and says "that's not what we meant" then I will be more than happy to change my point of view. If you don't like those rules, feel free to not play in my games. This is my last post on the topic.

James McMurray View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 03:59 PM Post #92
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957	Yes, your interpreatation leaves the rules intact, but it totally destroys the flow of the combat turn, messing with the very fabric of time itself. In that situation I'd prefer to change a rule. I'd still be interested in hearing your answer to my question. Not to argue, just because I can't see a way out other than backing up to the point where suppressive fire would have killed the guy.

Aku View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 05:23 PM Post #93
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769	and i feel that line should be striken anyways. it is impossible for a metahuman to stay totaly and completely still in the first place, which is what you are implying they can do. i might, for shits and giggles, let a player try it. for the rest of the turn, they can literally do nothing, include dodge, fire, anything, because all of those things include movement

Shrike30

Apr 26 2006, 05:42 PM

Post #94

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 2,556
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 98

QUOTE (dcpirahna @ Apr 26 2006, 07:56 AM)

My interpretation does not break any rules in the book.

Fair enough. If we stick with how you define the terms "currently" (that is, to mean "now or later") and "move" (that is, to mean "move or hold still"), and don't mind creating ridiculous situations where a player sticking his head up the turn after his sniper buddy takes out the machinegunner can still be hit by suppressive fire the dead man fired off on the previous turn, and ignore the fact that characters who have a free action left over from a previous turn would be allowed to take it to go prone without even requiring the invocation of the "Full Defense" rule, then your approach to handling suppressive fire doesn't break the rules and makes total sense.

I'm going to stick with not hinging my arguement on a rule that says someone standing bolt upright in the middle of the street, not moving, is perfectly safe from the suppression fire I'm sending his way, and that doesn't require the creation of mysterious ghost turns for players to act in that don't exist anywhere else in the rulebook, and I'll try to interpret the rest of the section in a way that doesn't require the GM to alter the space-time continuum and occasionally have players undo their actions retroactively in order for it to work.

James McMurray View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 06:21 PM Post #95
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957	Sounds like a good idea to me. :)

Hunga

Apr 26 2006, 07:27 PM

Post #96

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 16-February 06
Member No.: 8,272

QUOTE (Aku)

and i feel that line should be striken anyways.

The line in question:

QUOTE

Characters in the suppressed area who do not move other than taking cover or dropping prone are not at risk.

I don't think the line needs to be striken per se. But it definitely needs to be rewritten to keep in the spirit of things. I feel that line is meant to say that characters who have already made the roll on attacker's turn can drop prone or take (nearby) cover during their turn without having to roll again.

Characters in the suppressed area whose only movement is taking cover or dropping prone are not at risk again.

Shrike30 View Member Profile	Apr 26 2006, 10:36 PM Post #97
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98	I might phrase it: "Characters in the suppressed area who move into cover or drop prone are not at risk."

DrowVampyre View Member Profile	Apr 27 2006, 12:42 AM Post #98
Target Group: Members Posts: 68 Joined: 19-April 06 From: Rio Rancho, NM Member No.: 8,484	I'm with Shrike30 on this one, though I think the easiest way to fix this is, in the next errata, to change the final line to: "Characters in the suppressed area who do not move other than taking cover or dropping prone are no longer at risk."

Aku

Apr 27 2006, 01:10 AM

Post #99

Running, running, running

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,220
Joined: 18-October 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 6,769

QUOTE (DrowVampyre)

I'm with Shrike30 on this one, though I think the easiest way to fix this is, in the next errata, to change the final line to:

"Characters in the suppressed area who do not move other than taking cover or dropping prone are no longer at risk."

no, i disagree, that still mkaes it sound like you can stand still while having lead flying at you, and not be in danger i dont think thats the way it's ment to be, i think it's ment to be that aslong as you are within the supressed area, until the fireing characters next turn, you are at risk, unless you are prone or taking cover

CONAN9845 View Member Profile	Apr 27 2006, 01:11 AM Post #100
Target Group: Members Posts: 65 Joined: 30-May 02 From: South Jersey Member No.: 2,798	Personally, I think that the last sentence, "Characters in the suppressed area who do not move other than taking cover or dropping prone are not at risk" is in reference to the first sentence, "Any character that is currently in (but not behind cover or prone) or that moves into or out of the suppressed area before the shooter's next Action Phase risks catching some flying lead". You can't say that a character that stands like a statue isn't at risk because of the last sentence, since, according to the first sentence, he most certainly is at risk. The last sentence is saying that they aren't at risk because they didn't get struck by the suppression in the first place since they were already behind cover or prone. I just can't stand when people who claim to know the English language have to read the rules of a game (NOT written by English professors), and then try to follow the letter, rather than the intent or spirit, of those rules. But like he said, and I agree with him, he is allowed to have whatever interpretation he wants. Ours is an interpretation as well. As long as it works in his game, not matter how deluded we may think it is, then it's fine. He said we didn't have to play in his games. I, for one, am grateful for that.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »