After seeing this whole thread, here's a wild idea...

Shooter declares suppression. Anyone within the area is immediately targeted, but may declare a free action to (as usual) go full dodge or (this case only) drop prone. Anyone who chooses the latter may still act normally on their turn, but they start out prone and under a suppressed area. If the character is near the edge of the suppressed area, the GM could allow a roll to jump clear instead of prone, although that would probably use up the character's action for that IP.

Yes, that means that if you just stand there drooling, you get attacked potentially twice in a single IP. Best I can come up with, though.

Can you declare Full Defense after your last pass?

I don't see why not. Wouldn't it just come out of your first action in the next turn?

That's my thinking.

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.

As to the rest, yes, if someone blows up their head the could suppression stop. The GM can rule that either way as it is not conclusive. When you shoot suppression in an area, it is not 20 bullets all moving at the same speed in a sheer wall of lead. They will not all get there at the same time. You are effectively spraying an area randomly throughout the span of your turn. Considering the rules are an abstraction of combat it makes perfect sense

Considering that someone earlier in the thread said that SR3 suppressive fire was also handled on the targets turn I still believe my interpretation is the most correct so far.

i would say anyone inside the suppresion zone when it gets declared must take a imidate drop prone action or take damage.

after that, if one try to move into out out of the zone until the shooters next action, one may allso draw the attention of the shooter and therefor risk getting hit as he sweeps the gun over the area.

one thing tho, the SR rules do not have any info about trying to crawl. i would guess a strength number of meters would be fitting, without getting any hits from the suppression fire.

I would make it .5R*m for crawling safely instead of S, I think. Less to do with strength than quickness, and you're not going to crawl fast under fire.

At any rate, to sum things up, I think it sounds munchy but legal and somewhat realistic (dangerous word there) to spray wildly at a crowd, and get a suppression chance of hitting all of them rather than having to just target one of them. Then, if they stick around, or try to move into or out of the suppressed area while the fire is still going on, they run the risk of getting hit again.

I would probably rule, however, that if "suppressing" a crowd, you cannot hit more than 20 people... and probably no more than 5-10, because half of the shots will miss everyone altogether.

To balance this somewhat, the defenders get to use a free action (even if they've already used it for the IP) to drop prone, jump clear on a standing jump test, or declare full dodge (anything other than dropping prone eats up any actions they have in the next IP).

Still, a LMG with a long belt can wipe out several people in a single long burst, and keep the survivors pinned down for several seconds.

Seems to me the fairest way to handle it is:

Characters are only subject to suppressing fire once per Complex Action spent by the firer. If you are in the area and not prone or behind cover, you are subjected immediately. You may then act normally on your turn (assuming you survive), because you were either hit or missed by the suppressing fire. If you weren't in the area, but you move into it, you are subject to attack when you enter the area. If you were in the are, but were prone and had cover, and you subsequently break cover or stand up, you are subject to attack when you do that.

Tactically, suppressive fire does not stop an enemy from shooting back (the purpose of real life suppressing fire). However, it does prevent the enemy from safely moving across open ground. This is useful in and of itself, of course. One example might go like this: Mike, the elf decker, throws like a girl. Fortunately, he throws high explosive hand grenades. Mike and Merle, his Merc buddy, are surprised by some corp goons on the Seattle docks. Mike spends a point of edge to go first, and wings a hand grenade towards the goons. Merle, whose wired reflexes let him outroll the goons for initiative, lays down heavy suppressing fire with his Ingram White Knight LMG. The goons are already in cover or prone (they're goons, not morons), but now they're faced with a cruel choice: they can stand around and let Mike's grenade blow them to bits, or they can run and get chopped up by LMG fire. Mike and Merle don't give a crap either way, really.

My only objection to that is that if you soak the first shot, then you have unlimited freedom to move or do anything else that you want. The rest of the bullets just ignore you.

If you remain standing when somebody sprays a LMG at you, maybe spending a point of edge to ensure that the shooter misses, and then charge the shooter with your katana and slice him in half because he's already gotten one shot at you (despite the fact that he's still shooting) and you can't be attacked again... well, that's cinematic, but a little odd.

Multiple hits from a single suppression sounds pretty munchy, until you realize what a pair of airbursts (one full action) would do to most of the folks in the suppression area.

Hmm, well, I'm certainly no authority on it, but I'd say that anyone in the area is subject immediately to the roll, as they are currently in the suppressed area. Then, on their turn, they can choose to immediately take a drop prone free action, thus not being subjected to a chance of being hit again. Seriously, there is a reason soldiers don't move in tightly packed formations with no cover when facing automatic weapons. And while it does seem nice to be able to hit so many people, potentially, with a single attack, if they move that way they're asking for it, same as if they moved in tight formation against a grenade launcher wielding opponent. Also, while many people can be hit, they have a better chance of dodging than if subjected to a normal attack (they add Edge dice, after all) and, if they are hit, they take the weapons base DV, not increased by the shooters successes.

Another issue with suppressive fire, however, is this: dropping prone negates the chance of being hit, right? But what if the 10m x 2m area you choose to affect just happens to include the ground? Say, shooting from an elevated position down at a courtyard, perhaps? Doesn't seem like dropping prone would be much help, then, unless you could get behind something...

Well, if you are elevated, and shooting down at someone, maybe standing up would be considered prone.

My point is that, and I know this is an unpopular opinion with most, that the rules in Shadowrun have always been vague, and open to interpretation. In the end, ask your group, have a discussion, and then have your GM make a decision. It's that simple. You will NOT get it straightened out here.

Not that there's anything wrong with discussing it. That's what the forum is for, after all. I just think it's there's a time for a little common sense. Someone blasting a bunch of bullets at me means get down and stay down. If I had a character that didn't get hit by the suppression, and then they proceeded to use that as an excuse to stand there and act normally, I would impose a Willpower check to avoid scrambling out of the way (Gut Check, actually)... maybe even dock some Karma.

You have A, B, and C.

B and C both mean on the targets turn. A (the word "currently in") can just as easily also mean on the target's turn. Because when it's their "turn", guess where they "currently" are. Sure, if you remove B and C the sentence can mean something completely different. I can find you lots of sentences that means something else if I can take out parts of the sentence.

But regardless. I know I am right, and you know you are right, so arguing over the word "currently" will solve nothing.

My interpretation has supressive fire as a tactical ability to keep people's heads down (as it is described in the first sentence). It effects everyone in the area evenly, and only once.

Your interpretation is an offensive ability that gives free damage against everyone in the area with a lower initiative score, and they can get hit twice in the same turn.


Feel free to use whichever is best for your player group.

Currently means now. There's not really a lot of room to argue if you're trying to say that it means later.

Please note that suppression isn't a complete freebie for the shooter.

Suppression only hits with the base DV of the gun, or at least it seems to read that way. The only modifier that seems to apply is the ammo.

It's still not a bad thing to do in the first turn, especially if you have a LMG.

and it allso costs 20 rounds, no matter if you hit anything at all or not (tho i guess one could keep track of the number of bullets that hit so that you never pass 20 pr suppression action). unless you go belt, 20 rounds are about 2/3 of a clip.

Letting them drop prone is what I would probably do. Or use your interpretation of what the word currently means. It's all good. Until an official response comes there's too many things that conflict no matter which option you take for anyone to be 100% right.

I wasn't trying to espouse an interpretation, just pointing out that "currently" means "now." The Washington Monument is "currently" in Washington, DC. In 12 years, when it is sold to Disney, it will currently be in Florida, because "currently" changes with every second that ticks by.

A turn is a period, therefore, currently can mean within the combat turn.

re: currently. You are missing the point. It means "now" in respect to a time frame. That time frame is the same as the other two time frames. The target's turn.


re: the rule. No, choosing to "stand still" is a move. Standing still is not the same as dropping prone or taking cover. Thus you have made a move other than dropping prone or taking over and must roll.

Your example is still breaking a rule in the book. As does saying the person can drop prone before it is their turn. My interpretation does not.

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.

While it's possible to link statements seperated by ors, it's not always valid. They may have meant currently to apply to the future (the target's turn), or they may have meant it to apply to now.

I'll also have to disagree that choosing to stand still is a move. If you don't do anything involving muscles you aren't really moving.

I really need to bring my SR book to this house. It makes debates so much more interesting.

The current IP is also a period. So is the current Combat Turn. So is the turn during which a single character gets one free action and either two simples or one complex. So is the 6th World, for that matter. Suppression lasts until the suppressing character's next action, which would seem like a decent "period" to pick, if you were trying to steer away from "now."

But we get back to one of our earlier examples. IP1 Init 10, Dude A takes his only initiative pass and does nothing for whatever reason. IP1, Init 5, Dude B locks and loads his SMG. IP2, init 5, Dude B suppresses the area Dude A is standing in. IP 3, init 5, Dude B's magazine runs dry (he was using an MP5-TX), and he runs down the alley. Next turn on IP1 Init 10, Dude A isn't standing in a supression zone, despite having had 20 bullets fired his way.

One solution to this problem is the magically appearing, nowhere-else-in-the-rules "ghost turn" during which Dude A can get hit. If we want to use this interpretation, then Dude A gets hit with the suppressive fire on IP 3, Init 10, because he's standing in a suppression zone when his ghost turn rolls around. However, let's back up our example a little bit:

After starting his suppression fire on IP2 Init 5, Dude B is rocking out on full cyclic when on IP2 Init 2, Dude C gets hit because he (like A) is standing in the suppression zone. Not being happy about this, Dude C uses his two simple actions to give Dude A a double-tap to the head, and kills him. Now, Dude B doesn't *get* another action... he's dead. He's not shooting any more, so it doesn't make any sense that anyone else gets hit after Dude A dies. This puts us in a weirdass situation where the slower guy who would have had no opportunity to react to the suppressive fire (Dude B) *cannot* get hit, but the guy who DID have an opportunity to react to it (Dude C) *does* get hit, because he's faster.

You could always give the now-dead Dude B a ghost turn for his suppression to end on to get around THAT problem, but what happens on IP 3, Init 10 when Dude D walks INTO the suppression zone. Does he get hit? The guy "suppressing" the area was *dead* when D showed up, but to solve the whole "being slower is *gooooood* when you get suppressed" issue, the area is still suppressed. It gets even worse if dude B had suppressed on the last IP of the turn... now, despite being dead, he's rolling initiative to see when his next action would have been, were he still alive! And in the meantime, all of the guys who are currently in, were headed towards, or were possibly thinking of vacationing at the suppression zone are praying that they roll the lowest initiative score possible, so that their turn happens after the dead guy stops shooting at them.

Or, we could avoid all this, and just say that anyone currently in the suppressed area who doesn't have a free action to spare (they either used it up, or haven't gone yet) to drop prone or get cover checks to be hit when the shooting starts, on the shooter's turn. Until the shooter's next turn, anyone who wants to move into, out of, or around in the suppression zone that doesn't either have cover or prone-ness to protect their asses checks if they get hit on their turn.

Miraculously, all the questions about initiative order, multiple actions downrange, and dead shooters disappear when you do this, and you stop having people playing Statue downrange of machinegunners to avoid getting hit (because not moving means, you know, not moving... it doesn't mean that you're moving when you're not moving). Somehow, I have a feeling that the vastly simpler, much less loopholed interpretation of the rule is probably the intended one. YMMV, of course.

edited 4th and 5th paragraph

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.

Hey, there ya go. "Full Dodge" to the ground.

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.

It is applied to all shooting - just look at Full Defense.

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.

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.

Counter to their wording in what way?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sounds like a good idea to me.

I might phrase it:
"Characters in the suppressed area who move into cover or drop prone are not at risk."

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."

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.