During a game a few days ago, my GM decided to use suppressive fire to see how it works. My character was in the suppressed area and my GM told me that I could immediately drop prone or I would risk being hit. I assumed that if I took the hit, I would be able to move out of the suppressed area on my action phase. I took the hit and then attempted to move out during my action. My GM told me that I was going to be shot again, which I wasn't expecting. Because I had already been shot once, there seemed little point in now going prone. I took the risk and was shot again.

I thought that it was a bit odd that my character would be hit twice while attempting to move out of the suppressive fire zone. Indeed I assumed that I would only be hit once, allowing me to get to cover.

I had a look at the rules and my GM right. When in the suppressive fire zone, or when moving into or out of the zone, the target risks being hit. I suppose that this is my own fault for not knowing the suppressive fire rules.

The rule states: "Any character who is in the suppressed area (but not behind cover or prone), or who moves into or out of the area before the end of the suppressive fire, risks catching some flying lead."

The implication is that this risk occurs for anyone who is in the area at the start of the suppressive fire (and not behind cover/prone), and also occurs at unspecified times after that; a character must remain in the area for a period of time, not for just an instant. Perhaps "any character who is in the suppressed area" refers to anyone who is in the area at the start of their action phase? But if so, why include a statement about moving out of the suppressed area? In which case perhaps being "in the suppressed area" refers only to the initial moment of firing? However this allows characters to move around within the area with impunity after that initial moment.

Consider two characters who stand and do nothing in the suppressed area. The first character has one initiative pass, while the second character has three initiative passes. Does the first character get hit twice while the second character is hit four times?

I had a look at the fourth edition rules and the wording is similar.

My understanding of it is this:

Initiative:
Neil 22
Guard A 15
Guard B 11
Guard C 9

Neil the ork samurai is being chased down a hallway by 3 guards.

On 22, Neil kicks his assault rifle and sprays the hallway with suppressive fire.

Guards A & B choose to use their Free Action to Drop Prone - they are not hit.
Guard C does not choose to drop prone (foolishly), and now has to avoid getting hit.

On 15, Guard A can either stay prone and not get hit, or he can start moving again and have to dodge the bullets.

On 11, Guard B can either stay prone and not get hit, or he can start moving again and have to dodge the bullets.

On 9, Guard C can either drop prone, or move, in which case he needs to have to dodge the bullets.

The "advantage" that Guard C has over Guards A and B is that if they want to move, they need to stand up, which will use up a Simple Action.

So assuming there was a cart, or something else usable as cover in the hallway, then Guard C (having already dodged the shot when Neil went at 22) can now dodge it again at 9 and move to the cover, take a simple action to "Take Cover" and then another simple action to fire at Neil.

Guards A and B, if they want to do the same thing, they need to use a Stand Up simple action, dodge the bullet, then move to the cover and either Take Cover OR Shoot, not both.

To answer your second question, if we look at the example on page 179 - the ghoul has to check to dodge on the turn it moves into the area and then again on the following turn he would have to make it again. It doesn't say if he moves again, just if he is in the area on the next Action Phase.

Moral of the story - if you are in a suppressive fire zone, hit the dirt. If you want to get out of there, do it on your next turn, and you only have to dodge the bullets once, not twice.

Murphy's Rule of Combat: Suppressive Fire Doesn't.

How about dropping prone and then rolling out of the suppressed zone?

You cant roll out of the way! That, like, involves rotation! Simply cant be done!

Always wondered about that.

If I was going to use suppressive fire I would go prone myself so my suppressive fire is also possibly catching those prone targets, barring obstacles between us of course.

I always chuckle when I see someone spraying a house at waist level, punching holes through the walls and windows alike, only to have those inside huddling below the window. If your bullets were going through the wall already, why not drop it a half meter and actually hit someone?

Might be the threshold for embarassment between firing just above ground level and aiming too low

I think the problem here is that your GM assumed that by not dropping prone you are subject to an immediate hit (i.e. roll dodge, take damage) and then when you moved, you take another hit.

This is incorrect.

You only roll the dodge/damage on the defender's action in which they attempt to move into or out of the zone; no one takes damage on the shooter's turn.

I would disagree. The statement in the book is:


That says that if you are in the zone (which is established immediately when the firer starts the action) you risk getting hit, OR if you move into or out of the zone you risk getting hit. If you are at risk of getting hit, you can either drop prone or roll the reaction + edge. If you are behind cover you are safe. On your turn you can move within the zone (like to get behind cover) with no problem on your turn. If you move out of the zone you are then at risk of getting hit again.

"A character who is in the area" may refer to a character who does not move on their turn, but is still at risk.

Had to amend this because I missed the section on pg. 180 where is said


It also says right before that:


Which tells me that if I don't have a free action left my turn has already happened so I am getting hit outside my turn.

I see it as this:

Street Sam declares suppressive fire and lays out the zone (10 meters wide by 100 meters long by 2 meters high triangle shaped area from him) and rolls 4 hits on the test.
At that immediate time there are 5 guards that fall into that area. Guard 1 is behind cover (no risk), Guard 2 is out in the open (at risk), Guard 3 is behind cover (no risk), Guard 4 and 5 are in the open (at risk). Guards 2, 4, and 5 have the choice to either a) spend a free action to drop prove (if they have a free actions available), b) spend a Hit the Dirt interrupt action to go prone, or c) roll a reaction + edge to determine if they are hit.

Guard 2 drops prone and is safe. Guard 4 rolls and gets 5 hits and is safe. Guard 5 rolls and gets 3 hits taking base damage of Street Sam's weapon.

Guards 1, 2 and 3 decide to return fire on their turns and take a -4 dp penalty because they are in the zone.
Guard 4 decides use his free action and drop prone and then return fire with the -4dpp.
Guard 5 (the stupid one) decides to run for cover. In moving he is now at risk again and must roll. He gets 2 hits and again takes the base damage of Street Sam's weapon, but makes it to cover.

Next IP Street Sam continues the zone.
Guard 1, 3, 4, and 5 return fire all at -4 dpp.
Guard 2 stand up (requiring a test - getting 5 hits) and runs out of the zone (requiring another test - getting 1 hit and taking base damage of Street Sam's weapon). She is now out of the zone but is still immediately adjacent to it so is still subject to its penalty. Next IP, if she has one, she will move away from it and no longer be subject to the penalty.

Couple things to add:

1) If a character is prone in a suppressive fire zone, and stands up, he should test to see if he gets hit, whether he moves or not. He shouldn't test twice in the same IP if he stands up and moves. After all, it doesn't matter how much you move, just the fact that you move. (If I move 1 meter I test, or if I run directly at the person shooting at me for 24 meters I test - and there is no difference there.)

2) While I agree that the intent is that it should affect you if you are in the zone when it is created, the fact that you no longer have a free action is not proof that it isn't your turn. For instance, in your example, Guard 6, being chased by some of the samurai's friends, Readies his weapon (Simple Action), Calls a Shot (Free Action) and then Fires a burst (Simple Action) with his SMG against the spirit summoned by the sammy's mage friend. Then, deciding that the sammy is the lesser of two evils since his rounds passed harmlessly through the Force 9 Spirit of Fire, he quickly walks around the corner and right into the suppressive fire.

It is his turn, and he doesn't have a free action left - so, as long as his initiative is 5 or higher, he can take the Hit the Dirt Interrupt.

Except the sections states "stands up OR moves..." listing them as separate actions. Therefore I would say that if you stand up and then move, that is two separate actions that require two separate tests.

It says: (bold text my add)

"Any character who stands up or
moves again before the suppressive fire stops must
make a test to see if she is hit."

IMO (and we can certainly agree to disagree here), the intention is that standing up is a trigger even without movement, thus forcing you to remain prone if you want to avoid getting shot - and not to act as a double whammy if you do both.

If you read the whole section, it talks about moving into or out of the suppressive area, then about going prone, and then about standing up or moving again - i.e. if you move but stay inside the zone, you still are at risk of getting hit.

I can see why you say what you do, but I think it is a problem with the language of the rules being vague (which is not the first time this has happened unfortunately).

Thank you for the replies, especially Lobo0705, Draco18s, and forgarn. You have three different interpretations, demonstrating ambiguity in the rule. Interestingly, none of you addressed the paradox in my second example (for a character who stands still for the whole combat turn, he is hit a number of times depending on his own number of initiative passes). Although arguably someone who stands still in a suppressive fire zone deserves to be shot four times.

I still find it odd that a person in the zone should be shot more than once, but that does seem to be the most likely interpretation of the rule.

In logical terms, an OR means the satisfaction of any number of the conditions provided; once one condition is satisfied the satisfaction of other conditions becomes irrelevant (in strict logical terms). Whether or not the rules should be read in this way is a different question, of course.

Well, there is basically a wall of bullets coming at you...

Anyone actually willing to stand in a suppressive fire zone is someone wanting to commit suicide.

"Chocolate cake or vanilla ice cream?"

"Yes."

But apparently, even more suicidal is the guy that decides to try to move from the ground in the open to behind cover.

This does however make for some of the tactics the Afghani's are fond of work awesome now. Player one goes suppressive fire, gets everyone to hit the dirt. Player two throws a grenade or sets off the IED buried in the dirt. Either they sit tight and take the blast or try to flee and potentially get hit by suppressive fire twice.

There is a distinction between inclusive or and exclusive or. Or is normally inclusive by default, but in everyday language it's often exclusive.

Many people treat it as an exclusive or* you are correct. But you get more interesting results when you say "yes" than when you say "both," despite the fact that they mean the same thing.

*Actually a special kind of exclusive or. "No" is not a valid response in a lot of situations. And False XOR False is still False.

It's especially bad when one takes a few rounds in the derriere while trying to move away from the suppressive fire.


A victim of suppository fire if you will.