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




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

Suppressive fire, the one way less initiative passes is better.

(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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok, with the idea that multiple passes can force multiple tests on suppressive fire. 1 IP still has an advantage in that anybody who enters or leaves the area still has to make a test. So the result is this, 1 IP guy can keep people from entering the area for a longer time with only 20 rounds. But if someone is in that suppressive fire once they (make or not make their dodge) they can charge the person during their passes, and never have to make another resistance as long as they don't leave the suppressed area.

SO, new suppressive fire suggestion.

Suppressive fire takes 9 rounds per pass (36 rounds for a full combat turn), during each pass (whether you can act or not) if you are in a suppressed area, or enter a suppressed area you must dodge. 1 IP can hold down an area now, but not as effectively as multiple IP person, since he could shift his area during his passes. Other possibility:

2 IPs
(1)Suppressive Fire, (2)Delay Action, (3) Use Action, (4) No Action Available (18 rounds used for suppressive fire)
Continuing Suppressive fire does not use an action, just more ammo.

This will be firing at a rate at 720 RPM no matter your number of IP's, instead of the 400 to 1600 RPM depending on number of IP's. Full Automatic, is just holding down the trigger, not pumping it, so single IP should do just as well as multiple IP.

House rule for yourself, whether someone can cease suppressive fire without an action (I'd be ok with allowing it just so one IP person isn't forced to burn 36 rounds, he could do short bursts of suppressive fire) Perhaps this would only be available if the weapon is smartlinked.

10 rounds is a burst lasting less than a single second on most modern SMGs; 20 rounds is going to be about the average number of rounds expended in keeping targets in the area suppressed using short bursts of fire seperated by overwatching the target area. For an example of this watch Gunslinger Girl episode 1 and think about what Henrietta does when she comes to the table being used as cover by the Republicans; she doesn't spray wildly but fires a few bursts of 3 to 6 rounds at the edges to catch anyone trying to emerge.

If we assume that Shadowrun gun technologies have adapted to allow people with additional IPs to make the most use of their weapons, it's believable that they have multiplied the cyclic rate of fire and people are trained to use shorter timing on their bursts or else use guns with a CROF calibrated to how fast they can align on targets. A 1 IP character can only, at most, realign his weapon so many times in 3s, higher IP characters can do this more often and therefore can perform suppression using more rounds for a higher chance of catching people in the open; it's not really important that their weaponry is firing faster, because suppression is not about spraying an area with rounds at full CROF, it's that they can realign their weapon faster and can therefore cycle through the targets more rapidly if they so choose.

I think that allowing people to extend a single supression action up to a full combat turn is a valid and useful option for everyone as well as allowing higher IP characters to change their suppressed area and even fire the weapon normally during that suppression period, if nothing else it's far simpler than using up rounds at a rate per IP. People should also get the option of using an interrupt action to hit cover or go prone if this isn't already allowed.

See, I don't see even suppressive fire as just holding down the trigger, I would assume you would pulse it while move the gun back and forth in an arc to keep the bullets as on target(target being the area suppressed of course) as possible. I have never fired a fully automatic weapon, but if they kick as much per shot as normal shotguns/pistols/rifles do, then I am highly skeptical of anyone's ability to keep it on target, even an area target like suppressive fire, if they just hold the trigger down and let the gun fire as fast as possible.

Chris

Heh, so basically what Heath said, just stated in a less technical fashion.

Chris

Heath- Interrupt to go prone or take cover is allowed. Yeah, I like to think my suppression rules reflect reality at least moderately well with being so flexible.

Chris

@Heath: Your post gets the Larme Stamp of Approval! Combined with the idea that one suppressive fire test can only force the enemies to test for getting shot once, I think that sticking with the RAW is totally the right way to go. It means that there is a point to using suppressive fire with 60 bullets per round instead of just 20, and it also means that this is realistic (enough).