If I recall currectly there are no rules for this at all
Anyone have any suggestions?
I was thinking in the lines of +1 pr round, but no rc at all or +4 with +1 pr everyother round after the first still with no rc

This type of desperate action is modelled in the suppressive fire and seeking fire rules witch can be found in canon companion.

Edward

I've used a variation, where you roll the number of dice equal to rounds fired at a base target is 5 plus how general or specific the area trying to be hit is. Granted, we like to see alot of ammunition expended, but then the guy with dual ingrams has to have something to do.

That sounds like you are taking a 1st Ed. spin on supresive fire, where you roll each round fired. (not that 1st ed had supresive fire...I don't know, but the rules back then as far as I understand it were a die per round.)

I was talking about FA weapons, I meant pistols. What if a guy flees and in a last desperate attempt to make the pursuiers give up, turns around, doesnt aim much and just unloads in the general direction behind him ...

The things about a dice pr round could work, then you could divide thm up between multiple targets ...

That's still supressive fire, but you're only doing it with a pistol that's not FA.

The thing is, you're trying to allow a player to take less aim and fire more shots in a given amount of time that they would normally only be able to fire two shots from that pistol.

The aiming part is mute realy. You're never really aiming unless you make it a called shot or aimed shot in SR. You're just generally aiming in their direction.
If you hit them in a vital area it is represented by high stages of damage from multiple successes.

So, if you wanted that then I'd say you've already got it.
If they don't care who they hit, then just decide on your own who they hit when they fired at a general TN of 4 modified by surroundings and their present action of not really making any effort to hit any one thing.

I always liked how technically an M16A2 would be incapable of suppressive fire in the Shadowrun universe because it dosen't have a full auto mode.

You really cant suppres an area with a 3 round burst. Having fired a M-16 before I know how quick they fire. You can do blind fire with it if you just want to shoot an not hit anything.

However firing two round with a SA pistol in a phase is firing without aiming.

It is a horrid mistake to assume that an M16A2 cannot provide suppressive fire.
It is but a pull of a finger away between bursts, and I dare any man alive to stand down range from that fire and scoff at it's supressive fire.
They will end up very dead in doing so.

I think the supressive fire rules have always been an issue in this comunity.
I've seen threads on it countless times.
It seems to need a re-wright.

I like the idea of the burst addition, as they should be, but I also think that such fire can be accomplished with any firearm, as this thread points out.

It's just that in SR, it's very difficult to make room for an SA to accomplish such a feat with it's limitations of fire inside of the initiative breakdown.

You may be able to send 6 bullets down range, but each set of three bullets is taking up a very small area. Unlike a full auto weapon which can spread it's threat over a wider area.

Think of it this way, sit down with a M-60 and fire ten rounds going from left to right.

Then do it with a M16, you will find that the M16 is not nearly as effective. the shot group for each three round burst is not going to be effective over a wide area.

Now if you knew a guy was using a tree for cover and you just shot at the tree, sure it would keep him under cover. But I don't think that is exactly how the suppressive fire rules work in SR.

You can "fan" burst fire real easily.
While you pull the trigger, move the weapon.
For example, take said M16A2 or the like, to a range and put it on burst, then pull the trigger and while doing that yank the weapon from center to left.
Stop.
Go downrange and tell me where those rounds landed.
I'll tell you right now that they did not land near eachother at all.

It may not seem like it's going to do much, but it will.

It's not as much as a full auto, but it will definately supress.

[edit]don't get me wrong here...an M60 will supress a hell of alot better than a burst weapon. But that burst weapon will do the job nicely when needed.

What I am saying is the rules are based on the suppressive fire of a weapon like an M-60. A Full auto blast that is spread out over an area. So if you use a weapon that doesn't fire as much, or is capable of firing over an area (and burst fire really isn't designed to fight over an area) then anything less wont fit the bill (by the rules) even if it would work partially.

All cannon aside here, why not just walk the fire of the 6 rounds? IIRC, you have to use atleast 6 rounds to use supressive fire. I am just looking for a small fix to the problem without re-writing the whole system.

Realistically, having never fired an SMG or assault rifle before, I have a hard time understanding why you can't swivel while firing and spreading the 6 rounds across and area. I see more than 2 trajectories there.

Simple: Just fan the weapon while pulling the trigger in semi really fast. It's not hard to get a decent rate of fire in semi-auto mode, producing a scary enough noise to keep someone's head down, and put enough lead out to give a decent chance to hit anyone who doesn't. Weren't there some commonly accepted house rules posted a while ago about firing (Quickness) rounds with a complex from a weapon in SA mode, at a big penalty?

Actually...that's not a bad idea right there.

I've used it for about as long as I can remember, mostly cause my group loves suppressive fire. I don't have CC and the actual rules, so I just RP it out. So far no one's been dumb enough to leap into a hail of lead.

Should you be able to do suppressive fire with a SA pistol? Sure thats not how SA weapons are used under game rules, but I always figured that reflected a situation where the guy firing the gun was at least trying to aim instead of just emptying a magazine.

Unfortunately, most games don't handle supressive fire and the 'beaten zones' of burst fire very well. If somebody is hiding behind something, and I decide to but 10 rounds in and around their posistion (in 3 seconds this is quite easy, even with a SA weapon), they will probably not be too interested in exposing themselves too much. Even though I said 10 rounds, the same guy would probably be just as supressed by 8 rounds or 6, it's the percieved risk of getting hit that supresses, not the number of rounds fired.

So HMGs which blow huge chunks out of things supress quite well, even when they are not firing alot of rounds.

This is also where well drilled teamwork come in, one person can usually be supressed pretty easily. Supressing a properly deployed fire team (3-5 people) is much harder than 3-5 times the effort of supressing one person...

Another lesson on supression is the effectiveness of a siper at supressing whole units, even when the sinper only fires a few times. After the sniper fires once, the entire nit might take cover, while they try to locate the sniper (i.e. they a momentarility supressed/ not doing whatever it is they are supposed to be doing).

Other considerations:

Doing 'stuff' while receiving supressive fire might not make being hit 'likely', i.e. if you ignored them shooting at you and did whatever it is you wanted to do, you still might not get hit, it's just few people want to take the chance. This is one of the reasons that drugged/fanatical/veteran troops tend to preform better in that they are harder to supress, thus they tend to actually get the job done.

So could a suppresion system that has a Fear function work better in your opinion to reflect what you were just saying.
As in, if somone rolls for supression, the opposition has to roll a "Fear" check of some sort (perhaps willpower) to gather enough balls to leap out into that fire.
This would only apply to situations where supression fire is claimed.

It could work for the sniper as well, as they simply have to claim that they are providing supression fire to scare the enemy whether they hit them or not.
Then the enemy again has to roll Willpower to overcome their fear of being hit by the mistery sniper.
(They, of course, will most likely be making perception tests in that situation as well, but that's not directly important.)

If you are trying to make a fear based supression system, there need to be some additional considerations other than willpower. I.e. some sort of combat experience/training representation. In addition, there would need to be additions to this based on morale..

Here's a brief outline of how a wargame I like (Stargrunts) handles supression:

When troops are fired at 'effectively' (no actual hits/wounds need be caused) they gain a supression marker. A unit that has it's leader killed or disabled gains a supression marker to represent the confusion. A unit may have up the three supression markers at one time.

There is a limit to what a unit can do under supression (it can't move or fire, among other things).

To remove supression, the unit makes a leadership check:
they roll a die based on the general quality of the unit (green, regular, etc) vs a target number. The base target number is the leadership of the unit (lower leaders are better), with a modifier based on the units mission motivation (low motivation units have more trouble removing supression markers).

In general, units get two actions per turn, which means that a unit can be completely shut down by supression. (note that they can still call artillery down on you).

Also, units in certain exceptional circumstances may ignore supression completely...

So, the main point of the game becomes supressing the enemy so you can manuver and kill them, rather than actually gunning them all down in a stand up fight. so much of the game is actually spent removing supression markers rather than casualties.

A fear based supression system would also need to be based on the perceptions of the people being supressed.

Consider the following scenarios:

1
A sniper fires on a unit on patrol, no one is hit. The entire unit takes cover (because each individual in the unit worries that he might be then next one fired on). IE, the entire unit is supressed.

2
The same unit is in a normal fire fight, part of the unit is supressed by enemy fire, part is not. Now, a sniper fires on the unit and kill one memeber. The unit, unaware that there is any additional fire is not supressed.

This is why manuver can be so important in firefights, a unit the is supressed from one direction might be easily killed from another direction because they are unaware of fire comming from this new threat.

In addition, there is the problem of a person being able resist being shot. so they may decide to risk being hit to do whatever it is they wanted to do.

The suppressive fire rules in SR only model your chance of being hit.

It is left to players (based on their character personalities) and GMs (based on NPC professionalism ratings) to decide wether the characters will take the risk.

This is a role playing game after all not table top warfare.

Edward

Edward, I couldn't agree more.
Sad thing? Many players I have seen don't give a shit about their character leaping out into supression fire because they know that the TN's for the supressor are shitty, and because their character is only a piece of paper and they don't feel any real connected threat through that.

Crusher Bob....I'm going to have to look into getting that game.
It sounds pretty cool.

The publisher is Ground Zero Games. (link to their online store). The rules books and minis should be pretty easily available in the US.

The problem with proper supressive fire in SR is, in part, bassed on the success based system of damage. If the other side didn't get many successes, then plenty of characters can just shrug the round off.

I agree Wounded. One of my favorite things about SR is the tactics. Emulating Spec ops and trying to think that way. Suppressive fire can be used very effectively in Shadowrun and we have often.

I think the problem comes when you get players who just don't have an investment with there characters beyond numbers on a page. It kills me when one of mine die. It should any player. I think perhaps they are not playing the kind of character they want, or maybe there not playing the kind of game they want.