Hi,

We're about to wake up our EotE campaign again, and I've been reading up on the rules again. One thing I've noticed is missing is rules for suppressive fire (or covering fire), which is very important in combat tactics involving autofire weapons. It also spews out a lot of fire, which is cool in a cinematic way.

So, without specific rules for it, how should it be handled? I feel that some of the advantages from the dice could work for it, though, but I'm not sure how.

For those not familiar with suppressive fire, it is the tactic of shooting a lot of rounds towards enemies without the goal to actually hit them, but rather to have them take cover and keep their heads down. It is also something that should be limited to automatic weapons.

Any thoughts?

-Eirik

I way I would do it as a DM is it should be an action taken by a character that in my opinion you wouldn't need to make a check for. It would upgrade the difficulty to the "suppressed" enemy's attack.

Z

In my game I use suppression as a common explanation of why people are throwing setback dice at the opposing side during firefights and/or giving boost dice to their own side when spending Advantage.

I have played in a few games where GMs have a specific suppression fire action that basically is a direct "I use my action to give the enemy setback dice" with the amount of setback based on the weapon... i.e. normal weapons 1 Setback, auto-fire 2 or 3 Setback.

The player states they are using suppressive fire and makes a Ranged or Coercian check against enemy Discipline (or difficulty assigned by GM for groups.)

Success removes free maneuver for enemies that round (requiring Strain for Aiming, moving, etc). Advantage can make them add setback for shooting that round, or give boosts to allies taking actions (as per normal rules).

Use Advantage generated from a shooting attack to apply Boost dice to friendlies and Setback dice to opponents.

Doesn't really need a whole lot else...

For those not familiar with suppressive fire, it is the tactic of shooting a lot of rounds towards enemies without the goal to actually hit them, but rather to have them take cover and keep their heads down. It is also something that should be limited to automatic weapons.

Well, at first guess, I would go more with assigning blacks to the enemy more than giving blues to the shooter (or perhaps upgrading their difficulty). One black from one player keeping their heads down to 3 or 4 if there's a bunch of 'em.

I'd say the amount of setback or difficulty should be determined on the victim's cover. if they have no cover and are being shot at by something auto-fire, i'd say the only action they can take without massive penalty is seek cover.

I'd say the amount of setback or difficulty should be determined on the victim's cover. if they have no cover and are being shot at by something auto-fire, i'd say the only action they can take without massive penalty is seek cover.

You think getting shot wouldn't be a sufficient penalty?

Covering fire could even be handled with semi-auto weapons, so it may depend on circumstance. A group of minions firing whole bunch of shots in a volley could be effective covering fire for another minion group. Granted, it would be much easier with an autofire weapon.

Suppressing fire is technically a tactic that appeals to the sense of self-preservation that one might have. So I'd put this into the category of a fear/discipline check on the part of those who are being fired at.

Here's how I'd handle it, and bear with me on it.

The character or minion group declares an action that they are conducting suppressing fire on a given area.

1. The character makes a combat check using the appropriate ranged skill but instead of using Agility as the base stat, use Presence to help form the pool.
2. The base difficulty is the range to the target, ignoring any setback dice for cover. If the character is using a non-autofire weapon, upgrade the difficulty by one die.
3. Success means that those in the targeted area who want to make an maneuver and/or an action must make an opposed Discipline check vs. the suppressing fire player's Ranged/Presence pool until the suppressing fire player's next turn.
   • Advantage adds setback dice,
   • Threat adds boost dice.
   • A Triumph can be used to score a single basic hit with the weapon on one random individual in the suppressed area.
   • Despair (regardless of success) means the gun jams/overheats and cannot be used for a turn. If the effort is successful, the targets still need to make a discipline check because the smoke/debris/ricochets haven't cleared yet.

Whaddya think?

I'd say the amount of setback or difficulty should be determined on the victim's cover. if they have no cover and are being shot at by something auto-fire, i'd say the only action they can take without massive penalty is seek cover.

You think getting shot wouldn't be a sufficient penalty?

well there's that and the pants-pooping fear of having hot ordinance coming at you at a high rate of fire that makes you not want to do anything other than not get shot.

I would set up suppressing fire a little differently.

1. You must be using an autofire weapon, or be in a minion group of 5 or more.

2. Declare you are using suppressing fire, and name the targets (minion groups count as 1 if at engaged, 3 if spread out at short). Note that anyone engaged with the 1st target (friend or foe) should be targeted before anyone further out.

3. Make a ranged attack at standard difficulty (using the worst target roll of any target)

4. If successful, upgrade target's difficulties (for anything) by 1 for each success. 1 additional target is suppressed for each advantage. 1 target (starting with 1st target) is hit for each triumph (for base damage only).

5. If target rolls despair, they are hit by base damage of weapon.

The problem with suppressive fire rules in most RPGs, is that they often become more effective than actually shooting at your opponent trying to hit them. The reason for this is that it's a means of coercing rational behaviour in a setting where rational behaviour is not the default. If someone is firing to hit you, the thing you would normally do is get behind cover, not stand there doing your own actions regardless and (depending on game system) making dodge rolls.

Well that's fine, you're thinking. Dodge rolls and such represent the NPC ducking behind cover and keeping their head down and similar. Abstract system, you say. Well yes, it is and that's fine. Until someone suddenly introduces a non-abstract rule to make them do that because they think that the NPC is not already doing this.

And at that point you've got inconsistencies all over the place because by implication if you have suppressive fire, then the NPC is not being supressed when you're actually trying to hit them with that same stream of bullets. Yes, I'm aware that suppressive fire is a hail of barely aimed bullets, but it doesn't work because to coerce the rational behaviour of the NPC (get into cover), you have to introduce penalties. Are the penalties worse than when the attacker is actually trying to kill you? Logically they shouldn't be. But if they're not, then you get the situation where the NPC has more incentive to stay behind cover and be pinned down by non-suppressive fire, so why ever use it? And if the penalties are more, then as well as being illogical in a realism sense, players start using it as a loophole for enemies they'd struggle with regardless.

I'll just be using Advantages to pin enemies down in my game and assume the NPCs are behaving rationally. I.e. if there's a hail of bullets at them, they'll probably try to stay in cover without special rules to make them do so. Less headaches that way.

Doesn't really need a whole lot else...

Very much agree, this is something better handled with the normal flow of advantages and threats. Worked great in our last session, where one PC missed but gave boost to the next, and the players narrated a covering-fire result without any prompting on my part.

If you really had to have a mechanic, I like a simplified version of Agatheron's use of the Presence stat, or you could even use Cunning, with the appropriate Ranged(X). You don't need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, because one action is not one physical shot ... plenty of movie tropes show cover fire with revolvers. To keep it simple, success requires the target to make a Fear check, and then you can use the same advantage/threat/triumph/despair mechanic to throw boost, setback, upgrades, and downgrades around as you see fit.

Covering fire could even be handled with semi-auto weapons, so it may depend on circumstance. A group of minions firing whole bunch of shots in a volley could be effective covering fire for another minion group. Granted, it would be much easier with an autofire weapon.

Suppressing fire is technically a tactic that appeals to the sense of self-preservation that one might have. So I'd put this into the category of a fear/discipline check on the part of those who are being fired at.

Here's how I'd handle it, and bear with me on it.

The character or minion group declares an action that they are conducting suppressing fire on a given area.

1. The character makes a combat check using the appropriate ranged skill but instead of using Agility as the base stat, use Presence to help form the pool.
2. The base difficulty is the range to the target, ignoring any setback dice for cover. If the character is using a non-autofire weapon, upgrade the difficulty by one die.
3. Success means that those in the targeted area who want to make an maneuver and/or an action must make an opposed Discipline check vs. the suppressing fire player's Ranged/Presence pool until the suppressing fire player's next turn.
   • Advantage adds setback dice,
   • Threat adds boost dice.
   • A Triumph can be used to score a single basic hit with the weapon on one random individual in the suppressed area.
   • Despair (regardless of success) means the gun jams/overheats and cannot be used for a turn. If the effort is successful, the targets still need to make a discipline check because the smoke/debris/ricochets haven't cleared yet.

Whaddya think?

I like this. But a couple possible thoughts.

I'm not sure Cover should be ignored. I understand your reason for including it, but a person in Cover still should be less worried about suprressive fire. A guy in a bunker, for example, might not have much fear of rounds bouncing on the outside versus a guy running through a field getting shot at.

I wouldn't use Presence. Again, I understand your reasoning, but I don't think it's enough of a reason to swap from the standard Agility to Presence. Charismatic types shouldn't necessarily excel at laying down suppresive fire with a machinegun.

Change the opposed Discipline check difficulty to simply a Discipline check with difficulty equal to the number of successes of the attack? As in a great suppressive fire roll with 3 successes means anyone caught in it must roll Discipline with 3 purples to do a Maneuver or Action.

With those changes, consider this stolen.

We just have somebody state that they are laying suppressive fire, figure out Difficulty based off of range and let it rip. Advantages are handed out as Setback Dice and a Triumph usually gets spent as an Upgrade to Difficulty.

It is fast and simple

I'd say the amount of setback or difficulty should be determined on the victim's cover.

Using advantages to hand out setbacks is the ideal way of handling suppression. The game is already complicated enough as it is. A character firing at enemies in cover will have setbacks which are effective at removing advantages. So troops in cover are less likely to be suppressed automatically.

For me I would rule that the shooter declares that he is supressing a target as his action. The shooter's skill determines the difficulty of a cool or discipline check from the target to be able to act more than taking cover. Despairs could be a hit on the target, triumph could make the suppressor run out of ammo.

How I would run it:

If you're not trying to hit, just declare, "suppressing fire." You don't roll at all. It's not hard to spray your weapon in a general area. They get a setback die to all actions until they pass some sort of Discipline test.

How I would run it:

If you're not trying to hit, just declare, "suppressing fire." You don't roll at all. It's not hard to spray your weapon in a general area. They get a setback die to all actions until they pass some sort of Discipline test.

I'd still require the player to roll. The gun can always run out of ammo after all.

Use Advantage generated from a shooting attack to apply Boost dice to friendlies and Setback dice to opponents.

Doesn't really need a whole lot else...

This. The last thing this game needs is adding a ton of complicated spot rules for niche situations, even in home-brew.

Lots of great ideas. Pretty clear this is an Action that should be added to the game imo. I'd tend to favor the quick and easy sort of automatic effect type idea, but it really does lend itself to a good competitive or opposed check as well.

The approaches that favour shifting this to being about fear / presence, are an example of what I was talking about. You then end up with a situation where attacks that are much less likely to harm (firing wildly in the air) cause fear and attacks that are very likely to harm (proper aiming) do not.

If NPCs are not behaving rationally (keeping their head down whilst being shot at), creating supplementary systems that force them to do so create imbalance and / or inconsistencies.

Inconsistencies lead to loopholes, loopholes lead to fearexploits, exploits lead to the Dark Side.

It all results from GMs not playing NPCs rationally. Thus leading to players wanting to bring non-abstract rules into an abstract system. What should be happening is this:

GM: As you shoot at the storm troopers with the repeating blaster, they duck down into cover and are pinned.

Player: Yay!

GM: Their sergeant picks up an explosive pack and makes a dash for the power-couplings making a last-ditch effort to stop you opening the bay doors.

Player: If they're running through the blaster fire, do I get a bonus?

GM: Of course - he no longer counts as in cover and you've got a clear field to blast him.

Player: Yay!

Every aspect of realism that Suppression Fire rules are intended to supply, are contained in the above. Now what often happens is this:

GM: You shoot at the storm troopers in front of you.

Player: I want to stop them getting to the power-couplings, can I just fire madly to force them into cover.

GM: Um, okay.

GM comes up with rules to force people into cover when they're being shot at. by necessity these are different to the rules for just shooting at someone, either using different stats or inflicting extra penalties for not getting into cover

GM: The sergeant makes a mad dash for the power couplings.

At this point either the scenario isn't possible because suppressive fire rules have been implemented as a psychological test or penalties are invoked such as automatic hits which are better than just trying to actually kill the NPC

Player and GM: Something doesn't quite make sense here but I can't put my finger on it.

My take on this, if any of my players suddenly gained some tactical and strategic insight, would be to either just use the combat advantage/triumph table as is (perhaps also look to the threadt/despair table for inspiration) , or let my players select one of those effects to be gained by the combat check (instead of damage), and pick a difficulty - for instance the Grimmshade solution - and have the player roll. Any excessive advatages or triumph can of course be used to improve upon the result.

So causing setback dice, losing free manoeuvres, giving difficulty upgrades or what not is found on the those tables, I'd start at average difficulty and increase difficulty once per improved effect (up to and capped by enemy's Willpower/Discipline). For good measure I'd also throw some setback dice in there as per the alternate aim manoeuvre - triumph should of course be possible to be spent to deal base damage to one enemy target if so desired (perhaps add +1 damage per 2 successes?).

Well, in real combat, one way of using suppressive fire is to keep enemies pinned down behind (usually with a big, automatic machine gun) while other combatants with lighter weapons flank around that same cover to take out the enemies.

There are many good ideas here. I think I would go for something like this:

The gunner of an autofire weapon can choose to suppress either a minion squad or a single rival or nemesis (to keep it simple). He fires his weapon onto an area and reduces his difficulty by one. However, all uncancelled successes count as advantages instead and can be used as such. If the gunner gets a triumph, it counts as a hit, if success in the triumph isn't cancelled.

Well, that's one way of doing it. Wouldn't suprise me if rules for this comes up in Age of Rebellion, though.

-Eirik

Well, that's one way of doing it. Wouldn't surprise me if rules for this comes up in Age of Rebellion, though.

-Eirik

I'm actually a little surprised no one else with the AoR Beta has mentioned this yet:

The Alliance Infantry [Minion] and Alliance Commander [Nemesis] have special abilities called "Covering Fire" and "Improved Covering Fire," respectively. The first lets the Infantry spend an Action (no roll) to provide a minor Defense buff to themselves and up to two allies/allied minion groups. The second lets Infantry near the Commander use a Maneuver to trigger the first ability, instead of an Action.

And while I think the above abilities are a fairly simple and balanced way to handle it, there is also an example of a more... complicated system, for those who might want it. In the Beta Updates, there is a new Starship Action, "Blanket Barrage," which allows a large vessel to put up a defensive screen of fire around itself. Small craft that attack anyway have their difficulty upgraded, with Disadvantage and Threat representing that they actually take some hits.

I admit, this one got by me. I'll have to take a closer look at it.