What happens if there are allies in the fire zone? Or if allies want to move into/through it?

I'd say they roll for Pinning as everyone else and aren't exempt from being randomly targeted. It's not like Billy can make a measured blind spot in his denial zone while waving his heavy stubber all over the place.

Looks like another question for the rules email service.

There's nothing in the rules that seems to say anything regarding this.

Why would something special happen?

Because they would effectively be in the position of being shot at. Suppressive fire is indiscriminate.

What part of the rule as written tell you something else happens?

What kind of idiot would walk into the middle of friendly suppressive fire? They get shot.

DJSunhammer said:

signoftheserpent said:

By randomly selecting who gets shot from all valid targets in the kill zone?

Morangias said:

How could they move into his "kill zone"? The moment he's done with resolving the Suppressive Fire action, his turn ends and he's done shooting. There is no "kill zone" anymore, and everyone can move wherever he wants to.

Morangias said:

No man, you got it all wrong. While realistically combat is a bunch of near-simultaneous events, mechanically it's handled as a set of separate events resolved in a strict sequence. So, why is the guy pinned when the one doing suppressive fire has stopped shooting? Because he failed a Pinning test and, presumably, has kept failing tests to snap out of it.

That's all there is to it. Yes, it does yield less realistic results, but it's your job as a GM to put them into context and create a coherent narrative.

Roll BS for everyone, friend or foe in the the area being suppressed. If the test succeeds they get hit. The affect should last until the beginning of the firer's next turn.

Morangias said:

I think the effects of suppressive fire last until the end of the next turn. If you don't use suppressive fire again on next turn, it ends. I would think everyone in the line of fire have to roll for pinning, even if entered. Although as previously stated, who is stupid enough to enter the area?

signoftheserpent said:

signoftheserpent said:

Being Pinned
A Pinned character may only take Half Actions. Additionally, he suffers a –20 penalty to all Ballistic Skill Tests. If a Pinned character is in cover relative to the attacker that Pinned him, he may not leave it except to retreat (provided he can remain in cover while doing so). If he is not in cover when Pinned he must
use his next Turn to reach cover. If there is no cover nearby, he must move away from the attacker that Pinned him. A character can make a Challenging (+0) Willpower Test at the end of his Turn to escape Pinning, in which case he may act as normal on his next Turn. This test is Easy (+30) if the character has not been shot at since his last Turn or is under cover. A character engaged in melee combat automatically escapes Pinning.

Nothing about continuous states, just a binary set of conditions. So the way it works is:

1. A declares full auto suppressing fire. B and C are in the Kill Zone. For easiness' sake let's assume he fails his BS roll and doesn't hit anyone.

2. B and C roll WP -20. Let's assume they all fail and get Pinned.

3. B's turn. He's Pinned so he only has a Half Action to spend. He's been in cover when the Pinning happened, so he can't move. He takes a shot at A but misses due to -20 penalty. At the end of his turn, he rolls to snap out of Pinning. He was shot at since his previous turn (A's attempt to pin him!), but he's in cover so he makes his roll at +30. He wins and will act normally on his next turn.

4. C's turn. He wasn't in cover, so he must spend his Half Action to move away from A. He also rolls to snap out of Pinning, but was shot at and isn't in cover, so the test is Challenging (+0). Let's assume he fails and remains Pinned.

5. A's Turn. He sees one guy in cover gathering his strength and the other guy still running away. He must make a choice. He can either try to pin these guys again, hopefully succeeding and maybe even landing a lucky shot. He can shoot at B, knowing that C will have an easy time snapping out of Pinning this round. He can shoot at C, giving him a hard time snapping out but doing nothing about B, who acts again in just a moment and likely won't miss this time.

Clean, sequential, easy to resolve, and not quite as you envision it.

But that's not what suppressive fire actually is.

Suppressive fire isn't just a quick burst, like an attack, it's focussed fire continuously on an area to suppres enemies, such as providing covering fire while teammates escape.

You might as well just use Overwatch which also pins anyone that's caught in the killzone and can actually hit an enemy (presumably one, though it's not clear) as well. And overwatch lasts until next turn because the rules establish that any reacion on the watcher's part cancels it, just as i would assume suppression would.

Quote me the part of the rules that says I'm wrong.

Morangias said:

signoftheserpent said:

Is this acclaim based onto rules interpretation, or how suppressive fire should work irl?

signoftheserpent said:

I already did. But since you insist, check out the types of actions listed on pages 233-234. You'll note the existence of something called an Extended Action.

Then, skip to Suppressing Fire action, and note it's not an Extended Action.

Also, note how the character performing Suppressing Fire loses only as much ammo as if he performed a Full- or Semi-auto burst. It's hard to explain someone covering area in bullets for an extended period of time yet only using up so much ammo as it takes to quickly spray the enemy with bullets over a course of few seconds.

There's nothing in the rules to support your interpretation. Furthermore, I've already quoted the part of rules that makes the premise of your interpretation (i.e. the idea that the target must be continuously shot at to become Pinned) factually wrong.

Then, there's the fact that you seem to be the only person around having a problem with resolving this action.

So I ask again: can you point me to any place in the rules that supports your interpretation and proves there's any case not covered by the rules as written?

I understand what you are saying, but it is incongruos with what suppressive fire actually is.

Extended actions are actions that last longer than 1 round. I'm not suggesting that's the case with Suppressive Fire. It would be down to the player to decide if he wishes to maintain it round by round. So it wouldn't qualify as an extended action anyway.

Full Actions
A Full Action requires a character’s complete attention to accomplish. A character can take one Full Action on his Turn and cannot take any Half Actions. Grappling an opponent is an example of a Full Action.

TURNS
Each character in an Encounter gets one Turn each Round. During a character’s Turn, he can perform one or more Actions. While characters’ Turns overlap each other slightly, Turns are resolved in a specific order known as Initiative Order.

Suppressing Fire
Type: Full Action

That's quite self-explanatory - since Suppressing Fire is a Full Action, it follows the timing rules on Full Actions, and thus must be completely resolved by the time the character's Turn ends.

Thus, anyone who acts after the character doing the Suppressing Fire cannot be caught in the "kill zone", because what happened in the "kill zone" is already resolved.

This may be a problem if the character chooses to do suppressing fire again in his next turn, but until that time, the "kill zone" is safe for anyone willing to enter - because if it wasn't, the character's Turn wouldn't be resolved, and thus we couldn't skip to the next character in the initiative order, and thus nobody could possibly enter it.

Now, for the final time, I ask that you provide me with any quotation that contradicts my interpretation, or concede your point.

Point, set and match, Morangias.

Morangias has stated the correct with respect to how the Suppressing Fire mechanic has been built into this game.

To Signoftheserpent: I understand what you are trying to say when it comes to how you envision how Suppressing Fire can be laid down in a tactical situation. However, there are multiple ways to lay down suppressing/covering fire in a tactical situation out in the real world. For game mechanics, I believe this is something that the game developers got right. Now, does this stop you from discussing with your GM and creating an extended action suppressing fire? I think this is more in line with your original question and would then become a house rule.