Reading through the skill descriptions I noticed that Cool is use to stay call under pressure. However, I cannot find any rules for suppressive fire anywhere?

Depending on what your Players are doing, I would just add Setback die as needed. There's no need to roll another Cool check during combat if they have to roll for their attack. Roleplay, not Rollplay.

Adding the extra variable of the Setback die, you can figure out how it ties in. Use your judgement. Perhaps even count the Setback die as its own roll and adjust the combat roll off of that? Depending on what face it shows, use it as a variable for how the character manages it. If blank, they manage to avoid damage from the suppressive fire. If it shows as a Threat, then they either lose the ability to perform their stated action, or they take damage, depending on what they were doing. Failure could just offer you anything in between. Perhaps they are able to act, but they get hit anyways.

I do kinda like making another use for cool..and discipline. Maybe make your attack vs their cool/discipline and they take setback die for each success?

I do kinda like making another use for cool..and discipline. Maybe make your attack vs their cool/discipline and they take setback die for each success?

I really like the idea of supressive fire. I'm interested in seeing what you all come up with.

Would they take damage as normal?

You can shoot at someone behind cover, and it only adds a setback die, so I'm assuming the idea is that you're either suppressing them with fire or just trying to hit them when they expose themselves to take a shot at you. If someone specifically said "I'm hiding behind the cover completely such that they can't see me" the GM could disallow any shots between that player and their enemies.

Doing something under fire imposes a setback die. I don't see the need for any more specific rules for suppressing fire.

I suppose if you wanted to, you could allow a cool check, difficulty variable based on the heaviness of fire, to negate the setback die on their next check, but that's an extra roll to have to make.

While I appreciate your input Serif Marak I find the whole rollplay/roleplay distinction very unconstructive and personally I think that system matters. With that said EotE is a narrative system that can probably handle suppressive fire without any house rules.

I do like surpressive fire as I feel it really adds a lot to tactics (if the mechanic is well executed) ad also reinforces that not every enemy have to be put down in order to achieve a combat objective. Since we just started a campaign I want to keep everything as out-of-the-box as possible while we learn the quirks of the system so I will hold back on ny house rules for now.

Still, I have thought about it and I would probably do something like this:

Laying down suppressive fire is an Action, a Ranged Combat Check. Mainly because it needs to be a clear tactical choice - do I try to suppress the entire group or do I try to take out that one guy behond the crate? It also needs to differ from just being under fire. suppressive fire is meant to simulate how someone purpously fires a torrent of blaster fire or bullets specifically to force the opponent(s) to keep their heads down, preventing them from moving or shooting back.

The difficulty is one higher than the normal range difficulty.

In addition to the normal things Threats can do the suppressed target can spend three Threats to have the attacker's weapon run out of ammo (a Heavy Blaster pistol would run out of ammo on just 1 Threat).

4 Advantages or 1 Thriump can mean that one pf the opponets is actually hit by the suppressive fire and take normal damage (but no extra damage from successes).

Suppressive fire needs to target at specific area, such as a hallway, door, a couple of crates or boulders or down a street.

Anyone in the suppressed area (if the check is successful) needs to roll against their Cool or Discipline. Their difficulty is the same number of successes that the suppressive fire check had.

If the target succeed with their roll they can act normally. If they fail they can still act but not show any parts of their body to the attacker, move towards the attacker or attack the attacker. If they fail with 4 Threats or more they become pinned down and gain the Staggered condition. A Despair likely means they are hit.

Some questions:

Should only ranged weapons with Auto-Fire be elligable for suppressive fire?

Is running out of ammo on just 1 Threat for the Heavy Blaster pistol to restrictive?

Is 4 Threats on the Cool/Disipline roll a good way to become pinned down and is the Staggered condition appropriate?

Sorry, hodge podge of thoughts below. It's early and I'm just now drinking a cup of coffee.

I know I'm not offering solutions, but any semi-auto weapon should be able to attempt suppressive fire. Auto-fire weapons just should be much better at it.

I would add in somewhere a possibility that the target(s) aren't just suppressed, but run away. Is Fear already a condition in EotE or am I reverting back to WHFRP?

A fire suppression system could add another use for Leadership.

Another thought, but it requires a definite house rule and added complexity. Morale levels. Suppression reduces morale levels. Leadership can raise morale levels. Low morale means you hide and don't fire back. Very low morale means you run away. Very high morale allows NPCs to charge you out in the open, take a stand against the Stormtrooper assault, or gives a bonus die to some actions.

I like your hodge podge thoughts Sturn.

Agreed that Auto-Fire weapons should be easier to suppress with. I am inclined to just give them 1 Boost but perhaps decreasing the difficulty one step is justified?

I really like Fear! Though having the targets make a Fear test simply if they fail is probably to much. Maybe ignore the wholed pinne down thing I mentioned above in favour of a Fear test?

I also really like Moral Values but I do feel they are out of the scope of EtoE. If only there was another game more focused on military conflict...

With your permission Sturn I would like to start this same topic with your addition in the AoR beta forum?

..of course. No permission needed.

The section on Fear checks in the GM chapter mentions making checks when dealing with large amounts of ranged fire.

There's an ability in the AoR beta for Alliance Infantry called Covering Fire, an Action that improves Ranged Defence. It doesn't seem to require a roll, but it requires an Action - and there's an improved variant that only requires a manoeuvre.

Cool. This may be already somewhat covered then. Suppressive firing isn't always "covering" fire though. I prefer it require a roll with varying results interpreted by the Player/GM as suggested by Bladerunner.

I think that Covering Fire would count as Suppresion Fire, you are essentially doing the same thing; firing to suppress while an ally is moving from cover. The only difference is that your ally may not be moving but firing themselves.

If someone has AoR, go ahead and post the rule so we can see how it works.

While I appreciate your input Serif Marak I find the whole rollplay/roleplay distinction very unconstructive and personally I think that system matters.

OMFG, this.

I agree that in this case the Role vs Roll play argument is a bit of a stretch but it is often an issue that permeates RPGs and I can see why it was brought up. I always try to find a solution within the rules before house ruling things. House rules, in my opinion, are to be avoided like the plague

In this case, without seeing the AoR rule (which I would be inclined to use even without seeing it yet), I would allow the PCs to say they were shooting to Suppress a group of targets and roll normally to hit but convert all Successes into advantages that could then be spent on Setback Dice for as many targets as they could afford (2 x Adv each I believe). NPCs or PCs under fire then could take a Maneuver to make a Cool Roll against the number of Setback Dice they would get as the Difficulty to avoid those Setback dice.

I think thats fair and within the spirit of the RAW.

You arent attempting to hit someone with suppressing fire, so you shouldnt be rolling as if you are trying to hit them, thats STUPID, not to mention it wouldnt work at all.

suppressive fire is "fire that degrades the performance of an enemy force below the level needed to fulfill their mission

Suppressing fire keeps an enemy from attempting action for fear of popping his head up into a blaster bolt. Only trained, season veterans with discipline have either the courage or skill to time an opening gap to move from behind cover and return fire. Others using cool are either so calm/collected or feel invincible to be foolish enough to act anyways.

Roll weapon attack vs their discipline/cool skill. Successes = setback die against actions. Autofire weapons do not suffer their typical penalty, but upgrade the SUPPRESSORS' check once.

This should be significant because you are FORGOING your ability to deal damage in order to debuff or degrade an opponents. Normally this wouldnt be that useful, as its not too hard to hit enemies in EoE. But against tough rivals and Nemesis it would be extremely useful, but also still maintains a level of risk involved.

The thing is. if this is an opposed check, what happens when you run into someone with training in discipline or cool. Despair when rolling Suppression could easily translate into

1. running out of ammo, your suppression action stops and enemy no longer suffers affects, have to take maneuver on your turn to reload
2. blaster overheats, cant use for 1 round or maybe even damages it
3. free maneuver for enemy to move, they caught you reloading or timed you.
4. you have exposed yourself and your firing location for too long and enemies get may upgrade their attack once against you

All of this makes sense. Frankly, this game is not a tactical simulator and suppressing an area is too convoluted and wasting time rolling dice more than doing anything storywise.

Example. Bounty Hunter using his EE-3 carbine at long range to suppress a Pirate Captain. Since the Pirate Captain doesnt have either discipline or cool as listed skill we use his highest attribute, PRESENCE 3, then upgrade it twice since he is an adversary 2.

YYG + B (aiming) vs RRP

Roll: 2s, 2a, 4f, 2t = FAILURE. The Pirate suffers no setbacks to any actions

The Bounty Hunter moves a range band closer and continues lighting up the cover the Pirate is behind.

YYG vs RRP

Roll: 4s, 3f, 1t = SUCCESS. The Pirate Captain takes 1 setback die to all actions until the start of the Bounty Hunters next turn.

You arent attempting to hit someone with suppressing fire, so you shouldnt be rolling as if you are trying to hit them, thats STUPID, not to mention it wouldnt work at all.

STUPID? You really feel that this is the adult way to begin a counter argument? I think maybe you need some quite time and no desert after din-dins.

Based on the AoR ability, I'd make covering fire for PCs a ranged/gunnery check based on distance to allies covered, or distance to enemies, whichever is longest. Auto fire weapons would do it against a normal difficulty whereas other weapons would increase the difficulty once. Success increases ranged defence for the character performing the action and one ally by +1 - or perhaps only allies? Further successes and/or advantages could be spent to apply the defence increase to additional allies...

I'd also suggest that suppressing fire can only be achieved with a weapon that has an auto-fire capability, or perhaps minion units firing multiple weapons be able to make use of it. Someone noted using the fear dynamic, which would then be overcome with discipline checks. Someone else mentioned that a triumph could be used as a hit on the group that one is trying to suppress.

Suppressing fire isn't supposed to actually hit enemies, just force them to keep their heads down while allies move into positions that are tactically advantageous. It works because the rate of fire that the weapon in question spits out makes it very dangerous to stand anywhere that can draw a line of fire.

Part of it also comes with cover. Someone ducking behind even a reinforced concrete slab really can only be hit if they keep peeking out to try and line up a shot of their own. It may grant them 2 defense dice for superior cover, but they are still leavinig themselves open to be vulnerable to squeeze of a shot. On the the other hand, ducking and hiding means that they remain completely out of line of sight. Using an auto-fire weapon might force them to try and remain hidden.

You dont gain defense from covering fire, you diminish the enemies ability. You are actually MORE exposed and vulnerable when covering fire. GAINING makes no realistic sense

You dont gain defense from covering fire, you diminish the enemies ability. You are actually MORE exposed and vulnerable when covering fire. GAINING makes no realistic sense

As for the character doing the covering fire action gaining increased defence, I did question it myself, you could behave less preadolescent, it would do wonders for the discussion. Also, the ability in AoR provides defence bonus to the minions performing the action, that's why I added it. Also it makes some sense, you would be less inclined to fire at someone blasting your area full of blaster bolts, you'd duck and cover...

You arent attempting to hit someone with suppressing fire, so you shouldnt be rolling as if you are trying to hit them, thats STUPID, not to mention it wouldnt work at all.

Same skill is used to make the shot. Some bolts from suppression may hit the target either initially or when they flee to find cover. It's entirely appropriate to roll attack, perhaps with Setback to the to-hit roll. That's how it's modeled in virtually every other system that has a Suppressing Fire mechanic.

I would suggest that it be something like this, though I would prefer a simpler, rule...see bottom for suppression as a maneuver:

To suppress a target: Declare a target benefiting from cover against you that you wish to suppress. Make a normal attack roll: If successful, instead of doing damage, the target gains a setback die to any action made on their next turn. They gain an additional setback die for each 2 advantage.

On the targets turn: a cool check, difficulty=to the total number of successes made during the suppression attack, to cancel the effects of the suppression.

If the suppression was successful, whether or not the cool check was, if suppressed character performs a maneuver or action that would logically cause him to expose himself to the suppressing fire, the suppressing character rolls a Ability (green) die. On a success, the character is hit for normal weapon damage.


The purpose of suppressing fire is to make it too dangerous for enemies to risk exposing themselves to return fire, while enabling your allies to move freely (such as to maneuver to flank). If the enemy wants to risk it, there is a chance they will be hit. For simplicity, I made it more or less a 50/50 chance rather than a new attack roll at a penalty.

For a MUCH simpler rule, you could make suppression a maneuver that adds one setback die to an enemy within weapon range's action on their next turn.

...either that or it might upgrade difficulty dice to challenge dice. A despair result on a subsequent roll might mean that they get hit with oncoming fire when they pop their head up...

Kirdan's suggestion is cool for a suppressive fire option, based on that I'd make it an Action, i.e. a ranged (light/heavy) check, opposed by the opponents Cool or Discipline. Success add a setback die to target(s) Actions on their next/up coming turn. Additional advantages, say 2 or 3, adds further setback dice. One Triumph can turn one setback die into an upgrade of difficulty for the target. Despair adds boost die or dice (if not just grabbing the upgrade from the advantages and triumph/threats and despairs tables) to attacks against character performing suppressive fire to all enemies.

Weapons with auto-fire receives a boost die or upgrade on the opposed check, or perhaps downgrades difficulty once.