# [WOIN] Suppressive Fire



## raspberryfh (Jul 18, 2017)

This hasn't come up a whole lot in my game yet, but the theorycrafter in me is wondering about how it plays out.

Player A needs to reposition but knows there's an enemy waiting for him to move into the open and blast him.
Player B knows this as well and provides suppressive fire for Player A.

Enemy X has a position in cover and has settled into overwatch for the turn. When A makes their break for it, he's ready! He fires, drawing suppressive fire from Player B.

However, since Enemy X is firing from cover, he knows that there is actually little risk from the suppressive fire. Meanwhile, Player A is completely out of cover and takes a nasty hit before making it to the next position.

Is that how suppressive fire is supposed to play out when cover is taken into consideration? Or does suppressive fire assume that the enemy has exposed themselves and no longer benefits from cover? If the first option is correct, then there seems to be little risk in most situations for ignoring suppressive fire?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 18, 2017)

Admission time: I regret allowing attackers to ignore suppressive fire cover. A better implementation would just be that you can grant cover to an ally, period. My recommendation is that you ignore the reference to ignoring suppressive fire.


----------



## raspberryfh (Jul 18, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Admission time: I regret allowing attackers to ignore suppressive fire cover. A better implementation would just be that you can grant cover to an ally, period. My recommendation is that you ignore the reference to ignoring suppressive fire.




That makes sense. Two follow-up questions:

1) With your suggested change, would declaring suppression on X end your turn like entering overwatch? Just from a story perspective it would be hard to imagine covering two people in different locations (which would be the main reason to limit suppression fire to a turn-ending move).

2) If attackers fire at the target being covered, does the person giving suppressive fire still get an attack on them?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 18, 2017)

I think I'll add this to the errata. So:

1. Yeah, it would end your turn
2. No, it literally just grants the recipient cover.


----------



## Ercsmith (Jul 19, 2017)

Would this mean that the overwatch player could not shoot at the player receiving suppressive fire since you have to be without cover to trigger overwatch fire?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 19, 2017)

Ercsmith said:


> Would this mean that the overwatch player could not shoot at the player receiving suppressive fire since you have to be without cover to trigger overwatch fire?




Yes. That’s its exact purpose, to cancel out overwatch.


----------



## raspberryfh (Jul 19, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Yes. That’s its exact purpose, to cancel out overwatch.




With this adjustment, there's no longer any benefit to having multiple people provide suppressive fire for a single person (that person already gains 'cover' from the first instance of suppressive fire). Would you consider some alternative mechanism for granting additional cover? E.G. +1d6 cover for every person providing suppressive fire. When a whole team lays down a wall of fire, it is easier for one man to advance/retreat safely.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 19, 2017)

raspberryfh said:


> With this adjustment, there's no longer any benefit to having multiple people provide suppressive fire for a single person (that person already gains 'cover' from the first instance of suppressive fire).




Correct.



> Would you consider some alternative mechanism for granting additional cover? E.G. +1d6 cover for every person providing suppressive fire. When a whole team lays down a wall of fire, it is easier for one man to advance/retreat safely.




I think that could work.


----------



## raspberryfh (Jul 22, 2017)

These are the rules I ended up with for suppressive fire. Will see how they work out over the next few sessions.

As before, suppressive fire is performed as an action. You designate one target who will receive the benefit of your suppressive fire. This action will end the character's turn.

Changes:
1) An instance of suppressive fire grants a 1d6 cover bonus (enemies attacking the target of your suppressive fire will attack with a -1d6 penalty). The Auto weapon bonus of +1d6 is unchanged.
2) Multiple characters can provide suppressive fire for the same target. The bonuses will stack.
3) You may also provide suppressive fire for a character who remains in cover; the 1d6 cover bonus will stack with their 2d6 bonus from cover.
4) The maximum cover bonus from all sources that a character may apply is 3d6. (e.g. Zonra lays down suppressive fire with her automatic weapon to cover Tig-Ya. Tig-Ya remains behind cover as well. His total cover bonus would be +1d6 suppressive fire, +1d6 auto, +2d6 in cover; however, the bonus is capped at 3d6. Enemies targeting him will attack at -3d6).  **characters with the Hunker Down exploit do not benefit from suppressive fire if they are in cover**
5) Cover bonuses from suppressive fire are not 'Cover' and may still be attacked with Overwatch fire. However, this attack will suffer from the cover bonus. (e.g. Tig-Ya now provides suppressive fire with his pistol while Zonra advances. Zonra breaks cover and draws an overwatch attack from a DEATH Squad baddie. He will fire at -1d6 due to the suppressive fire)
6) Suppressive fire does not affect melee attacks and does not prevent enemies from closing to melee range (that would require overwatch).


I realize number 5 there explicitly goes against the intended ruling, but someone shouldn't be able to charge a prepared position without any risk simply because of cover fire. There should always be risk involved with that kind of a maneuver, but it can be mitigated.


----------

