Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Suppressive Fire (Was munchkins)
Date: Tue Oct 16 06:10:01 2001
Zebulin Magby writes:

> HIM: I take out my sniper rifle and decide I want to Suppress his head.
> GM: You want to what?
> HIM: I want to fire my rifle in Suppressive Fire, targetting the meter of
> space that his head occupies.
> GM: Um...no...

Just out of curiosity, how do you handle situations like:

Blat Man: I suppressive fire the doorway.
GM: The Yak courier runs through the doorway <rolls for suppressive fire> and
ducks inside, carrying the briefcase. You think he copped a round or two,
but he was still up and going.
<Any character played by Dumb Jeff>: I run to the doorway and look inside.
GM: OK <rolls for suppressive fire, and Dumb Jeff's latest character
survives>, at the doorway the 5 goons the Yaks had waiting inside open up on
you.
<Dumb Jeff's character>: <Rolling lots of karma to survive> "I yell to my
teammates that there's a death squad waiting for us inside!"
Blat Man: Heck, I keep suppressive firing the doorway, if they come out,
they'll kill me. Sorry <Dumb Jeff's latest character>.

How do you resolve the suppressive fire into the doorway which is already
occupied by someone?

The way I read your description above, you wouldn't allow Blat Man to
suppressive fire the doorway once <Dumb Jeff's character> was in it - he'd
have to shoot <Dumb Jeff's character>.

I don't see a problem with someone suppressive firing at a place they know
someone is occupying, but who they cannot actually see.

The idea of suppressive fire is, in some ways, to eliminate the need for
actually pinpointing your target, and just filling the air with enough lead
that you're going to hit them. This, naturally enough, is going to allow the
firer to avoid some situational penalty modifiers, such as visibility.
However, it is going to mean that ammunition is used inefficiently, with a
generally low chance of hitting the target. However, the actual chance of
hitting the target may be significantly more than a single aimed shot if
visibility is so poor. That's what you get for filling the air with 10 times
as many rounds.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: Suppressive Fire (Was munchkins)
Date: Wed Oct 17 11:20:02 2001
--- Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au> wrote:
> How do you resolve the suppressive fire into the
> doorway which is already
> occupied by someone?

Have the other person roll as usual.He shouldn't be
there in the first place.

> I don't see a problem with someone suppressive
> firing at a place they know
> someone is occupying, but who they cannot actually
> see.
>
> The idea of suppressive fire is, in some ways, to
> eliminate the need for
> actually pinpointing your target, and just filling
> the air with enough lead
> that you're going to hit them. This, naturally
> enough, is going to allow the
> firer to avoid some situational penalty modifiers,
> such as visibility.
> However, it is going to mean that ammunition is used
> inefficiently, with a
> generally low chance of hitting the target. However,
> the actual chance of
> hitting the target may be significantly more than a
> single aimed shot if
> visibility is so poor. That's what you get for
> filling the air with 10 times
> as many rounds.

I also think that it is also usefull when you want to
discourage someone from entering the area, get his
head up, etc.From the way I read it in the CC this is
the prime reason of its existance and all other uses
are just good ideas.

====-It didn't look so big in paper!!!!
-Ideas grow,Shiro.Sometimes bigger than life!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Kesh)
Subject: Suppressive Fire (Was munchkins)
Date: Wed Oct 17 12:05:06 2001
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:10:14 +1000, Damion Milliken wrote:

>Zebulin Magby writes:
>
>> HIM: I take out my sniper rifle and decide I want to Suppress his head.
>> GM: You want to what?
>> HIM: I want to fire my rifle in Suppressive Fire, targetting the meter of
>> space that his head occupies.
>> GM: Um...no...
>
>Just out of curiosity, how do you handle situations like:
>
>Blat Man: I suppressive fire the doorway.
>GM: The Yak courier runs through the doorway <rolls for suppressive fire> and
>ducks inside, carrying the briefcase. You think he copped a round or two,
>but he was still up and going.
><Any character played by Dumb Jeff>: I run to the doorway and look inside.
>GM: OK <rolls for suppressive fire, and Dumb Jeff's latest character
>survives>, at the doorway the 5 goons the Yaks had waiting inside open up on
>you.
><Dumb Jeff's character>: <Rolling lots of karma to survive> "I yell
to my
>teammates that there's a death squad waiting for us inside!"
>Blat Man: Heck, I keep suppressive firing the doorway, if they come out,
>they'll kill me. Sorry <Dumb Jeff's latest character>.
>
>How do you resolve the suppressive fire into the doorway which is already
>occupied by someone?
>
>The way I read your description above, you wouldn't allow Blat Man to
>suppressive fire the doorway once <Dumb Jeff's character> was in it - he'd
>have to shoot <Dumb Jeff's character>.
>
>I don't see a problem with someone suppressive firing at a place they know
>someone is occupying, but who they cannot actually see.

Sure, they could do it, but then <Dumb Jeff's character> would be
splattered. :)

But, the example wasn't correct. The statement was someone attempting to
use a Sniper Rifle for suppressive fire simply so they could get extra
bonuses to hit someone. Think of trying to shoot someone across the
street from the rooftop of a building with a single bullet... how do you
use Suppressive Fire with one bullet? I believe that's what Zebulin was
complaining about.
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Suppressive Fire (Was munchkins)
Date: Thu Oct 18 05:20:00 2001
Kesh writes:

> But, the example wasn't correct. The statement was someone attempting to
> use a Sniper Rifle for suppressive fire simply so they could get extra
> bonuses to hit someone. Think of trying to shoot someone across the
> street from the rooftop of a building with a single bullet... how do you
> use Suppressive Fire with one bullet? I believe that's what Zebulin was
> complaining about.

Well, while technically by the rules it is impossible (suppressive fire
requires FA), an analagous situation _is_ possible under the rules. A
character may suppressive fire across 10m of the top of the building with 10
round, 1 per meter, and the target over there would have to cope with only a
single round.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Suppressive Fire (Was munchkins)
Date: Thu Oct 18 05:30:01 2001
Damion Milliken writes:

> Well, while technically by the rules it is impossible (suppressive fire
> requires FA), an analagous situation _is_ possible under the rules. A
> character may suppressive fire across 10m of the top of the building with 10
> round, 1 per meter, and the target over there would have to cope with only a
> single round.

Of course, this is rather a silly point ;-). The principle of walking 10m of
continuous autofire across a rooftop when there was 1 person in the middle
would be to ensure that you hit them with a round no matter where they went.
Doing such a thing with a single round is impossible - there is no
suppression.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Suppressive Fire (Was munchkins)
Date: Thu Oct 18 13:25:04 2001
According to Damion Milliken, on Thu, 18 Oct 2001 the word on the street was...

> Well, while technically by the rules it is impossible (suppressive fire
> requires FA), an analagous situation _is_ possible under the rules. A
> character may suppressive fire across 10m of the top of the building with
> 10 round, 1 per meter, and the target over there would have to cope with
> only a single round.

Or, if you want to look at the letter of the rules rather than the spirit, you
can load a single round into a weapon and fire it on FA mode... In the end,
though, these two methods have the same result: one bullet is suppressing one
meter of space, with a chance that it will hit someone in that meter.

At any rate I don't really see why you would _need_ to use FA mode for
suppressive fire.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If only it were almost easy.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Suppressive Fire (Was munchkins)
Date: Thu Oct 18 18:00:05 2001
In article <200110180919.TAA16444@******.its.uow.edu.au>, Damion
Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au> writes
>Well, while technically by the rules it is impossible (suppressive fire
>requires FA),

We used to do it for real with semi-automatic L1A1s. Persuade the enemy
that sticking their head up will result in getting said appendage
ventilated by high-velocity bullets.

Twenty to thirty aimed shots a minute. When you're on the receiving end,
it discourages you from being adventurous.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Suppressive Fire (Was munchkins)
Date: Fri Oct 19 03:30:06 2001
Paul J. Adam writes:

> We used to do it for real with semi-automatic L1A1s. Persuade the enemy
> that sticking their head up will result in getting said appendage
> ventilated by high-velocity bullets.
>
> Twenty to thirty aimed shots a minute. When you're on the receiving end,
> it discourages you from being adventurous.

I was thinking that small rapid bursts (like SR BF) would be quite fine for
suppressive fire. Do you think that it would be reasonable to allow SR SA
weapons to provide suppressive fire if they were fired twice?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Suppressive Fire (Was munchkins)
Date: Fri Oct 19 16:40:05 2001
In article <200110190731.RAA14595@******.its.uow.edu.au>, Damion
Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au> writes
>Paul J. Adam writes:
>> We used to do it for real with semi-automatic L1A1s. Persuade the enemy
>> that sticking their head up will result in getting said appendage
>> ventilated by high-velocity bullets.
>>
>> Twenty to thirty aimed shots a minute. When you're on the receiving end,
>> it discourages you from being adventurous.
>
>I was thinking that small rapid bursts (like SR BF) would be quite fine for
>suppressive fire. Do you think that it would be reasonable to allow SR SA
>weapons to provide suppressive fire if they were fired twice?

I'd allow SS weapons to do it, if there are enough firing (platoon fire
with bolt-action rifles, by decent shots, was pretty intimidating).

There's a lot of debate about whether semi-auto or burst fire is more
effective in suppression, with two US Army surveys reaching opposite
conclusions on the issues.

--
Paul J. Adam

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Suppressive Fire (Was munchkins), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.