Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The problem here is very typical of arguments on Dakka Dakka (and the internet in general). The side that made the rule feels they came up with a perfect rule/suggestion/modification while the other side feels they have found an imperative flaw in the proposal. Since both sides feel as if they have made a significant contribution, neither wants to admit their might be a problem with what they are saying.

In this case specifically, I feel Grunt13's proposed rule is too complicated (for what it does) and has too many holes to be fair and effective. It is a very good attempt, but it appears that in the effort to properly cover a "golden scenario" it forgot to cover errant situations (which are at least a plurality in 40k, if not the majority of situations).

Personally, I still feel this should be a USR given to specific units that have a concentration of heavy weapons options. Yes, this means units like IG Heavy Weapon Squads, Space Marine Devastators (and all the variants there of), Obliterators, Ork Flash Gitz (if I recall correctly), etc... Reason being that these are specialist units who's point IS to do things like provide suppressive fire and lynch pin points on a line, making them something more than just a volume of fire unit in 40k, and a more important target for the enemy, encouraging tactics in play.

In terms of complexity the rule actually streamlines game play the majority of the time. It is simpler to have one or several units suppress a target rather than shoot normally as it requires less dice sorting, mathematic computation and time consumption. I never before heard people complain that 40K was overly complicated before, the general consensus where I am, is that GWS over-simplified the game to appeal to younger audiences.

sebster wrote:I think a suppression mechanic would probably work better if it came naturally out of the rules, than out of deliberate decision. There's too much potential for wonkiness in making a suppressive attack a choice - typically people will choose to suppress with their weakest units - for instance a Space Marine player would split his tactical unit into combat squads, the unit with the heavy and special weapon will take targeted shots each turn while the five man bolter squad will suppress a target. Basically, the units with small arms will be used to suppress each turn while the big guns focus on killing - which is simply not how suppression should work.

This is exactly how the modern militaries operate with their special weapons. The regular firearms provide covering fire and pin the enemy down and the larger caliber weapons take them out.

Space marine scouts are capable of playing the role of both parties in your example. The sniper rifle armed members pin the unit while the other guys blast away with their weapons and a heavy weapon. Other units in the game have the ability to both pin a unit and them saturated with heavy fire – tau pathfinders and eldar warwalkers are two more examples of units that can pin while hitting with heavy weapons.

sebster wrote:It isn't a strawman, it's indicative of how this rule will allow small units to inflict suppression on very big unit. Five space marines can suppress a unit of ork boyz and inflict a crazy number of casualties.

The rule does little to account for the size of the attacking unit or the target unit, and as a result will skew towards small units meeting the minimum requirements suppressing big enemy units. The results in play will be very goofy.

The maximum number of members in a squad is 30, even grotz cannot exceed that number. Using my rule against a squad that greatly exceeds that maximum and putting forth a situation that doesn’t exist in a normal game in order to create a basis for an argument is comparable to strawman tactics which is what Kolath was pointing out. But given there is one Apocalypse Datafex that uses units above thirty and the possibility of more in the future, the Wall of Flesh rule was made to negate the potential of five guardsmen standing in front of a unit of one million space marines spraying wildly and killing thousands.

One squad suppressing a unit of 30 members inflicts 5 hits with their guns. Adding more units just adds another 5 hits on average. So 5 units of bolter marines suppressing 30 orks will inflict 25 hits and an avevage of 12.5 dead orks. These orks could always avoid all damage by not moving and having the five squad of marines use up their shooting phase to keep one unit of orks in place.

When compared to a more average number of squad members like ten the above results are divided three. Like I said before, 95% of time more damage is inflicted by normal shooting than suppressing – only a few armies even allow up to thirty models in a unit. Five marines with bolters suppressing a full unit of orks will inflict and average of 2.5 kills, normal shooting is 1.66 kills; at twenty orks the average kills swings over to normal shooting. An average of one kill more than normal shooting in a setting designed to facilitate its maximum potential hardly makes the case for it being overpowered. I don’t think by killing 2.5 orks out of 30 the five marines achieves a “crazy number of casualties”.

I think I'd like a version of suppresive fire as follows:

- Attacking unit chooses to use suppresive fire (this may be a special rule for the unit, the weapon, or simply a choice players have such as running instead of shooting...not sure how available I'd like to see the option). The unit may not have taken any other actions this turn, such as moving, psychic powers, giving orders, etc. and may not do so for the rest of the player turn.

- Attacking unit immediately recieves a -2 to any cover save they may be allowed (representative of troops exposing themselves while trying to put as much fire downrange as possible)

- Resolve a normal shooting attack against the target unit with whatever wepaons the unit has at it's disposal.

- After the attack has been resolved the target unit makes a leadership test with a -1 modifier to their leadership for every model removed as a casualty. If they fail the unit is immediately pinned. If the unit has the Fearless USR, it instead takes No Retreat wounds instead to represent throwing caution to the wind.

This makes surpressive fire worthwhile to use, but also applies a signifigant penalty to the unit choosing to use the ability.

i think pinnings good enough

Hmm, let's see here.

Pinning: The problem here is that so many units in the game are immune to it.
Strawman 1,000,000 Space Marine unit: It's a strawman. Face it. A force like that is going to be split in approximately 100,000 different units, not one single unit. If you bring a unit large enough to present a liability to it when working in cohesion like that, you deserve to be punished by the rules. No, 5 Imperial Guard can not suppress 1,000,000 Space Marines. They can suppress maybe 10 of them.

Let's see if I've understood these suppression rules properly.

Shooting phase.
1. I decide how to shoot with the unit.
Normally or suppression.
2. Place a marker on the target.
3. In the target's movement phase, they take a pinning test with a modifier of -1 for each additional unit suppressing them up to a maximum penalty of -4
4. If the pinning test is successful, the unit may act normally. If they move or shoot during their next turn they will take a hit on a roll of 6+, with a penalty to the roll equal to any additional units suppressing the target. Cover saves are not allowed against suppressive fire.
Note 1. Hits are resolved against the largest volume of shot types fired. Shots with the same S and AP characteristic count as the same type, regardless of weapon source.
Note 2. If a unit suppressing is diminished below the required volume of fire, the suppressing ends.
Note 3. A Suppression on a vehicle affects the occupant's ability to exit the vehicle.

I'd actually streamline these rules slightly more:
1. A unit attempting to suppress another unit has the targeted unit take an immediate pinning test.
2. If the test is successful, place a suppression marker on the target, if the test failed, place a pinning marker on the target.
3. A unit may have several suppression markers of different weapon types on it. All markers are triggered individually on move, shoot, or assault.

In other words, I'd do away with the combined fire and I'd do away with the delayed pinning test.

All in all, the rules aren't bad at all. They do have a short coming in that they further push people towards vehicle combat. If it weren't for that, I'd say the rules were fine.

Skinnattittar wrote:Personally, I still feel this should be a USR given to specific units that have a concentration of heavy weapons options. Yes, this means units like IG Heavy Weapon Squads, Space Marine Devastators (and all the variants there of), Obliterators, Ork Flash Gitz (if I recall correctly), etc... Reason being that these are specialist units who's point IS to do things like provide suppressive fire and lynch pin points on a line, making them something more than just a volume of fire unit in 40k, and a more important target for the enemy, encouraging tactics in play.

Glad you are warming up to the rules. But they are rather too complex to be simply played as USR – they are not adding +1 to your cover save or making your unit ignore negative modifiers to your leadership, but injecting a new method of ballistics into the game. The units you mentioned as contenders would perform much better than the normal troop units with my rules, due to their range, rate of fire, and higher strength. The normal units would be able to engage in support suppressions adding their fire power to the heavy weapons creating a crossfire in which the target is taking more of the high power shots due to the collaboration or several units. This kind of supporting behavior is typical in modern warfare, but is fairly absent from 40K games.

Suppression would not take over normal shooting as all the examples of that we have been exploring weight the situation completely in the favor of the suppression rules, squads of 5 or 3 individuals firing at a targets composed of 30 models. Most situations will be squads of around 10 models shooting other squads of around 10 models. Normal units will not trade in their average of 10 hits (or whatever their average would be) to get an average of 1.5 hits unless they really wanted to attempt to pin that unit.

@Mahtamori
Nice Summary, that’s basically it with the nit-picking additions that open-top vehicles are affected if their crew attempt to fire out of them as if the crew where not in the vehicle; that suppression could also end if line of sight becomes blocked (like someone steering a rhino in front of dark reapers), and units that are suppressed, passed their pinning test, but elected not to move may suppress opponent units without receiving damage.

The immediate pinning test you suggest makes sense from a gaming stand point, it is also inline with the other pinning test in the game and makes it so players don’t have to go through the bother of keeping track of suppression markers just for the unit to become pinned during their turn. I guess I liked the dramatic effect of the unit summoning their nerve on the spot in order to brave the fire, but your way is more sensible.

I think that combine fire is just easier as it shortens the amount of rolling and it is fairly easy to keep track majority of shots. Also it allows a clever opponent to set supporting rolls for their units, like a unit of guardsman adding their fire to a heavy bolter team to create a crossfire. By combining units it rewards people who create situations where basic weapons are supporting heavier weapons, while punishing other who just open up with everything as such tactics would likely have the basic and weaker shoots take the majority.

People in vehicles have to leave them eventually and suppression makes it so that people can’t just drive up to you, hop out and shoot you in the face without taking on fire the second the step out.

I believe pinning is enough. More complex =/= better.
Either that, or make it a USR for only some units, not every man and their dog. I'd love to see you supress a 20 man chaos unit with 5 guardsmen with laspistols.

Grunt13 wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Personally, I still feel this should be a USR given to specific units that have a concentration of heavy weapons options. Yes, this means units like IG Heavy Weapon Squads, Space Marine Devastators (and all the variants there of), Obliterators, Ork Flash Gitz (if I recall correctly), etc... Reason being that these are specialist units who's point IS to do things like provide suppressive fire and lynch pin points on a line, making them something more than just a volume of fire unit in 40k, and a more important target for the enemy, encouraging tactics in play.

Glad you are warming up to the rules. But they are rather too complex to be simply played as USR – they are not adding +1 to your cover save or making your unit ignore negative modifiers to your leadership, but injecting a new method of ballistics into the game. The units you mentioned as contenders would perform much better than the normal troop units with my rules, due to their range, rate of fire, and higher strength. The normal units would be able to engage in support suppressions adding their fire power to the heavy weapons creating a crossfire in which the target is taking more of the high power shots due to the collaboration or several units. This kind of supporting behavior is typical in modern warfare, but is fairly absent from 40K games.

Suppression would not take over normal shooting as all the examples of that we have been exploring weight the situation completely in the favor of the suppression rules, squads of 5 or 3 individuals firing at a targets composed of 30 models. Most situations will be squads of around 10 models shooting other squads of around 10 models. Normal units will not trade in their average of 10 hits (or whatever their average would be) to get an average of 1.5 hits unless they really wanted to attempt to pin that unit.

Well first, I have not warmed to your version of Suppression, I think it is too complicated and open to exploitation. In what you just said, you're basically hoping no one will try to exploit the rule or misuse its intent. Fact of the matter is that players WILL misuse it almost to an exclusion of its intent. While I do not want to put down the lasgun, but even ten Guardsmen with them should not be able to suppress five Marines (sorry Guardsmen, but Marines are the killy) or put the fright into fifty other Guardsmen and suppressing them.

Now I read your post, but I either do not understand what you mean about heavy weapons teams, or you do not understand how they work? I apologize, I am not trying to be rude, but it seems like you are saying they are for the opposite of what they are: BEING the suppressive fire. Heavy machine guns (and even light machine guns in quantity) are purposed to make enemy forces put their heads down so they may be flanked and gunned down. I like the idea of incorporating negative modifiers to cover saves (I would like to include it myself) but the vast majority of players are not going to understand how/why and for the most part I do not think it will properly reflect what is supposed to be going on.

So let me run through how suppressive fire works in real life, for those who are not in the know: (note: this is a bare bones example, very simple and crude and foregoing a lot of details that are also occurring, but intended to give a basic understanding)

Two elements approach and objective (enemy element). Element A takes up good firing positions and begins to suppress the objective with volume of fire (this will be the element with the most destructive weapons, light machines guns, grenade launchers, medium machine guns, RPGs/Missile Launchers, cannons, etc...). A element probably will not inflict much in the way of casualties (depending on the weapons, situation, etc...) as the enemy will quickly take (if they are not already in) effective cover and/or concealment and begin to return fire, trying to gain fire supremacy (whomever has the greatest effective volume of fire) over A element.

Meanwhile, B element has moved into a flanking position (usually perpendicular to the A element) and begins to pour on the heat. This fire, coming from an unprepared direction (if done correctly) will catch the objective in a crossfire. When bullets start coming from two very different directions, the objective is easily shot to pieces.

There are several option from here. Either assault the objective to finish off the enemy, or continue shooting until they are dead. This is the basic, squad/platoon level tactic that has been used extremely effectively since WWI/WWII. The problem with bringing this into 40k is that in 40k, there are no flanks and defining "effective crossfire" would become very difficult, especially without a Game Moderator. So we have to simplify the mechanics into simply "fire suppression."

Saying that you favor the rules for some units gives the impression that you are an advocate for them even if in a restricted degree.

Skinnattittar wrote:Personally, I still feel this should be a USR given to specific units that have a concentration of heavy weapons options.

It literally takes two minutes to research this stuff, you are obviously sitting by a computer with internet connection. Why on earth with you go on a running rant about something and not take the little amount of time to check to see if you are accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire

Suppression fire does not require two cooperative elements verse a fixed object as you stated. It means exactly what everyone think it means, pinning an enemy down typically with rapid firing weapons, that is at least NATO's definition of the term.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE ARTICLE:

“Infantry tactics also evolved and suppression became a key element in ‘winning the fire fight’”

“Suppressive fire can be delivered by any weapon or group of weapons capable of delivering the required intensity for the required period of suppression”

“The effect of suppressive fire is psychological, by making combatants feel unable to perform any actions (such as returning fire or moving) safely, other than seeking cover. Therefore, it is targeting soldiers, not their equipment. However, depending on the type of ammunition and the target’s protection it may cause some casualties and damage and therefore some neutralization.”

“In essence the purpose of suppression is to stop a target observing, shooting or moving. This is useful for tactical reasons, as a suppressed target will be unable to return fire upon vulnerable forces that are moving without cover available.”

This seems to mesh quite nicely with the rules that I created, in both intention and function within the game.


You say that people will exploit this rule and ruin the game, but your best example to this is the million space marine unit, which could just as easily be pinned by a single ratling sniper. As any rule can be exploit by a crafty player it is hardly fair criticism to use that as a excuse for dismissal of anything, especially since the best example provided was a million space marines being pinned by a small squad of IG, how that’s much worse than them getting pinned by a single ratling sniper I don’t really know. You don't think five IGs should be able to pin a squad of marine, how do you justify one sniper pinning those same marines. Barrage weapons don’t physically pin units, it’s a leadership test not a strength test, they disrupt the unit’s ability to fight by disrupting them psychologically same principal as suppression fire, at least that’s what NATO thinks. Marines get pinned by barrage and sniper weapons why should they be immune to other forms psychologic attacks.

As for the flanking dilemma you put forth, I think it’s a lot easier to incorporate into 40K than you imply. If you are being attack by two different directions at the same time, then unless you possess two frontal directions you are being flank by at least one attacker, which is demonstrated in the crossfire rule. Two different units occupy two different directions of attack.

Your example is inversed, light weapons typically but not always suppress, heavy weapons are the typical finishers (The article goes on to explain how all weapons with high rates are used for suppression). I have friends in the army including a former grenade specialist. He was trained so buddies pinned them down and he took them out, not he other way around. Higher caliber weapons have a better chance of disregarding cover and is more likely to terminate the enemy. Light fire to keep their heads down, the heavy stuff to destroy their position. The world militaries don’t assault a pinned down enemy. The heavy caliber weapons can shoot right through the cement they are sheltering behind.

You say you favor the rules for some units, than insist that they will be exploited, without giving a sensible example of such a case. You go on a rant about mocking people’s understanding of concepts while demonstrating that you are confused by them yourself. And what strikes me as the most odd is that you go from, ‘this rule would work for some units’ to ‘this rule is broken and will be abused’. Seems to me that you are just trying to be contradictory.

Grunt13 wrote:This is exactly how the modern militaries operate with their special weapons. The regular firearms provide covering fire and pin the enemy down and the larger caliber weapons take them out.

Really? Heavy machine guns are not valued for their suppression at all?

The problem your suggestion has is that it makes weapons either suppressive or deadly - which fails to account for weapons that can perform both roles simultaneously.

One squad suppressing a unit of 30 members inflicts 5 hits with their guns. Adding more units just adds another 5 hits on average. So 5 units of bolter marines suppressing 30 orks will inflict 25 hits and an avevage of 12.5 dead orks. These orks could always avoid all damage by not moving and having the five squad of marines use up their shooting phase to keep one unit of orks in place.

Why are you talking about five units of tactical marines? The rule requires one unit with five or more shots. Five tactical marines can suppress a unit of 30 ork boyz. They would be exactly as effective at this as 10 marines, and no more effective than 5 guardsmen. Two tyranid warriors can do it... it is simply ridiculous to have a suppression rule that doesn't consider the actualy quantity of fire going downfield.

sebster wrote:

Grunt13 wrote:This is exactly how the modern militaries operate with their special weapons. The regular firearms provide covering fire and pin the enemy down and the larger caliber weapons take them out.

Really? Heavy machine guns are not valued for their suppression at all?

The problem your suggestion has is that it makes weapons either suppressive or deadly - which fails to account for weapons that can perform both roles simultaneously.

One squad suppressing a unit of 30 members inflicts 5 hits with their guns. Adding more units just adds another 5 hits on average. So 5 units of bolter marines suppressing 30 orks will inflict 25 hits and an avevage of 12.5 dead orks. These orks could always avoid all damage by not moving and having the five squad of marines use up their shooting phase to keep one unit of orks in place.

Why are you talking about five units of tactical marines? The rule requires one unit with five or more shots. Five tactical marines can suppress a unit of 30 ork boyz. They would be exactly as effective at this as 10 marines, and no more effective than 5 guardsmen. Two tyranid warriors can do it... it is simply ridiculous to have a suppression rule that doesn't consider the actualy quantity of fire going downfield.

You will find the answers to your question my pervious post, the one above yours. Both weapons can be used for suppression but think about this, in a squad, everyone else as rifles that cannot shoot through concrete and one guy had a larger caliber gun that can penetrate walls - who is pinning the unit down with suppression fire and who is taking calculated shots on their location. The link does a great job of explaining the point of suppression; its not to kill the enemy but to pin them down. Of course in 40K there are units that refuse to stay in cover where it is safe, and it is those units that take damage.

One unit suppressing will inflict hits on a D6 roll of a 6, adding units lowers the hit rolls all the way down to 2+ when 5 units are all suppressing the same squad - this is the cross fire rule. Quantity but more importantly direction is being taken into account by the inclusion of this rule. All one unit of five marines do to 30 orks is give them a pinning test which they will pass being fearless and inflict 2.5 kills on average if they move through the suppression fire - it is not really that big of an impact on the orks. Space marines will hit with bolters whereas the IG hit with lasguns if the target braves the fire.

If one is really talking about suppressing fire in 40k as an analogue of the concept of suppression fire IRL, then one needs to take into account how suppressing fire interacts with real armies. Real soldiers won't stand up in a ruined city with a machine gun firing above them, and they will instead make a slow advance via crawling while also calling for artillery support or airstrikes to deal with the targets. This is one of the reasons why tanks were developed, in order to destroy bunkers using their guns and support the advance of the infantry. That concept eventually morphed into combined arms warfare where the mechanized infantry equipped with bunker busting missiles and some heavy weapons will rely upon other elements like tanks and aircraft to destroy pinpoint targets that stop the advance. It really comes down to using high rate of fire to slow the enemies' advance in order for other weapons to become effective.

The big problem here is that the weapons that do suppression best are often the ones that are the so called "heavy weapons". A GPMG or LMG like an M60, MG42, or M249 are used to for suppressing fire because of the fact that you can fire them frequently and with enough accuracy to be a threat. These weapons have a great deal of weight and are deployed on bipods and tripods in order to make sure that their fire is accurate enough to make casualties a potential risk. Those weapons have maximum ranges that they can be fired in full automatic, though they still need to be burst fired at very long distances in order to remain deadly. These ranges are often around or exceeding one kilometer, and an extreme example would be the WW I Vickers medium machinegun, which had a maximum effective range of 2200 meters and a maximum range of 4000 meters due to its shear bulk and water cooling system. These weapons can also chain together several hundred rounds when set up in entrenched positions, meaning that since they only fire in bursts, they can hold down the enemy for a long time.

In contrast to this long ranged automatic fire, assault rifles are often listed as being effective in at ranges around 400 to 700 meters. However, they are only considered effective at these ranges because they fire in single shots at them. They are far too light for automatic fire, even when massed, to become a difficult prospect to face at ranges over 50 or so meters. Anybody who has used these types of guns will tell you how hard accurate automatic fire is to achieve with such weapons.

Also, under your rules, some weapons that shouldn't cause pinning under any circumstances will do so. Shotguns, for example, are unable to pin targets down in the same manner as other weapons due to their often semi-automatic or manually operated nature, and the fact that they simply don't have the range and the accuracy with sustained fire to do so. A unit in an open plain that is approaching an enemy unit equipped primarily with shotguns won't be frightened when they are shot at by these weapons, as the range is too poor and the rate of fire too low to make an advance costly. Instead, they will fire with their assault rifles in single shots, as most soldiers don't utilize the automatic function of their rifles much as it wastes ammo. Even when shooting single shots, most of the shots don't hit their intended targets due to effects like exhaustion in prolonged fighting, fear, combat high, and many other factors. Also, soldiers throughout the world are put through a very important part of their training via drill instructors, who make sure that anything but the following of orders is beaten out of the minds of the soldiers. Therefore, the effects of these low rate of fire weapons are very low when faced with a determined advance.

What causes most of the casualties in real combat is the use of air power, artillery, and armor. A tank doesn't suppress a target, as it's high caliber machinegun like the M2 .50 cal will punch through building materials and cause a great deal of damage. In fact, at D-Day, the M2 was an important weapon as it allowed Shermans to defeat German bunkers by simply shooting through them. The main guns mounted on tanks also did not use suppression, instead opting to fire high explosive ordinance to kill infantry and destroy fortifications.

This is all just with real life tactics and weapons. In a setting like 40k, you have commisars, space marine indonctrination, belief in the ethereals, uncaring death machines, the hive mind, and other factors that make these soldiers far more determined than others than to be scared from advancing through tides of inaccurate, fully automatic rifle fire or blast weapons put to waste instead of focusing on killing the most vital parts of the enemy while the specialized heavy weapons, but not all heavy weapons, are devoted towards making the enemy fear advancement.

EDIT: I think that I left out a very important overall statement. What makes suppression fire able to suppress is not just the quantity of shots fired, but the quality. Machine guns have superior quantity and quality of fire when compared to assault rifles, and that is because they are supposed to be used in that manor. Assault rifles and the standard rifles of all of the armies in 40k are just general purpose weapons. They need to be effective at as many ranges as possible and compromises are made in the design of each one. If this real life stuff doesn't really appeal to you, then just consider that the Rapid Fire rule that most of these basic arms operate under is supposed to represent semi-automatic arms and how they can fire at increased rates up close. They're not supposed to be the ones slowing the advance, their supposed to be the weapons that do the killing right where it is needed, right in front of the soldiers. It's just a form of active protection for them, while the suppression is a more long term effect for weapons that can fire for long periods of time with insignificant pauses.

Grunt13 wrote:You will find the answers to your question my pervious post, the one above yours. Both weapons can be used for suppression but think about this, in a squad, everyone else as rifles that cannot shoot through concrete and one guy had a larger caliber gun that can penetrate walls - who is pinning the unit down with suppression fire and who is taking calculated shots on their location. The link does a great job of explaining the point of suppression; its not to kill the enemy but to pin them down. Of course in 40K there are units that refuse to stay in cover where it is safe, and it is those units that take damage.

Again (and from the way this looks to be going, again and again and again), I understand the point of suppression. Yes, you put lots of rounds downfield to hold the enemy in place. But you continue to ignore the idea that some weapons are designed to do both things simultaneously. A heavy machine gun is both a source of a large number of unit kills, and an effective weapon for suppression.

One unit suppressing will inflict hits on a D6 roll of a 6, adding units lowers the hit rolls all the way down to 2+ when 5 units are all suppressing the same squad - this is the cross fire rule. Quantity but more importantly direction is being taken into account by the inclusion of this rule. All one unit of five marines do to 30 orks is give them a pinning test which they will pass being fearless and inflict 2.5 kills on average if they move through the suppression fire - it is not really that big of an impact on the orks. Space marines will hit with bolters whereas the IG hit with lasguns if the target braves the fire.

With no consideration given for the quantity of fire put downfield. A unit of five marines is exactly as effective at putting out suppressive fire as a twenty man strong Chaos Space Marine unit. Three orks suppressing the enemy are as effective as those twenty chaos marines.

This is not an irrepairable problem, but it will make a nonsense of your rule in play as it is currently written. You have to open your mind to the idea that your rule might not be perfect.

@ Grunt13 : Reading a wikipedia page about Suppressive Fire does not mean you know how it works. Obviously you understand that firing at the enemy will make them consider hiding, but after that you don't seem to understand how it works.

Why do we suppress a target? We don't do it just because we don't like the enemy to be looking at us, or to be moving around, we do it to get them to stop moving so we can kill them! Hence the second element. A unit that is suppressing the enemy typically can not also be assaulting the enemy (though they can call in artillery/air strikes, but that isn't well represented in 40k either, nor a guarantee that you will kill the enemy), again, hence the second element.

To be fair, I will give you some background on my own knowledge: I have been trained in and used suppressive fire, I have a pretty good idea how it works, especially as it has been used against me as well.

Also, I advocated the use of a different and simpler Suppressive Fire rule, which I had written out, for the use as a USR. Do not take offense Grunt13, I am not saying you are stupid or a poor writer or bad player, or any such thing. However, the rule you are proposing is full of holes and easily manipulated, nor does it properly reflect Suppressive Fire; six lasbolts should not suppress a million Space Marines.

Okay, so moving away from reality...

In theory a USR could be good, but I think where it breaks down is you would have to decide for every unit in the game or every weapon type whether is has the USR or not. That certainly adds complexity to the ruleset.

Perhaps a compromise could be that weapons with say... 2+ shots and strength 5+ can suppress? Strength 4+?

From a gameplay standpoint what I like about the original article is that the suppressing fire is a choice not an automatic thing. To me, having another strategic choice in the shooting phase (the other being running) is interesting. From a gameplay standpoint I also like that the original rule still has an effect against fearless units. Now I am somewhat biased because most of my games are against tyranids and orks (two armies with an abundance of fearless units), but I think there needs to be some effect against fearless units.

But rather than argue about nonexistent million-man units or about what modern armies do with suppression. Let's consider what changes we would make to the proposed rules.

The proposed rules, in brief, thanks to Mahtamori for streamlining (plus a few additional notes):

Proposed Rules - Shooting phase.
1. Player decides how to shoot with the unit. Normally or suppression.
(Note: To suppress, unit must have 5+ shots in range that are not blast, template, or heavy 1)
2. Place a marker on the target.
3. In the target's movement phase, they take a pinning test with a modifier of -1 for each additional unit suppressing them up to a maximum penalty of -4
4. If the pinning test is successful, the unit may act normally. If they move, shoot, run, or assault during their next turn they will take a hit on a roll of 6+, with a penalty to the roll equal to any additional units suppressing the target. Cover saves are not allowed against suppressive fire.
Note 1. Hits are resolved against the largest volume of shot types fired. Shots with the same S and AP characteristic count as the same type, regardless of weapon source.
Note 2. If a unit suppressing is diminished below the required volume of fire, the suppressing ends. Or if another unit or vehicle blocks LOS to the target, the suppression ends.
Note 3. A Suppression on a vehicle affects the occupant's ability to exit the vehicle. If they disembark within LOS of suppressing unit(s), they take hits as in #4 above.
Note 4. Passengers in a suppressed open-topped vehicle take hits as in #4 if they try to shoot.

Proposed changes
Kolath: If passengers in a regular vehicle use the fire ports, those models that used the fire port are subject to fire per the normal rules above. Only those models firing from the fire port may be hit.
Skinnattittar: Make suppression a USR for certain units. Replace all above rules with "Causes a pinning test with -1 Ld for every casualty inflicted"
Mahtamori: have units take pinning tests immediately, if they are not pinned, place a suppression marker. (Note: this would mean multiple pinning tests at progressively harder tests)
Kolath: Perhaps Mahtamori's suggestion but just one pinning test at the end of the phase? Like morale tests from shooting.
Kolath: Perhaps add restriction of weapons with strength 4+?
Grunt13: "Wall of Flesh" - units may only take up to 30 hits, if the unit size exceeds 30 models, it still only takes 30 hits.

Any other suggested changes?

Kolath wrote:Any other suggested changes?

Some kind of mechanical representation that units with a greater volume of fire would be more capable of suppression is needed before this rule begins to make sense. That is, 3 ork boyz with shooters should not be as effective in suppressing as 20 chaos warriors.

Hi folks.
Here is a simple alternative rule set that implements supression,( and neutralisation) as part of the natural order of ranged combat.

All units have a damage capacity (DC), this represents how many damaging hits the unit can take before becomming worthless in combat terms.(Represents wounds for living creature units and stucture ponts for vehicles.)

All units have an armour value ,(AR) form 1 to 15.This value is deducted form the weapon damage value to determine the effect of the weapon hit.

Weapons are classed as;-
Assault , weapons used in close assault.
Small arms , standar rifles and pistols of a infantry unit.
Support weapons , weapons specialised for anti infantry and/or anti armour purposes.
Fire suport weapons ,support weapons that can not move and fire.

A units confidence is its CURRENT damage capacity added to its armour rating.

Eg IG squad DC 10 (still 10 men in the squad,) AR 2 .
Confidence is 12.

A 5 man terminator squad DC 5 AR 7 ALSO has a confidence value of 12.(7+5=12)

Weapon values
RNG how far the weapon can effect.
DAM how much damage the weapon inflicts.
EFF how many target models /wide an area the weapon effects.
AI anti infantry bonus,added to the units supression value.
AT anti tank bonus , added to the weapons damage value when attemting to pierce heavy armoured targets.


EG 10 IG,
7 las rifles RNG 24" Dam 5,EFF 1, AI-/AT-
1 HBolter, RNG 36"Dam 8,EFF 3, AI D6/AT-

AQUIRE AND fire at 20 ork boys AR2.

7 lasgun shots Dam 5 -AR 2= 3 therfore 4+ sve required.
Ork player rolls 1,2,3,3,4,5,5.
4 Ork boys are wounded and removed from play.

3 Hbolter shots 8 -2 =6 therfore 7+ save required.
3 Ork boys are auto wounded and removed from play.

The Ork mob now has only 13 boys left.
Thier confidence is 13+2+15.

The IG now roll for supression value.
7 Las guns = basic value 7
Hbolter =3(shots) + D6.
If the IG player rolls OVER the confidence value of the ork target mob he supresses them.

He rolls a 6! 7=3=6=16 orks become supressed 16 beats the Orks confidnecs of 15 by 1..The orks now have to roll over thier moral value of 3 on a D6 to shake the supresion .
(Supressed units must retire to cover, or if in cover will not move from cover but MAY shoot at enemy target unit in close range.)

If the supresion rating is over DOUBLE the confidence value of the target unit , the target unit becomes neutralised.(A neutralised unit can NOT move or attack untill it passes a moral test, at which point it counts as supresed.)

I have not explained that very well, but it is a simple simulation of supression incoperated into the core shooting rules.


TTFN

@MarkingLight
You are right about the reality of shotguns, and we probably could run down a list of weapons that shouldn’t be able to support, but then the rules become more complicated than I think anyone wants them to be. The problem is that GWS gave shotguns a similar design as shuriken catapults when making the weapons. A kroot gun might be a barrel loader (not sure if it is or not) but in the game it functions the same as a lasgun, which is capable of going full auto.

@sebster
When it comes to game mechanics versus reality, reality usually takes the back seat. The majority of the negative comments where that my rules were both over powering and too complex. You are asking me to make the rule even more complex and empowering for the sake of keeping with reality. I will accept your challenge to incorporated your concerns into the rules, but do so simply to satisfy the request, I myself don't think these rules are necessary:

FIRST CONCERN: Heavy Machine Guns should kill while Suppressing:
This one took some thought, someone jumping out of a trench into the fire of three autocannons would take a hit on a 6+. The guy staying in the trench, while not safe from the fire, is much safer than the guy getting hit on a 6+. This is what I came up with:

Shrapnel: Powerful guns are capable of doing far more damage then their lesser counterparts when spraying a fortified position. Trenches collapse, walls shattering into stone splinters and eardrums burst.

Either:
When the strength of the hits against the target are strength 5 they suffer D3 wounds that allow armor saves at the time the suppression fire is directed at them. For shots above 5 add another D3 for every one it is over. Under this rule autocannons will inflict 2D3 wounds on the squad whether they shelter or not.

OR:

If the strength of the hits being used for suppression is double the target’s majority toughness then they receive D3 wounds that allow armor saves. Damage is resolved when the squad first is suppressed. Autocannons would inflict D3 wounds on humans and eldar, but not orks and marines.

SECOND: Large squads with a lot of guns should have more of an impact than smaller squad squads with only 5 guns in play:

Believe it or not this was actual part of the original rule. I had it that a single squad could contribute to the crossfire rule as long as they had 5 more shots to add. So a dire avenger squad with 20 shots could act as four units when using suppression. I felt this was too powerful and took it out last minute when I made the article way back when. My answer to your grievance is ammo conservation. When suppressing the squad is not trying to exhaust their ammo supply, but use enough to deliver the message to the enemy that they should keep their head down. It is not sensible for an entire squad empty all their guns over a trench to scare an unseen enemy. They enemy would pop up and gun down the entire squad as they reload.

Of course this response works when pinning an unseen enemy behind a wall, in a building or in a trench. How does it work when the a squad is dealing with a group of 30 orks charging across the field to attack them? It doesn’t – it doesn’t make sense to conserve ammo in that circumstance, so here is another rule to take that situation into account:
Spray and Pray:
A unit is desperately turning their guns upon they enemy in the hopes of decimating them. All guns empty on the target as it advances upon them.
Rules: Same as suppression with following exceptions:
1) The firing unit may not move
2) All weapons that can be used must be used
3) This attack does not force a pinning test
4) For every 5 shots after the first the squad contributes, lower the die roll to hit by one (6+ becomes 5+ and so on).
5) After firing the unit has exhausted its ammo and must reload, the unit may not fire next turn.
And this would lead to a small alteration to the cover rule for suppression: if the enemy is not in any kind of cover they do not have the option of taking shelter and will receive the hits.

Note that I not a huge advocate of these rules as I feel they put they put realism before game mechanics and my own desire not to over complicate these rules, but they were requested so I made them. We play a game where the best marksmen in the galaxy couldn’t a titan with his pistol if it was 13 inches from him, but he could run up to touch it in a single turn; and an Assassin can use its dodge save against a farseer's mind war and while standing in the center of a massive D strength template, but not against a warscythe. My rule was made for the casual players who wanted to give in a try, these additions satisfy your demands, but I prefer the suppression rules without them.

My rules are broken and these examples prove it:
The million man space marine unit?
Three orks should not be able to pin 20 chaos marines?
Circumstances that causes pinning tests:
1) A group of people standing together, one gets shot by a sniper; the group tests to see if they go to ground.
2) A group of people standing together, one gets kill by a mortar hit; the group tests to see if they go to ground.
3) A group of people standing together, three huge ork guns with rates of fire that compares to modern machine guns appear ten paces away from their faces and fire on full auto spraying the area – the group tests to see if they go to ground.

Situations 1 and 2 are already part of the game, they affect a million space marine unit, 20 chaos marine squad, and all other non-fearless squads regardless of their sizes of their units. Why is situation 1 and 2 sensible, but situation 3 broken?

Skinnattittar wrote:[ you do not understand how they work? I apologize, I am not trying to be rude, but it seems like you are saying they are for the opposite of what they are: BEING the suppressive fire.

So let me run through how suppressive fire works in real life, for those who are not in the know: (note: this is a bare bones example, very simple and crude and foregoing a lot of details that are also occurring, but intended to give a basic understanding)

Element A takes up good firing positions and begins to suppress the objective with volume of fire (this will be the element with the most destructive weapons, light machines guns, grenade launchers, medium machine guns, RPGs/Missile Launchers, cannons, etc...). A element probably will not inflict much in the way of casualties (depending on the weapons, situation, etc...)

The article references the NATO guidelines. I posted it because you challenged my notion of suppression and then “educated us”. Wikipedia not good enough here:
http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/suppression_fire
“Suppressive fire is a term used in military science and defined by NATO as “fire that degrades the performance of a target below the level needed to fulfill its mission. Suppression is usually only effective for the duration of the fire.””
http://mashpedia.com/Suppressive_fire
“Before NATO defined the term the British and Commonwealth armies generally used ‘neutralisation’ with the same definition as suppression. NATO now defines neutralization as “Fire delivered to render a target temporarily ineffective or unusable.””
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/glossarytermss/g/s6109.htm
http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-270353.html
This one is a forum centering around SWAT and police officers and their use of suppressive fire.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Suppressive-fire/108027375896726
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Suppressive_fire
Whatever your experiences a lot of evidence conflicts with what you are saying. I prefer sites quoting NATO guidelines, firearm forums for SWAT officers, historical sites, and other forms of available evidence rather than just taking your word that I am wrong.

@Lanrak... maybe it is jut the explanation, but that seems like a very involved set of accounting that is more complicated than the proposed rule. But I'd be curious to hear how it works if you play test a few rounds.

@Grunt13... Good example of the pinning cases. Though I think your other additions are rather complicated for my taste. I do, however, like the concept of doing something when strength doubles toughness.

One question I'd like to hear thoughts on is Mahtamori's suggestion to have units take pinning tests immediately, if they are not pinned, place a suppression marker.

This would mean multiple pinning tests at progressively harder tests. Personally, I think the better option would to do a single pinning test at the end of the phase (under the precedent that regular morale tests are taken once at the end of the phase).

To be more helpful to the general conversation, how about another suppression rules idea?

Suppression

Weapons with the Suppression option fire more than two shots, have a range greater than 30 inches, and cannot be blast, large blast, ordinance, or template weapons.

If a unit chooses to fire for Suppression instead of for lethality, the unit that is fired at takes a pinning test with a -l to its leadership for every five shots that are fired at it that are fired from weapons that fulfill the above criteria. If multiple units decide to suppress a single enemy unit, then the effects of each unit's firing are cumulutive towards a single pinning test taken the in the enemy movement phase. Note the units that are firing for suppression may not move in its next movement phase and if they are in terrain enemy units that assault into it are no longer hampered by the rules of assaulting into terrain for the duration of their next turn. This is to represent the weapons digging in and focusing their attention at the targets that they are suppressing.

I hope that his is relatively simple rule that doesn't add a great deal of needless complication to a game.

MarkingLight, thank you for constructive feedback!

The only weapons in the Imperial arsenal that would fit that criteria: heavy bolter, autocannon, and multi-laser. (Krak missile typhoons and cyclones would too, but you won't have enough to reach the 5+ shot criteria).

In light of that I think that criteria is perhaps too restrictive. Surely assault cannons could suppress? I would suggest having it be just not blast, template, ordinance, or any heavy 1 weapon. Maybe limiting it to strength 4+ weapons?

The not moving next turn is nice and simple, but I think it prevents some of the offensive use of suppression (i.e. blazing away at a defender to keep their heads down while you advance).

I do think the cumulative effect on a single pinning test is probably the better option.

Thank you, Kolath. Actually, the idea here is that the weapons that are suppressing are the ones that aren't going to be moving, ie the heavy bolters and so forth. I think that you are right about making it Strength 4 or better, since that will allow it to include the Heavy Stubber and make sure that IG isn't left out. But the reasoning behind not allowing the assault cannon is that it's a gattling type weapon. Those are usually used on aircraft because they can put a lot of hurt on a target in the short period of time that an aircraft has to engage, instead of being used for suppressing effect. Assault cannons as they are in game are similar, in that when one puts them on Blood Angels Razorbacks or uses a Ba'al Pred, they are moving quickly and firing to kill instead of to restrict movement. Just my thoughts on it.

How about this.
All heavy weapons with 2 or more shots are capable of suppressive fire. This would make the punisher have an amazing use. Ordinance weapons that fire 2 or more shots also count.

The problem there becomes that the Tyranids get left out since so many of their weapons are Assault instead of Heavy. Even though the Tyranid's ranged firepower isn't that good, they still need to have some sort of boost from this rule in order for it to be balanced.

EDIT: Then again, since Synapse renders most of their forces fearless, they really wouldn't be affected, so your proposed rules might work.

A lot of this confusion can be easily avoided with some simple dictation, rather than trying to make complex, specific, breakable rules. Dictate which units get the ability via USR. These units should be units intended to be fire bases and provide fire support (as in the real world where suppressive fire is used. Yes, it is true that even a rifle squad produces suppression, I am not debating that, however to make things simple, easy, and fast....). Units such as Heavy Weapons Squads, Devastator Squads, Baal Predators (I am supposing they still have twin-linked gattling guns), Punishers, Obliterators, Flash Gitz (the ork unit with all the heavy machine guns?), Eldar Platform squads (IIRC), etc.... Units that should not have suppressive fire would be pistol/assault-weapon wielding assault squads, basic line infantry squads, bikes, cavalry, etc (Guard Infantry Squads, Space Marine Tactical Squads, Rough Riders, Assault Bikes, Scouts [maybe], Gargoyles, Howling Banshees, etc...). What does this do? It makes important fire point units and assault elements, it gives 40k an injection of tactics right in the keester where it needs it. Heck, even shooty armies will be given the breathing room to stop gun-lining and start moving (I would suppose all Tau Firewarrior squads should have suppression, simply because of their tech level, high S and long range pulse rifles, and it fits in line with the carbines and fluff, as well as giving them an advantage over assault armies and a chance at beating quick dropping lists).

KISS is the most important factor. If you have to pop open your rule book for 85% of the situations to make sure everything fits, or that you're not forgetting a complex wording, then you've done something wrong for 40k.

I'm inclined to agree with Skinnattittar on this that things need to be made simpler. Honestly though, there is actually a fair amount of tactics already involved in 40k. Shooty armies don't actually need this rule as it is right now because they have the ability to deal damage to the enemy as they advance or in worse scenarios feed small units to them to keep them from hitting the more important stuff. Space Marines can just use combat tactics, and Tau have a great deal of firepower used as a more pinpoint strike way than suppression, and IG can use sheer numbers to guard its tanks. If one were to make a great deal of changes to how things are now, then it would make sense to add in some USR regarding suppression.

However, that isn't what the OP really wanted. He wanted a set of rules for suppression, so the big idea here is that we need to make rules that can be applied in general. I realize that a USR would be nice to have, but that would mean making alterations to the codecies, and making a general rule (so long as it doesn't get too complicated in execution) would be easier than going through every single codex and pointing out which units get a new USR. Just my opinion.

In terms of creating a universal rubric for which guns get suppressive fire and which guns don’t might be setting yourself up for failure.

If you restrict range you lose the shuriken cannons, splinter cannons, blast cannons.
If you restrict strength you lose lasguns and ion blasters.
If you restrict number of shots you lose fleshborers and pulse carbines.

My suggestion, just make a list of all the guns that you think should be able to use suppressive fire. It will take five seconds for players to reference and will prevent you from throwing the baby out with the bathwater while ensuring that no duds make the cut.

I found a great source, the army’s training manual. Covers suppressive fire drills using the M16 – also a great source for everything you wanted to know about managing a M16.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/c07.htm

“7-10. SUPPRESSIVE FIRE
In many tactical situations, combat rifle fire will be directed to suppress enemy personnel or weapons positions. Suppressive fire is rifle fire precisely aimed at a definite point or area target. Some situations may require a soldier to place suppressive fire into a wide area such as a wood line, hedgerow, or small building while, at other times, the target may be a bunker or window. Suppressive fire is used to control the enemy and the area he occupies. It is employed to kill the enemy or to prevent him from observing the battlefield or effectively using his weapons. When a sustained volume of accurate suppressive fire is placed on enemy locations to contain him, it can be effective even though he cannot be seen. Effectively pinning the enemy down behind cover reduces his ability to deliver fire and allows friendly forces to move. (Figure 7-12 shows the current training program for suppressive fire.)”

The thing about Fleshborers is that they are obviously a Tyranid weapon. Tyranid's aren't affected by suppression due to being Fearless via Synapse, so it would make sense that they don't gain much benefit from it.

I do see your point about how the Eldar are left out on this. I think that can be solved by getting getting rid of the range restrictions like you said.

However, it might be a good idea to make it so that the weapon needs to have at least one quality in order to be used for suppression.

Qualities include: Strength 4-6, Range 36-240, Number of shots greater than 2

As far as the Guard go, I have already found a credible source that their Rate of Fire is only 220 shots per minute. That very severely limits their ability to suppress, and gives a very good fluff reason for not using them for such business. Plus, I remember reading some fluff about how most officers/commisars don't allow their troops to use the automatic mode as it wastes ammo. Don't have a source on that one, though.

Source: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Lasgun

EDIT: Then again, according to info gleaned from Lexicanum, whose validity is subject to YMMV, the Hellgun is fully automatic and therefore should probably count towards suppression. The Multi-laser, which was designed for rapid fire and suppression, however, fits right in. It just shows that this would be a very hard rule to create while still keeping it simple.

It seems to me that rapid fire weapons of any army within rapid fire range and multishot heavy weapons fit the idea of a means of suppression. A side note, I think this should also only be available if the squad has the ability to actually rapid fire/use heavy weapons that turn. As to the suppression rules themselves it's hard to say without a playtest or two. I think it would be more tactical if one squad could suppress and confer a small advantage to one other squad within range of the target. Maybe a reroll on their to hit dice or something. And if you really wanted to go all in you could also consider a squad that used suppressing fire as having moved during their next turn (you have to reload those lasguns). I really like the idea of suppressive fire, but I want mine simple. That's my two cents.

How about this: They need to be heavy or ordinance (almost all suppressing weapons need to be setup), have 2 or more shots, and have a strength of 4 or higher. It cannot be a blast, template, barrage, or any such other thing.

Plain and simple.