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.

So I was browsing the dakka articles last night when I came across this amazing custom ruleset by Grunt13: http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Suppression_Fire_for_40K

I did a quick search and I didn't see any threads about it, so I wanted to raise people's attention to this really neat set of proposed rules.

You can read the article but the gist is that units may forgo normal shooting and instead "suppress" a target unit. A couple things then happen:

1. The suppressed unit has its cover save reduced
2. The suppressed unit must take a pinning test at the start of its turn
3. If the suppressed tries to do anything (move, shoot, assault, run), you roll a D6 for every model and they take a wound on a 6

You can stack multiple suppression fires on a target unit to increase LD penalties and increase the odds of causing wounds. You can also suppress transports and force embarked units to take an LD test to disembark.

At first glance these rules add a whole new dynamic to small unit tactics and an interesting tactical dilemma as to whether it would be better for a unit to shoot at a target and kill some guys immediately or suppress a target and do "overwatch" damage and buff the attacks of other friendly units.

Many props to Grunt13 for an awesome set of rules. You should definitely go read the article as he explains it all more eloquently: http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Suppression_Fire_for_40K

Finally, I would consider adding the following amendments:
1. Units that fire 2 or more barrage weapons per turn may also choose to suppress
2. If the passengers of suppressed vehicles try to fire out of the vehicle they are vulnerable to wounds like a regular suppressed unit with the following mods:
....a. Open-topped, all units roll a D6 per the suppression rules
....b. Regular vehicles, only those units firing from the fire ports roll a D6

Why would a suppressed unit have its cover save reduced? WHen a unit goes to ground it gets a BETTER cover save because of taking heavier cover.

The best Suppression I've ever seen as a rule, was that certain units were given a description of Suppression X (X being a number)

If you choose to use suppression instead of shooting, you designate a target anywhere, and then roll to hit. For every time you hit, an enemy within (X) of the target point has to take a number of morale saves equal to your hits. Failing a morale save pins you.


This was for a skirmish size game. In a large game like Wh40k, this would be too complicated and time-wasting to put in, but it would be good for skirmish level games.

Suppression fire is one of the combat mechanics found in many squad-level wargames but surprisingly absent from 40K. It's built into the rules (to a degree) in the form of going to ground, but that's dependant entirely upon the defender instead of the attacker. Grunt13's rules aren't too bad in representing suppressive fire, although they add a layer of complexity that many players are going to automatically reject.

grayspark wrote:The best Suppression I've ever seen as a rule, was that certain units were given a description of Suppression X (X being a number)

If you choose to use suppression instead of shooting, you designate a target anywhere, and then roll to hit. For every time you hit, an enemy within (X) of the target point has to take a number of morale saves equal to your hits. Failing a morale save pins you.

This would introduce too many necessary rolls for the game to function smoothly and bog the game down, especially if you've got first-turn firing capability. One way to alleviate some of that complexity is to allow any unit to suppress another unit in place of their normal shooting, but only require a single Ld test from each suppressed unit.

Suppressive Fire: instead of Shooting normally or Running in the Shooting Phase, a unit may elect to lay covering fire on an enemy unit, forcing them to find cover and limiting their ability to fight back. Select a target unit as you would for shooting (subject to normal shooting limitations like range and line of sight) and roll to hit the unit. Instead of rolling to wound, the target unit must pass a Pinning Test as though they suffered a wound from a Pinning weapon. The test is made at -1 Ld if at least 5 of the shots fired hit the unit and -2 if 10 or more of the shots fired hit. Units not subject to Pinning are also not subject to Suppression Fire.

The rationale in the article is that the suppressing fire puts so much heat on the target that they cannot react as well to incoming fire and therefore cannot use the cover to the maximum effectiveness when other units shoot at them. I might change the cover modifier to -1 instead of -2, but its a neat idea.

To me the best part about this system is that it makes it dangerous for units to take actions while being suppressed. If it was just a leadership or morale test, fearless units would be unaffected, but this allows all infantry to be affected in some way.

It also can be used offensively or defensively to slow advancing enemies or to pin down defenders while you close the gap to assault them.

Kolath wrote:The rationale in the article is that the suppressing fire puts so much heat on the target that they cannot react as well to incoming fire and therefore cannot use the cover to the maximum effectiveness when other units shoot at them. I might change the cover modifier to -1 instead of -2, but its a neat idea.

To me the best part about this system is that it makes it dangerous for units to take actions while being suppressed. If it was just a leadership or morale test, fearless units would be unaffected, but this allows all infantry to be affected in some way.

It also can be used offensively or defensively to slow advancing enemies or to pin down defenders while you close the gap to assault them.

Thats the only part I'm just not seeing though is the cover save thing. Aren't they going to be more likely to keep their heads down? What happens if they fail a pin check while being suppressed? Does the go to ground modifier cancel the penalty so their is no modifier, or does the modifier just cancel and get replaced with go to ground?

For what it's worth, under the proposed rule, they don't take a pinning test until the start of their own turn.

Pinning weapons are suppressing fire weapons in my opinion. At least in 40k rules terms, any weapon that can cause a pinning test is being used to suppress. I don't know why more weapons don't cause pinning unless GW wanted to keep the game flowing faster.

If you want to play a more tactical game with suppressing fire, then perhaps add a rule that states "When a wound is rolled against any non vehicle unit by a weapon which fires more than one shot (Assault 2, rapid fire etc) or any single shot weapon whose strength is high enough to cause instant death you may instead cause the unit to take a pinning test.

This would give the tactical addition of suppressing fire while still allowing weapons which have the pinning rule to be special because they would still cause a wound and pin.

I love the idea of "Suppressive Fire!" However, for 40k I don't think it would be wise to make it a general ability. The problem is that this is one of those battlefield effects that has a lot to do with comparative ratios. By that I mean you need more weapons on one side than on the other for it to work (machine guns excluded, obviously). So adding this in to 40k as a general rule would probably make more "realism" incongruities than 40k without it. But I would still like to see it slipped in somewhere....

So while I know I am going to upset many people by suggesting it, but "Suppressive Fire" seems like an Imperial Guard special order, to me. This would be an order to a Heavy Weapons squad, either Heavy Bolters or Autocannons (or any squad with three or more HB/AC teams). An automatically passed order (let's face it, who isn't just waiting for the order to clamp down on the trigger and spray the enemy?) which causes pinning with a -1 Ld for every casualty inflicted (this will typically be 1-3, even with Heavy Bolters). If no wounds are inflicted, a Pinning Test is still required.

An interesting idea there, Skinnattittar. I like the sound of new orders, though I would hate to limit this ability to IG.

As you probably gathered, I like the proposed rule as written. But my friends and I need to playtest a few games with it first.

Kolath wrote:An interesting idea there, Skinnattittar. I like the sound of new orders, though I would hate to limit this ability to IG.

As you probably gathered, I like the proposed rule as written. But my friends and I need to playtest a few games with it first.

Well, my problem with the idea as a general rule is that you would have situations of a single model (or at least only a few models) "suppressing" a theoretical million model unit with only say, Lasguns! Or worse, a Conscript with a Lasgun! So if this was a more unit specific rule, like Space Marine Devastator squads, Chaos Obliterators (numbering 3 or more), and similar units, I would say feel more comfortable with the idea.

Kolath wrote:The rationale in the article is that the suppressing fire puts so much heat on the target that they cannot react as well to incoming fire and therefore cannot use the cover to the maximum effectiveness when other units shoot at them.

Here's my problem, suppressive fire isn't just quantity of fire. A unit is suppressed when it feels that the enemy has a superiour firing position on them and if they pop their heads up they will be shot. This can be done with a laspistol as well as it can be done with a HB.

If you want to play test rules for something like this I suggest using these. When the number of wounds from shooting caused on a unit in cover before saving throws is equal to or greater then half the number of wounds in the unit rounding up, they must take a Ld test. If they pass the Ld test then they continue to act as normal on their next players turn, if they fail then they count as having moved in their next players turn. Apply a -1 Ld modifier for every consecutive suppressive fire test in the same shooting phase. Units that are not required to take Ld tests are always considered to have passed this test.

This may not seem as damaging as the article pointed at by the OP at first but consider:
- They can't move in the movment phase the next turn.
- Rapid Fire weapons can not shoot their full range.
- Heavy Weapons can't be used in most cases.
- Some special abilities require the unit not to move for them to be used.
- This is BEFORE saving throws are made so armor and\or cover don't help.

This is the idea I've been rolling around but I rarely get time to play 40K as is much less screw around with custom rules .

The rule we've used for suppressive effect is much simpler then most of the above suggestions (barring Skinnattittar's order suggestion which I quite like conceptually, though it could be made simpler rules wise):

All shooting causes pinning (with Pinning weapons causing an additional -1 morale penalty). The leadership check is modified by the number of casualties suffered, much like losing close combat. Fearless units take "No Retreat" saves instead to represent being to crazy/stupid/mind-controlled to take cover under fire.

Stops units from advancing willy-nilly across open ground, and makes advancing through cover much preferred.

Jack

@ Jackmojo: That isn't bad except that basing it on casualties and causing every shot fired to be a test doesn't seem to reflect the idea of a squad of guys ducking down in order to not be shot. I think that a unit would try to take cover even if they weren't being killed just because it makes sence to put something between you and the bullets.

Right, which is why I think the OP is a more interesting game choice for the shooting player. Rather than having suppression be something that just happens with normal shooting, it becomes a choice.

Do you aim your shots and fire normally with the hopes of wounding enough of the enemy? Or do you forgo accuracy and pour fire on the unit in the hope of pinning it down?

Granted, it just boils down to how much extra you want to dump on the rule-set as it stands.

My personal favorite suppressive fire mechanic is the one in Epic: Armageddon, but that's also automatic rather then a player choice in tactical disposition.

Jack

I forgot I made those rules.

In the article I had that the suppressed unit take a ld test and if it passes in can brave the fire or stay still. If the unit elects to move it takes the hits, but nothing will happen to it if they decided to stay still.

My rules had it that the units braving the suppression fire received no cover save, here’s my reasons; First the suppressing units are not aiming at the target, they are aiming where they target is moving to, the negative space that they will eventually have to occupy in order to take action on the battlefield. If the enemy was in a building the suppressing squads would be pumping their ammo through windows and doorways. When someone sticks their head out the window to take a shot or the squad tries to flee out a doorway they are subjected to the a hail of bullets. By moving or taking up firing positions they are putting themselves at risk, they are perfectly safe if they stay down. Also in terms of game play, how would cover saves work when receiving fire from multiple sources with different terrain between them? You wouldn’t know which cover save applies.

My rules added a level of complexity to the game, but that doesn’t mean that it will bog down game play, instead I think most of the time it will actually speed up the game and reduce the number of die rolls overall. Here is an example: Three firewarrior squads forfeit normal shooting to suppress a unit of thirty orks. The ork player is fearless so he doesn’t need to take a pinning test (if they weren’t they would take the test with a mince 2), so he has the option of having his orks stay where they are and not take any damage or move them and receive fire from the tau. He decides to go for it and rolls thirty dice receiving a pulse hit with every roll of 4+ (from the three units).

Under normal conditions the tau player might fire with one squad at the orks then roll damage. Decide if he wants to fire the other squads after rolling for the first and continue this method of unit by unit actions, which can get very tedious. My method can have several units contributing to a single rolling thus shorting game time while adding dynamic - remember if the orks don't move they don't take damage at all, the tau people didn't kill any greenskins but kept them from advancing or returning fire.

My rules work just as well for fearless units as non-fearless while also giving both players more choice; do you forfeit your shooting in an attempt to halt an enemy advance; do you stay where you are or do you subject yourself to enemy fire by sticking you head from behind that corner? I feel that Berzerkers shouldn’t be immune to suppression fire because they are fearless, there is a reason to keep your head down when 5 squads of imperial guard are spraying and praying at you. Pinning doesn’t take that into account.

I made this rule simply because I thought they would be fun to use. I am not playing at the moment, but if I get a game in with the rules I will share my experience in the article. Glad you like the article Kolath, open top vehicles are already effected by suppression in the manner you suggested (see transports), the fire ports are cool idea that I didn't think of however. I think barrage weapons would best be left in the normal shooting phase as they are contributing there by their pinning hits. Also the point of suppression is that a torrent of fire is being unleashed upon an enemy to the point it becomes a hazardous condition for them - most barrage weapons cannot maintain that rate of fire.

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.


I'd rather a rule that a unit that suffers more hits (regardless of whether they wound or penetrate armour) than it has models in a single turn takes a morale check, if it fails the unit is suppressed and must reroll all rolls to hit, and if it moves it can only move the higher of 2D6.

Depending on play balance, it might be necessary to add a rule allowing units in power armour to absorb twice the number of hits before taking a suppression test - as I suspect smaller model count armies might get hammered by the rule. But that's something that playtesting could establish.

Hi all.
I agree with Sebster, supresion should be part of the basic ranged weapon resolution.
Unfortunatley , adding a supression mechanic on top of 40k's already overcomplicated rules, would result in even more overcomplex rules and/or unnatural implementation.

When you look at the Epic rule set, is covers supression in a intergral and straight forward way.
Why GW insist on using WHFB as a base for 40k rules , when Epic is much more suitable, is beyond me. :

TTFN

sebster wrote: 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.

Hmm... except to me that makes perfect sense. That's what you'd want to do. Keep the target buttoned up with small arms fire while you either maneuver on them or hit them with the big guns while they are stuck in position.

Kolath wrote:

sebster wrote: 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.

Hmm... except to me that makes perfect sense. That's what you'd want to do. Keep the target buttoned up with small arms fire while you either maneuver on them or hit them with the big guns while they are stuck in position.

My rules work with both small arms and the more powerful multi-shot weapons. If five squads of imperial guard armed with lasguns were suppressing a unit of space marines, the marines would have to take a ld test with a -4 in order to move. If they passed the ld. test and took an action each would receive a strength 3 AP – hit on a roll of a 2+ (a minus 4 ld test with a 2+ to hit is the maximum effect for suppression - so it doesn't make sense to have more than 5 units attempting to suppress one target). It would likely be worth the risk for the marine play for the marine player to advance into such a torrent. The situation would be different if instead of 5 imperial guardsman it was a unit of dark reapers with some dire avenger assistance. Two units with the reaper launchers contributing the majority shots would case the marines to need to pass the ld test with a -1 to take their actions which would inflict a hit on a marine on a 5+. But instead of the lasgun damage they would be receiving strength 5 AP 3 hits of the reaper missiles. Heavy multiple shot weapons are very much part of my suppression rule.

One tactic that the marine player could use in that situation to protect themselves is keep the unit down and attempt to suppress the dire avengers which won’t subject them to harm, blocking line of sight of the reapers by steering a rhino or drop ship in front of them, or taking the reapers out in the shooting phase and having the targeted squad run out once the greatest threat was dealt with – bare in mind they will still take fire from the dire avengers.

What about five independent Guardsmen (remains of five squads). As per your rules they would cause a unit of one million Space Marines to become pinned in the same manner as five squads of one million Guardsmen against a single Space Marine model.... for some reason that being able to happen so simply doesn't seem right....

Umm... Except 5 one-man guardsman units wouldn't satisfy the requirement for the unit to have 5+ shots.

Also, talking about hypothetical million man units is kind of a strawman argument.

Skinnattittar wrote:What about five independent Guardsmen (remains of five squads). As per your rules they would cause a unit of one million Space Marines to become pinned in the same manner as five squads of one million Guardsmen against a single Space Marine model.... for some reason that being able to happen so simply doesn't seem right....

No they won’t. The rule says that a unit must be able to put at least five shots into a target for it to attempt to suppress them. The only way for a single model to attempt to suppress another unit is if it was armed with an assault 5 or heavy 5 weapon or could duel fire enough weapons to achieve 5 shots.

Aside from the Greentide I don’t think there is really any units that are able to surpass a 30 model maximum. But a real simple solution is available to those who feel the need for it.

Wall of Flesh: If a suppressed unit exceeds fifty models then treat it as only having fifty models when rolling damage. The shear mass of the mob absorbs the shots shielding those in back from the suppression fire.

Fine, five squads of three Guardsmen (six shots each), against a million Space Marines (not a strawman, as it is neither a fallacy nor misrepresentation) units, or if it makes you feel better, ten Space Marines. It's still not a good representation of reality. A single squad of three Guardsmen with lasguns should not be able to realistically suppress a ten man squad of Space Marines.

Note: the "million Space Marine unit" is not presented because it exists, but as an exaggeration example to show an inherent major problem with the rule (or at least incongruity). The fact that the rule ALLOWS such a situation is the problem, not that the situation exists. The real issue could simply be that three Guardsmen with lasguns shouldn't be able to suppress an infinitely larger force (arguing over the semantic of their number of shots is also poor science, as vs. a million Space Marines, it doesn't really matter).

Skinnattittar wrote:Fine, five squads of three Guardsmen (six shots each), against a million Space Marines (not a strawman, as it is neither a fallacy nor misrepresentation) units, or if it makes you feel better, ten Space Marines. It's still not a good representation of reality. A single squad of three Guardsmen with lasguns should not be able to realistically suppress a ten man squad of Space Marines.

Note: the "million Space Marine unit" is not presented because it exists, but as an exaggeration example to show an inherent major problem with the rule (or at least incongruity). The fact that the rule ALLOWS such a situation is the problem, not that the situation exists. The real issue could simply be that three Guardsmen with lasguns shouldn't be able to suppress an infinitely larger force (arguing over the semantic of their number of shots is also poor science, as vs. a million Space Marines, it doesn't really matter).

The three guardsmen in your example are merely forcing the space marines to take a leadership in order to advance, which is completely sensible. If the ten marines advance or fired an average of one or two will suffer a lasgun hit, that is not something that seems as overbalancing as you make it. Space marines have to take leadership test same as everything else that is not fearless. You act as if a single sniper couldn’t perform the same feat in halting the marine squad by pinning them.

The decision to leave a secure position to enter a position saturated with incoming fire is something that would seem to require a leadership test same as assaulting an especially scary monster in the game. Space marines have to pass leadership test to assault hive tyrants and baneblades, why shouldn’t they need to pass a leadership test to run face first into a spray of incoming fire? I have read several books were a few guardsmen created a killing field by setting their lasguns on full auto, cutting down numerous cultist/tyranids/orks as they were swarmed. Normal shooting requires singling out targets whereas suppression takes into account the possibility of a target rich environment; like I said in the article it should be easier to score hits when firing at a squad of thirty orks than shooting at 5 dire avengers.

Your million space marine example is very odd. My rule is broken because when facing a nonexistence completely ridiculous unit it is overpowered? You are ignoring the Wall of Flesh rule that I posted in response the situation, so you either overlooked it or you are ignoring it to further a nonsensical argument rendered moot by its existence. Yes when I wrote the rule I didn’t foresee the possibility of it being used against a million strong squad. When you put forth that unlikely situation I took 5 seconds and thought of a simple solution, the Wall of Flesh rule. Some weapons in 40K have unlimited range, GWS didn’t feel the need to make a rule saying that a Tau Seeker Missile can’t be fired from a planet 100 light years away from the battlefield even though the missile range is unlimited and a pathfinder set a marker light. I imagine this is because that situation would likely never come up in a game as it is as ridiculous as facing an infinitely numbered squad.

Gavin Thorne wrote:Suppression fire is one of the combat mechanics found in many squad-level wargames but surprisingly absent from 40K. It's built into the rules (to a degree) in the form of going to ground, but that's dependant entirely upon the defender instead of the attacker.

except that you decide whether you dive for cover after the rolls to wound have been made, in a high damage situation it can easily be expected for a unit to hit the ground, where there's little damage they just move on

Grunt13 wrote:I have read several books were a few guardsmen created a killing field by setting their lasguns on full auto, cutting down numerous cultist/tyranids/orks as they were swarmed. Normal shooting requires singling out targets whereas suppression takes into account the possibility of a target rich environment; like I said in the article it should be easier to score hits when firing at a squad of thirty orks than shooting at 5 dire avengers.

100 Imperial Guardsmen with the First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire at 24" = 28 dead Orks
12" = 42 dead Orks (if they decided to run instead of shoot)
that's 420 point of Orks down from shooting against 500 points of Imperial Guard (not Including the Command Squads), there aren't enough Orks left to deal with the rest
this is a simplyfied example based around the moments when the enemy is funneled to you. these shots are from lasguns, only the Grot Blaster causes less damage, the Imperial Guard are clearly efficient enough to deal with these kinds of threats when the enemy is foolish enough to rush into a target range. more so if there isn't enough space to move every unit of Orks

now Hormagaunts
24" = 42
12" = 63
isn't that enough damage to represent the enemy getting gunned down for rushing in?

I had something else to say but I forgot, maybe when you disagree I'll remember

Lotet, I think your example just highlights the fact that there are many situations where it would be better to just fire normally at a unit rather than try to suppress. if you had 100 guardsmen somehow all in range of one unit of orks or hormagaunts, it would probably be better to just blast them. Or maybe have one unit suppress and the rest blast, that way the survivors could take more damage when they move?

@Lotet
Disagree with what?

My rules were made to add a new element to the game, not to correct a perceived misbalance. In the article I go on to explain how the suppression rule works for both attackers and defenders, the orks are supposed to benefit just as much from the rule as the guards. The sword cut both ways, which I explain in length in my Favorites Defenders? section of the article.

A squad of ten IG armed with lasguns will inflict an average of five hits when shooting at a unit 12-24 inches away, and 10 hits when shooting at a unit within 12 inches. If that same squad were to attempt to suppress a unit of thirty orks they would inflict an average of 5 hits on the orks regardless of if they were 2 or 20 inches away. When suppressing a unit with ten members they would average 1 or 2 hits against it should it brave the fire, while shooting normally would still have them score the same 5 or 10 average hits depending on range.

Suppression is about halting your opponent, having them take a pinning test, forcing them to choose between advancing into fire or remaining still and unharmed. If your goal is to inflict damage upon the enemy you are better off just shooting them 95% of the time. Here is one of the best situations that I can think of for guard suppressing an enemy in terms of inflicting damage. Five squads of imperial guards each with a heavy bolter at 24 inches of their target. The heavy bolters contribute 3 shots with 2 lasguns making up the difference to achieve the necessary 5 shot minimum. An enemy unit has to pass a leadership test with a -4 or become pinned, if they pass and brave the fire the unit’s member will take a strength 5 AP 4 hit on a 2+. Now that might sound like a lot but two factors are in play here: First no matter how stacked the suppression is it can never inflict more wounds than there are members in the squad. It is unlikely to wipe a squad out with suppression, second the target could simply not move or and take up a suppression position of their own and completely negate all the damage they would have taken. Is it worth it to the guard to have 5 squads of IG to forfeit their shooting to halt a single enemy unit, or is it worth it for the enemy to take the shots – it’s a game of chicken. In the case of thirty orks taking action would average 16.66 wounds (30 * 5/6 * 2/3), a little under half the squad would survive on average. For ten marines they would have taken an average of 1.85 wounds (10 * 5/6 * 2/3*1/3) but they would have to pass a leadership test with a -4 to brave the fire.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
To further my point, if the 5 IG squads decided to shoot normally then they would have 25 heavy bolter shots and 40 lasgun shots (if no special weapons were present.) at the enemy that would cause an average of 13.8 wounds on the orks and 4.9 wounds on the space marines. Remember that the target’s owner gets to decide whether or not to take damage. If I was the on the receiving end of fire from 5 IG squads I would likely consider staying planted and doing some Suppressing of my own with that squad (see suppression verse suppression) one of my units is effectively canceling out the shooting phase of 5 imperial guard units – that might be a worthwhile exchange from the perspective of the targeted unit in that situation.

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
I agree with Sebster, supresion should be part of the basic ranged weapon resolution.
Unfortunatley , adding a supression mechanic on top of 40k's already overcomplicated rules, would result in even more overcomplex rules and/or unnatural implementation.

When you look at the Epic rule set, is covers supression in a intergral and straight forward way.
Why GW insist on using WHFB as a base for 40k rules , when Epic is much more suitable, is beyond me. :

Yeah, the Epic rules for suppression fit neatly in that system, because they were part of the design goals from the start. I agree that a suppression mechanic in 40K would be 'too many' rules, because 40K is already filled to the brim with rules that don't do anything useful.

40K would be a cool game with a suppression mechanic, but it would need to be added as part of a rebuild, throwing out loads of pointless junk.

Kolath wrote:Hmm... except to me that makes perfect sense. That's what you'd want to do. Keep the target buttoned up with small arms fire while you either maneuver on them or hit them with the big guns while they are stuck in position.

No. Re-read my post, with that sentence in context. You'd have five man marine squads with no heavy weapons keeping the enemy 'suppressed' while the heavy bolter squad took aimed shots, killing people but not actually forcing them to keep their heads down. It would be absurd.

Kolath wrote:Umm... Except 5 one-man guardsman units wouldn't satisfy the requirement for the unit to have 5+ shots.

Also, talking about hypothetical million man units is kind of a strawman argument.

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.

can't we just stop at pinning? it's the same as suppresion, and works just fine.

Benefit:
better save

Bad:
Can't do anything for a turn.

simple.