Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:12 pm Posts: 34 Location: Everett, WA
Potential benefits to successfully suppressing an enemy squad. Could be combined. - Whenever the suppressed squad fires, the squad they are firing at gains a cover bonus to DEF. Probably the normal bonus, +3 or w/e it winds up being. This is because the suppressed squad is busy keeping their heads down. - The suppressed squad can't move. - The suppressed squad can't shoot. - The suppressed squad has a large penalty to shooting, somewhere around -3. Distracted by the massive amount of fire raining down. - The suppressed squad suffers a speed penalty
Personally, I like the first two options: suppressed squads can't move and any squad they fire at gains cover. Gaining cover and the squad suffering a penalty to their shooting skill are effectively the same, except that the gaining cover mechanic does not benefit any units you have that are already in cover, which encourages the player to make a movement with a separate squad to take advantage of the suppressing fire.
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:37 pm Posts: 530 Location: Drenthe, Holland
RabbiPT wrote:
Personally, I like the first two options: suppressed squads can't move and any squad they fire at gains cover. Gaining cover and the squad suffering a penalty to their shooting skill are effectively the same, except that the gaining cover mechanic does not benefit any units you have that are already in cover, which encourages the player to make a movement with a separate squad to take advantage of the suppressing fire.
that's actually really smart, kudos to you!
_________________ "i buy me new deffkopta!!" "waaaagh!" "i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun." "huh?" "waaaagh!" "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"
I agree that I like the first two as the penalty for being supressed, but I would add one thing. If you are suppressed you should be able to sacrifice one model to nullify one of the two options.
Basically one guy jumps up and distracts while the rest of the unit move away to a different position, or takes a shot at one of the enemy units.
This one guy would either be eliminated at the end of the action, or every enemy unit within range gets a free shot at that model.
I agree that I like the first two as the penalty for being supressed, but I would add one thing. If you are suppressed you should be able to sacrifice one model to nullify one of the two options.
Basically one guy jumps up and distracts while the rest of the unit move away to a different position, or takes a shot at one of the enemy units.
This one guy would either be eliminated at the end of the action, or every enemy unit within range gets a free shot at that model.
I'm not sure that would work Wiz.
Say in the act of Suppression fire I cause 3 wounds... now, because I was using Suppression these wounds aren't removed, but are counted as a negative on a leadership test. The test is failed, and the unit becomes suppressed. The unit then sacrifices one guy, to nullify half the effect of Suppression.
If I was the unit trying to suppress, I have given up 2 wounds for not much advantage...
I'm not sure I would even attempt suppression fire if it could be nullified in any way.
I have always looked as suppression as something that happens in addition to taking wounds. So in your example you deal 3 wounds, remove casualties and then have to take leadership test with a negative modifer.
But I agree if it is either or, then there shouldn't be an easy way to get out of being suppressed.
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:01 pm Posts: 502 Location: That's What She Said
if thats the case, perhaps suppression should occur when you loose 1/2 of your models in the squad. this could be something that enforces big squads because we dont have to many things that do this. from a fluff perspective it would represent soliders being shot down, so their allies throw themselves against cover to protect themselves.
_________________ saltine runner thanks you for reading this post, and is sorry for his ramblings. "In the grim darkness of the future, there is only static grass." -Smurfyk 2000pts Tyranid
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:37 pm Posts: 530 Location: Drenthe, Holland
people, you missed something here. suppresive fire negates cover. if you cause three wounds WITHOUT cover then you would cause no wounds with WITH cover. wich is why you try to suppress them...
_________________ "i buy me new deffkopta!!" "waaaagh!" "i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun." "huh?" "waaaagh!" "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:01 pm Posts: 502 Location: That's What She Said
slaughtergames wrote:
people, you missed something here. suppresive fire negates cover. if you cause three wounds WITHOUT cover then you would cause no wounds with WITH cover. wich is why you try to suppress them...
2 problems with this 1. you would still cause a wound, you would just roll a single die for it 2. if you suppress them you can just run around their cover next turn, and rip them apart then. this enforces strategy and positioning, the 2 major things matt wants.
_________________ saltine runner thanks you for reading this post, and is sorry for his ramblings. "In the grim darkness of the future, there is only static grass." -Smurfyk 2000pts Tyranid
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:37 pm Posts: 530 Location: Drenthe, Holland
saltinerunner45 wrote:
slaughtergames wrote: people, you missed something here. suppresive fire negates cover. if you cause three wounds WITHOUT cover then you would cause no wounds with WITH cover. wich is why you try to suppress them...
2 problems with this 1. you would still cause a wound, you would just roll a single die for it 2. if you suppress them you can just run around their cover next turn, and rip them apart then. this enforces strategy and positioning, the 2 major things matt wants.
1. sorry, since when do we roll two dice for wounding? did i miss something? 2. yes i totally agree.sorry i didn't put my mind to words right...
_________________ "i buy me new deffkopta!!" "waaaagh!" "i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun." "huh?" "waaaagh!" "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"
if you equal their defence you roll one die to have a small chance of killing a guy.
i like that suppression needs to happen twice to make flanking effective, a suppressed squad has a chance to break out of suppression and massacre the flanking squad while they are exposed.
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:37 pm Posts: 530 Location: Drenthe, Holland
malko888 wrote:
if you equal their defence you roll one die to have a small chance of killing a guy.
oh, I see, i missed that part. i didn't know that...
_________________ "i buy me new deffkopta!!" "waaaagh!" "i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun." "huh?" "waaaagh!" "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:37 pm Posts: 530 Location: Drenthe, Holland
oh well, one man can't know everything lol....
_________________ "i buy me new deffkopta!!" "waaaagh!" "i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun." "huh?" "waaaagh!" "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:59 am Posts: 469 Location: Dublin, Ireland
Ribbons Earned:
I like the idea for suppressing fire. My thoughts on it are the target loses it's next activation and then has to take a leadership like test to see if it loses it's second one. Matt said he needed to have the squad suppressed for more than one turn because he couldn't really do much in that single turn. Apologies if this has been said before in any other post
_________________ But that's just my opinion... Curahee! Check out my #theweeklypaint 2013
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
