Question Suppression and "Allocated" dice

[MongooseMatt]

It seems that one aspect of this discussion is about the ability for one squad to assault another squad that is in cover.
-snick

No, the question is, why/how can a unit be immune to suppression from another?

Because they are in cover - that is the advantage infantry have, and they force you to employ other means to root them out.

Waltz them out into the open, and suppression is easy. . .

 

[Snicky]

No, the question is, why/how can a unit be immune to suppression from another?

I can see how the 'keeping one fig hidden' maneuver of a unit looks a little munchkiny, I guess I don't think of it that way, but rather the defenders use of tactics to prevent their being suppressed vs the attackers use of their tactics, weapons, etc to first suppress them, then charge in and kill them all. I wouldn't mind playing two games with different suppression rules, just to see how the change would affect the feel of the game, but being perpetually short on gaming time, I tend to use the rules as is.

 

[Foxmeister]

Because they are in cover - that is the advantage infantry have, and they force you to employ other means to root them out.

Waltz them out into the open, and suppression is easy. . .

I'm not 100% convinced, but I'll play as is.

What I am happy about though is your active participation on this thread!

Regards,

Dave

 

[MongooseMatt]

What I am happy about though is your active participation on this thread!

Happy to take part!

 

[Laffe]

As Snicky said, the tactics change, not necessarily for worse.

It's definitely for the worse - if you could suppress the unit, you wouldn't have to worry about a "defensive fire" reaction if you were assaulting an enemy position (i.e. enemy in cover, buildings etc). As it stands, keeping one guy out of LOS makes it impossible to suppress the unit, and thus makes assaulting that much harder - yet assaulting should be the best way to root out entrenched infantry.

No, it forces you to use different tactics. 8)

Like assaulting with two sections against one -- since you can only react once. It SHOULD be hard to root out entrenched infantry, right?

 

[Foxmeister]

No, it forces you to use different tactics. 8)

Like assaulting with two sections against one -- since you can only react once. It SHOULD be hard to root out entrenched infantry, right?

Personally I think it's metagaming, and I don't like that - I can accept it, but I don't like it as to me it is cheesy! As far as I'm concerned, if I can suppress a unit of 10 men, but can't suppress the same 10 men just because one of them happens to be in the toilet (i.e. out of sight) doesn't sound right to me. If the volume of fire is enough to suppress 10 men "in sight", it should be enough to suppress 9 men with one out of sight.

That being said, it's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination, and it is just the way it is.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Bede]

What I am happy about though is your active participation on this thread!

Happy to take part!

So while we have your attention, what about the question of a unit firing weapons with different fire zones (i.e. 3" zone bolt action rifles and a 6" auto lmg)? Has this been answered some where and I"m just missing it?

 

[Bede]

No, it forces you to use different tactics. 8)

Like assaulting with two sections against one -- since you can only react once. It SHOULD be hard to root out entrenched infantry, right?

Personally I think it's metagaming, and I don't like that - I can accept it, but I don't like it as to me it is cheesy! As far as I'm concerned, if I can suppress a unit of 10 men, but can't suppress the same 10 men just because one of them happens to be in the toilet (i.e. out of sight) doesn't sound right to me. If the volume of fire is enough to suppress 10 men "in sight", it should be enough to suppress 9 men with one out of sight.

That being said, it's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination, and it is just the way it is.

Regards,

Dave

I agree, it is a "cheesy" tactic to employ, but like many rules, I just think a bright line was drawn.

If fire on 9 guys is enough to suppress the 10 man squad, how about fire on 8? 7? 6? , etc. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[hithero]

No, it forces you to use different tactics. 8)

Like assaulting with two sections against one -- since you can only react once. It SHOULD be hard to root out entrenched infantry, right?

Personally I think it's metagaming, and I don't like that - I can accept it, but I don't like it as to me it is cheesy! As far as I'm concerned, if I can suppress a unit of 10 men, but can't suppress the same 10 men just because one of them happens to be in the toilet (i.e. out of sight) doesn't sound right to me. If the volume of fire is enough to suppress 10 men "in sight", it should be enough to suppress 9 men with one out of sight.

That being said, it's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination, and it is just the way it is.

Regards,

Dave

I agree, it is a "cheesy" tactic to employ, but like many rules, I just think a bright line was drawn.

If fire on 9 guys is enough to suppress the 10 man squad, how about fire on 8? 7? 6? , etc. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

No, you are putting down enough fire to suppress a 10 man squad, it just so happens one is hiding in the closet so the other 9 ignore the bullets.

 

[MongooseMatt]

So while we have your attention, what about the question of a unit firing weapons with different fire zones (i.e. 3" zone bolt action rifles and a 6" auto lmg)? Has this been answered some where and I"m just missing it?

Sorry, what was the question? Was it dice allocation between different FZs?

 

[MongooseMatt]

No, you are putting down enough fire to suppress a 10 man squad, it just so happens one is hiding in the closet so the other 9 ignore the bullets.

But that is the _point_!

Put another way, if that feature of the rules did not exist, we would have to create something very similar to reflect the bonuses infantry have in cover anyway!

 

[Bede]

So while we have your attention, what about the question of a unit firing weapons with different fire zones (i.e. 3" zone bolt action rifles and a 6" auto lmg)? Has this been answered some where and I"m just missing it?

Sorry, what was the question? Was it dice allocation between different FZs?

Matt,

The question is there anything special about how you handle a shoot action where the unit is firing weapons with different fire zones. (e.g. , 3" zone for bolt action rifles and 6" zone for squad leader's smg).

I assume that you don't simply lump all the dice together but that instead the rifles can only affect models within 3" of the fire point whereas the SMG can affect models within 6" of the fire point.

 

[Bede]

Personally I think it's metagaming, and I don't like that - I can accept it, but I don't like it as to me it is cheesy! As far as I'm concerned, if I can suppress a unit of 10 men, but can't suppress the same 10 men just because one of them happens to be in the toilet (i.e. out of sight) doesn't sound right to me. If the volume of fire is enough to suppress 10 men "in sight", it should be enough to suppress 9 men with one out of sight.

That being said, it's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination, and it is just the way it is.

Regards,

Dave

I agree, it is a "cheesy" tactic to employ, but like many rules, I just think a bright line was drawn.

If fire on 9 guys is enough to suppress the 10 man squad, how about fire on 8? 7? 6? , etc. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

No, you are putting down enough fire to suppress a 10 man squad, it just so happens one is hiding in the closet so the other 9 ignore the bullets.

Right. You're saying that if enough bullets are fired on 9 visible guys to suppress all ten, they shouldn't escape suppression if one is in the closet.

But if 9 are in the closet and only 1 is exposed would you contend that the unit should be suppressed even though 90% of the unit could not be hurt by the fire?

I assume you'll say "no", but the logic is the same.

So tell me where you would draw the line?

 

[Foxmeister]

But if 9 are in the closet and only 1 is exposed would you contend that the unit should be suppressed even though 90% of the unit could not be hurt by the fire?

I assume you'll say "no", but the logic is the same.

So tell me where you would draw the line?

I would say that if you get 10+ hits, the unit should be suppressed, regardless of the number of troops that could actually be hit but that's just me!

Regards,

Dave

 

[lastbesthope]

draw the line?

I would say that if you get 10+ hits, the unit should be suppressed, regardless of the number of troops that could actually be hit but that's just me!

Regards,

Dave[/quote]

Even if all 10 hits get allocated to just one model?

LBH

 

[MongooseMatt]

The question is there anything special about how you handle a shoot action where the unit is firing weapons with different fire zones. (e.g. , 3" zone for bolt action rifles and 6" zone for squad leader's smg).

I assume that you don't simply lump all the dice together but that instead the rifles can only affect models within 3" of the fire point whereas the SMG can affect models within 6" of the fire point.

Thought so.

The best method is to roll for the Fire Zones separately - the attacked can choose which goes first (this is effectively what happened in the original SST, and I can't see why it should not apply here).

 

[Bede]

The question is there anything special about how you handle a shoot action where the unit is firing weapons with different fire zones. (e.g. , 3" zone for bolt action rifles and 6" zone for squad leader's smg).

I assume that you don't simply lump all the dice together but that instead the rifles can only affect models within 3" of the fire point whereas the SMG can affect models within 6" of the fire point.

Thought so.

The best method is to roll for the Fire Zones separately - the attacked can choose which goes first (this is effectively what happened in the original SST, and I can't see why it should not apply here).

Matt,

Does that open up the possibility that the target can manipulate the dice to avoid suppression? (i.e. the target applies auto weapon's dice to models within 3" of the fire point and thus doubles up with the non-auto weapons?)

 

[hithero]

draw the line?

I would say that if you get 10+ hits, the unit should be suppressed, regardless of the number of troops that could actually be hit but that's just me!

Regards,

Dave

Even if all 10 hits get allocated to just one model?

LBH[/quote]

Yes, that is what suppression is all about. If you stick 1,000 rounds through several windows it does not matter how many men you can hit, nobody is going to put their head round the window frame to have it shot off. It's not about hitting troops at all, it is the morale effect of not wanting your head blown of.

And I'll ask again, why the change from BFE when suppression rules worked fine?

 

[hithero]

After posting the above I had another thought, sort of middle-ground compromise. You have suppression as currently written and if you do cause enough suppression including those out of sight then that side of the terrain piece becomes suppressed instead of the target.
This means that the unit could move or fire out of another side of a building but not out of the side that has the hail of bullets comming through the windows.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Matt,

Does that open up the possibility that the target can manipulate the dice to avoid suppression? (i.e. the target applies auto weapon's dice to models within 3" of the fire point and thus doubles up with the non-auto weapons?)

It is the attacker's choice which FZ he rolls for first, so the advantage is with him!