Covering Fire

[Dustland]

I was thinking about running a WW2 game using low level supers who will probably make heavy use of conventional weapons and it will be combat heavy.

My question is, how would you guys handle covering fire?

I was thinking that if a character uses his action to "Provide Covering Fire" for another character, the recipient of the covering fire would gain a flat +1 DM (Dodge Multiplier?) to their dodge rolls for the page.

Thoughts?

[Lindharin]

Let's see...

You could certainly do that. In fact, by definition, a "Major Benefit" (pg 16) is either a +1 multiplier bonus or a +3 dice bonus (player decides). So that might be a good framework for it. Since someone is giving up an action to aid an ally, a Major Benefit is certainly appropriate IMO. You could let the defender decide whether he wants the +1 multiplier or +3 dice bonus, since it will make a difference about which is better depending on the stats of the person getting the bonus.

Of course, if you prefer to have players do something (ie, roll) on their turn, even if they are just helping someone else, then maybe make them do some sort of roll; if their attack roll is at least X (10? 15? 20?) then they give a Major Benefit like that, otherwise it is only a minor benefit (+2 dice bonus).

The other options would be to treat it as a moderate hindrance (-2 dice penalty) or major hindrance (-4 dice penalty) on the attacker's roll instead of a bonus to the defender.

The third option would be to use the Teamwork rules about having two people roll and taking the best result. You could let the person giving covering fire make an attack roll while the ally who is being attacked rolls his defense, and he can use whichever result is better for defense that page.

[Dustland]

I actually like the Teamwork rule you mentioned; it is both simple and allows both players to roll the dice every round so you don't have some poor soul helping out his teammates but having to sit idly on the sidelines.

Thanks Lindharin!

[BASHMAN]

Wouldn't covering fire instead give a penalty to the people you are using it against? So as a Called Shot, you could lay down covering fire that would give a moderate or major hindrance to the enemies you are spraying it towards?

[urbwar]

Wouldn't covering fire instead give a penalty to the people you are using it against? So as a Called Shot, you could lay down covering fire that would give a moderate or major hindrance to the enemies you are spraying it towards?

As someone who served in the military, I can say that this is actually more appropriate. The whole point of cover fire is to make the enemy unable to get a good shot off at the person you are covering. The opposition is supposed to duck behind cover, etc.

That's why it's also called "suppressive fire", since you're trying to suppress the opposition, making them unable to fire back