Lack of a suppression rule may bother some WWII historical players, after all it is the basic concept behind the US Fire and Movement tactical doctrine.

Here's an easy way to add Suppression:

Each time a figure passes a "Cover Save"  lay the figure on its side - its Suppressed.

Suppressed figures cannot fire or move (but may fight back with "knife" or "knife & grenade") until Rallied.

A Squad can give up a Move action to Rally.  To Rally roll a die for each current member of the squad.  Each "hit" result Rallies one figure.

If the Squad has an "Insperational Leader" each "blank" rallies one figure.

If the Squad has "high morale' roll one extra die; low morale one less.

TomT

the problem with that is that it would become a tactic to supress your enemy , and they would spend the whole short game without being able to actually play before they get wiped out  .

Of course it is a very WWII appropriate tactic to attempt to suppress your enemy - it was the foundation of almost all WWII infantry tactics.

I not sure why you would choose to spend the entire game suppressed.  Most players would surely do a "Rally" & Shoot order.  Rallying as many troopers as possible and then shooting.  It adds to the decision matrix faced by players when the must which unit to activate and what to do.

TomT

i wouold ask how many time you have played the game ? im not being snotty , or insulting , but after doing the demo week last week http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=196&efcid=1&efidt=404552 , even doing a rally and shoot order you cant count on the dice to to get you more than one or 2 troopers up to fight with before your whole side gets slaughtered . after watching the dice rolls ,and the set ups of many of the scenarios , its hard enough to survive as is , without hadycapping one side or the other .

it would be to one sided to many times . of course the game would still be just as fast , possibly even faster because so many squads would be pinned down and helpless as the get cut to ribbons  , but after 4 or 5 games to get used to a new rule , it would become a race to see who can supress each sides troops fastest , and then slaughter them as they cower .

i cant think of a better way to turn off new players as to tell them game after game that they cant play because they couldnt get their troops to actually fight because their opponent is familiare with a game changing rule , and they arent even familiar with the game .

and keep in mind that in reality , just being supressed by enemy fire doesnt stop the squad from trying to shoot back to cause their attackers to stay away , and in general , you are talking about a rule suited for a lose formation where individual troops can spread out and act independantly , perhaps better suited to a more indepth game like ambush alley where you set up and play the game over the course of 1-3 hours per game , not a game like this where the squads are tight knit units that have to stay together , and are played out in a matter of as little as 10 minutes .

and if you are going to add supress to add a touch of reality , then there will be a never ending slide down a slipper slope to include other rules to add more reality , rules like : over watch , reduce the number of weapons each squade can attack with each turn , extend the ranges on all weapons by 3-10 squares , etc ................ until eventually you are playing ambush alley , or God forbid WH40k . and i for one am pretty happy playing dust-tactics

in my demos , i demoed it to 32 poeple who sat down and played , and dozens more who watched , many of whom were minis game players , and they all loved how straight forward , fast , and simple this game is . i made sure that each player experienced every one of the rules , from movement to knife combat and soft cover . i told them at the end that they now knew the game , that other than special abilities of some of the future squads , they knew all their was to know , and they loved it , not a single one thought the game was to simple . the ONLY complaints , even from the hard core gamers related to the tiles and 2-d terrain , they didnt want table top rules , just a bigger battle field with 3-d terrain to fit the squares .

in short , niether sides troops need help dieing , they do that fast enough , and i think thats probably the best selling point of all .

and one more note , about 8 or 9 of the peopel i demoed to were either military , or retired military , and they were still happy with the game as is .

We have played through the scenrios using both rules (basic and suppression) and the effect is just the opposite to your guess.

As suppressed figures can't shoot this reduces the firepower (which I agree is, if anything, too great).  Under current rules any figure which passes a cover save can then shoot at full power - increasing casualties.  Under our rule its worth your while to pin down enemy troops with one squad and then advance with another with less risk of being shot to peices.  It increases manuver which of course is the point of fire and manuver tactics - pin the enemy in place and then manuver in for the kill.  Shooting is so deadly now that its a bit hard to do.

Perhaps you misunderstand the rule.  A n untouched 5 man squad rolls five dice to rally  - a good chance to rally 1-2 guys.  So unless your squad is really shot up or has lots of suppressed guys it has a good chance to come back.  The main cost is that you don't get the deadly Shoot-Shoot option so again reducing kills.  In any case all the un-Suppressed guys can still shot normally.

Every group has its own level of interest.  By adding one easy to use optional rule you are under no obligation to add additional "more realistic" rules.  Like all thinking people we can stop when we feel we have enough.  My 13 year old son was getting a bit bored with some aspects of the game before we added the rule and now we have made all the way back through the scenrios.  One of the historical gamers in our group who had rejected the game has now reversed his opinion and ordered a copy.

In any case the effect is just the opposite of your concern - as the game wears on both sides generally have fewer figures shooting and Shoot+Shoot orders are less common so attrition is decreased over the course of a game.

TomT

how many games using supression , i have watched over 40 with out it .

also , having played against your 13 year old son , doesnt really count . as i stated in my review , you need alot of experience playing different people to work things through .  my demo week i demoed to over 30 people . as such i saw a multitude of differnt play styles and tactics . if all you did was play against your son , then you played against the exact same source of tactics each time .

and the issue remains . when you intorduce a rule that handicaps a squade on either side , there will be players that find ways to specialize in capitalizing on just that rule . the rule . this can become especially discouraging to new players who will need time to get used to a game without having their squads supressed and wiped out .

your purported reason for including the rule was to add realisim , so to say that smart peopel will know when to say when on the rules .............. that could be argued as having already happened when the game was released , but to sayyou want something because its not realistic enough , allows for EVERY arguemnt for more realisim to be just as valid , and just a s potentialy game damaging . perfect example , i was demoing at the con , had one of the players from another game come up and start griping that its wasnt realistic to have walkers with close combat weapons in a alt h WW2 game , technicaly he's right , its another arguement for more realisim , and is just as valid as yours , so we should the walkers with close combat weapons ?

and in ref.  to your historical player , so without supression , the game is just not worth playing ???? if one mechanic makes all the difference for that one player , what about the next player who wont get into it unless you add change another mechanic , .........say facing ......... or # of weaons that can be used to attack each turn ................. or amy squade size ................. or , or , or , or ?????????????????? pretty soon they arent playing DT , they are playing something completly diffrent . there are planty of people who are interested in and love this game the way it is .

some of my players were historicals players aswell , and again , their only issues were with the small battle field and 2-d terrain .

i would rather lose a trooper and move the squad on than have the squad screwed by being stuck and supressed . the game has been billed as fast a furious , and thats what it is .

i am all for some groups doing house rules , but the thing to keep in mind is that that can seriously handicap them when they play against people who dont play those house rules . this rule may work for your small group , but in a more competitive environment of a larger game store game room group , it will be at serious risk of being abused , and the game losing all its fun . as for the house rules we will do here , it will be limited to new tanks and maybe some airplanes untill they release rules for them , and special terrain types or scenario add ins .

if i want a reality based game , there are plenty of other games out there i could choose from , but for me , this one blows them all away .

and where did you get "inspirational leader" and " high moral " as unit abilities , they arent in my rule book , so if you are now adding abilities that dont even exist to buff against another new rule you made up .......... are you sure you are playing dust tactics ?

I like the game as is, but I have to tell you Kris that I can also understand the players that change rules and add things to the game.  I know that as time goes along the group I play with will alter or add rules to the game to make it more interesting.  I think it makes the game better myself.  I remember back in the early 1990's when I was in the military that we played Axis & Allies, a lot.  We got so proficient at the game that we changed a great many things about it to make it more challenging and more fun.  We did things like changing the squence of players every round by drawing a country token out of a cup.  You never knew the order of play from round to round.  We added airborne drops.  We did things like teaming up the Russians and the Germans against the Japanese, British and Americans.  We always said that the navies should have a destroyer class vessel that was cheaper than a battleship but hit on a 3 or less instead of a 4 or less.  Guess what, we must not have been the only guys saying that because destroyers are in the game now.  When they first came out with Axis & Allies Europe and Axis & Allies Pacific the first thing I said was "Why didn't they make it where you can put the two games together and make one big map?"  Guess what they did just a few months ago?  lol

Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that I understand why guys tweak, change or add rules.  I understand your objection to this suppression idea and you have some valid points.  But, couldn't he add suppression and then tweak the suppression rule so that units don't spend the whole game pinned down?  In my own group we are thinking about doing things like adding a stack of fuel drums as an item for obstructing terrain that blocks the line of sight.  If the drums take a hit they can explode and each miniature in an adjacent square must make a hard cover save or be eliminated by way of being caught in the blast.  Makes you think twice about what you get behind for cover.  Other ideas are smoke grenades.  If you look on top of the Ludwig just behind the hatch there is what appears to be a smoke grenade launcher.  We are thinking about adding a rule in which a vehicle can lauch a smoke greande one square in any direction.  The smoke blocks line of sight for infantry squads and lasts for one round.  Vehicles can still be seen.  So we aren't changing the core rules of the game, we are just adding to or tweaking them.  If you play the game by the rules everytime and never change anything, than after awhile it just gets too easy to guess what the other guy is going to do because he has to operate in a strict a limited paramter of rules.  Why not tweak them a little to make it more interesting and change the tactics.  You know the rules say that if you lose miniatures from a squad that the surviving miniatures still carry the special weapons like the panzerfaust or M9 Bazooka and they can still be used.  We are thinking about playing a bit of a hardcore type game in which removing the miniature with the special weapon means you lose the weapon.  So I think there's something to be said for adding to or tweaking the rules and it can actually make the game more fun. 

and playing a limited number of games on a limited sized battle field with a limited number of participant doesnt give a true indication of the effects of a new player rule . as i said i understand some peopel using house rules , but in this article he is talking about 3 already , and thats a slippery slope , and limits players real abilities when they face off against people who will abuse the tactic , your terrain rule isnt somethig that can dramaticly effect the game , rules like supression can , and if he has already created 2 new rules to counter it ..............

as for your hard core rule , its already the rule , page 12 bottom left , bold print .

GrandInquisitorKris said:

I think he just made his suppression rule too complicated to be fair about it.  It would be easier to say that if a squad fires with the goal of suppressing another squad they have to score two or three hits as an example.  Two would probably be best because you aren't firing to hit anyone, just to make them duck or run.  The suppressed squad does not take any casualties and they cannot be attacked by another squad that round.  The idea being that combat is simultaneous. The suppressed squad cannot attack but they can move in an effort to retreat away from the suppression fire if the player wishes.  This keeps his oponent from getting a second squad close and abusing suppression fire to keep him in place.  At the end of the round they are automatically rallied.  This way the suppression fire works to keep a squad from say taking out one of your tanks or forces them to move away from a critical choke point on the battlefield but it doesn't get all complicated about getting them back in the fight or allow the other player to just continually suppress them.  Personally I wouldn't use it, but it's just an idea. 

As for in house rules, the thing about them is that everyone has to agree to them before hand.  At least that's how we play.  If some player feels like a rule is in place that can be abused then just don't accept it. 

GrandInquisitorKris said:

I think you probably better read page 20, right hand column which deals with limited ammo weapons.  It reads

Limited ammo weapons belong to the whole unit.  Whenever a squad member equipped with such a weapon is eliminated, his comrades pick up the weapon automatically.  They will be able to use it later.

EXAMPLE:  a squad of 5 Grenadiers marches into battle with three Panzerfaust.  During the game, three Grenadiers are eliminated.  The two survivors are still have three Panzerfaust (if they haven't used any of them yet).

The bold print rule you make reference to on page 12 is only talking about how to determine the number of attack dice.  By the rules you could have one guy left in a Grenadiers squad and he could still shoot all three panzerfaust even if the miniature is just carry a rifle.  Hence my "hard core" rule still applies, but I see how you got mixed up on it. 

how ever , the bazooka you mention in your original example is not a limited ammo weapon , if removed , is gone . your example only applies to the limited ammo weapons , not all weapons or special weapons in the unit .

GrandInquisitorKris said:

I think we both knew what I was talking about.  Its just such a shame that if the bazooka guy is the only one left he doesn't have enough sense to pick up one of the M1's lying around and take it with him, but somehow a German guy could carry three panzerfaust and his rifle and shoot them all in one round.  I think we'll stick to my "hard core" rule regardless of any hair splitting objections anyone might have. 

Shooter said:

Sort of how it works in Tide of Iron. When making an attack, the firing squad elect to either shoot to kill, or shoot to suppress. When opting for the suppression tactic, hits scored go to suppress the unit. Lots of hits can cause a squad to rout while only a few may just interrupt its movement etc.