In reverse order for the sake of arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unipus
I'm not sure if this is how you meant it, but I don't think you can ever force more than one CUF check on a target in a single attack (even if you choose to hit them multiple times). I think what you meant though is that you can use hits on ammo dice to split your hits among multiple targets in the same hex... in which case yes each target hit would face a CUF and potentially cause a cascade if they fail.
|
Yes, one can only trigger one CUF per person per attack. But a hex is a big place and it's feasible to anticipate that more persons (to use the somewhat awkward term of the rules) of one side occupy the same hex than suffered a CUF roll. Or as the rules put it:
Quote:
|
PANIC SPREADS: If you fail a CUF roll and get suppressed, all friendly fighters in the same hex as you must also immediately make CUF rolls to avoid suppression too. However, a single attack can only trigger one CUF roll for the same person, never several rolls. [PM p. 67]
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by unipus
[...] Whoever has fire superiority will generally maintain the initiative (in the true military sense -- I hate the way this word is traditionally used in the roleplaying game sense!) and the freedom to move, act, and win. Depending on how scarce ammo is, this leads to tough decisions about how much to shoot, which is good!
|
D'accord to all three items: the intention of the rule, the critique on terminology and the consequences of the rules. Conflict should and indeed must generate decisions for role-playing games to work. And fighting conflicts should generate the starkest decisions to be made. It's quite literally about live and death for characters, son the consequences should carry on into the world after the action.