Author Topic: (Answered) shooting more than one objective in the same action with a burst  (Read 2201 times)

jubrapamal

  • Guest
It is said that burst weapon can be shooted against an enemy with a burst weapon provoking a big damage (+1 point of damage per point of MoS), however is it possible to take advantage of the burst effect to affect a group of enemies relative close one to each other? This would be not the same case as suppression fire, which main aim (sa far as I understand) is to keep the enemy heads down, to cover the friend advance, e.g. (and possibly causing by the way some kills). I am talking about to attack (or ambush) a column of enemies with a weapon with Burs value of 20 with the main objective to kill them, not to frighten them for tactical purposes.

On the other hand? Does the suppression fire have an effect in the moral checks? It is obligated an enemy suffering suppression fire, to retreat or to search for a cover? While thee suppression fire continues active or while he does not pass a moral check?

I have not seen any reference about this task in the AToW book

Thank you very much in advance for any people able to aid me

P.D: sorry for my english  :-[
« Last Edit: 20 August 2012, 01:20:46 by Xotl »

Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15591
No problem, your English is fine.

The Suppression Fire rules can be used to target multiple enemies. It is one of it's intents.
A Burst attack is specifically interpreted as an attack focusing entirely on a single opponent, while Suppression intends to hit an area, which can contain multiple enemies.

There are currently no rules for over-penetrating attacks, although they can be inferred if you presume the first person to get hit to be a "wall" with a BAR equal to the relevant Armor Type. This "wall" thus degrades the initial attack, but may still be powerful enough to prove dangerous to people in its path.

Paul
The solution is just ignore Paul.

jubrapamal

  • Guest
Ok, thank you very much for your clarification, Paul


 

Register