Reading two narrated fights from another session showed Dominic attacking at
`vs 1`, four times in one of them. Confirmed against the sheet rather than the
log: weapons is empty and his only combat skill is Firearm (Pistol) 43, with
nothing to fire. So the four-player cut fights with Renshaw and Bhattacharya on
compact pistols and Braithwaite on a knife — a quarter of the party out of any
fight, and a large part of why EXPOSURE already said violence at four players is
party-ending without knowing that was the reason.
A defect I introduced. "He carries no weapon, and the GM must not fix it" was
written as characterisation about an anchor having both hands full, and was never
checked against a fight.
Not fixed by arming him, which would cost the character to solve what is really a
briefing failure. Said out loud instead: his entry now states the 1% plainly and
instructs the GM to tell his player BEFORE the game that Dodge 63, First Aid 40,
Insight 63 and the anchor are his set-piece. A player who is not told will roll at
1% for twenty minutes and conclude the sheet is broken, which is the actual harm
here. The scaling note carries the three-attacker arithmetic and points at Agyeman
as fixing the sum as well as the lane; EXPOSURE names the cause in its own prose.
Also recorded in the pass-3 log, deliberately NOT applied: the bimodality now has a
mechanism — both sides disable at half max HP, so each disable thins the return fire
and makes the next likelier, and first blood is a true coin worth 43 points of wipe
rate in the cut against 14 at six-vs-six. It reproduces exactly. It stays out of the
scenario because it comes from a reading tool with no guarded baseline, and a
GM-facing page may not carry a figure nobody can re-derive. The duller published
sentence is the checkable one. If that measurement gets a guarded home the paragraph
should be reframed around the first disabling blow, which is the better frame.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
