You must read the whole two sentences :
This is a way to determine who fires first in the (rare) case when both firers have the same DRM.
It will be the lowest DR which will determine the first to shoot - and if the shot makes the other firer unable to fire back that's it.
I don't see where this annulates the idea of a Gun duel : one fires before the other one.
Having a DRM < than the Defender simply allows the Attacker's vehicle to fire first. It isn't the definition of a Gun Duel ("a vehicle may attempt to Bounding First Fire (D3.3) its MA (/other-FP, including Passenger FP/SW) at that DEFENDER first").
This is the only case when both firers fire simultaneously (which could lead to mutual elimination).
Gun Duels are not normally simulatneous, except in that case.
I am struggling to get to this answer, at least to the extent of claiming C2.2401 supports klasmalmstrom's tactic of allowing an attacker, which is certain to lose the Gun Duel (has the greater DRMs), to attack before
other defenders can fire (which I too thought brilliant and duly scribbled down).
C2.2401, first sentence, states that the attacker qualifies to fire first "provided" it has the better DRMs.
Then C2.2401 states that if the DRMs are a tie, the attacker may still get to fire first in the Gun Duel (but may not).
But what C2.2401 does
not say is that if the DRMs are unfavorable to the attacker, there is still a Gun Duel but the defender's fires first.
Of course, the defender first fires. But is it because you still have a Gun Duel and that was so obvious that it need not be stated? Or is it because the defender has declared a DFF attack and the attacker could not supercede that attack with a Gun Duel so the DFF attack is execute
as per normal? But if that is the rationale for the defender firing first, doesn't the attacker -- if it survives the first DFF attack -- have to sweat out the next DFF attack from another source, unless it can supercede that attack with a Gun Duel against that new defender)?
