Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Stefan Struck <struck@******.INFORMATIK.UNI-BONN.DE>
Subject: Another Rigger-Question
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 14:47:54 +0000
Hello everybody!

Here's another Rigger question for you:

Rigger R controls 3 Drones via remotecontrol. He now switches from Drone A
to Drone B (Controlboard has enough ports).

Is this a simple, complex, or free action?

Thanx for helping...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan, Son of Yuboert Internet: struck@******.informatik.uni-bonn.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To do is to be" --- Satre
"To be is to do" --- Sokrates
"Do be do be do" --- Sinatra [Taken from
"Subway"]
Message no. 2
From: "C. Paul Douglas" <granite@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Another Rigger-Question
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 09:22:15 -0400
On Mon, 16 May 1994, Stefan Struck wrote:

> Hello everybody!
>
> Here's another Rigger question for you:
>
> Rigger R controls 3 Drones via remotecontrol. He now switches from Drone A
> to Drone B (Controlboard has enough ports).
>
> Is this a simple, complex, or free action?
>
Should be a free action...Since it an extremely simple action requiring
little or no thought or effort...
------------------GRANITE
Message no. 3
From: Stefan Struck <struck@******.INFORMATIK.UNI-BONN.DE>
Subject: Re: Another Rigger-Question
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 13:18:20 +0000
> > Rigger R controls 3 Drones via remotecontrol. He now switches from Drone A
> > to Drone B (Controlboard has enough ports).
> >
> > Is this a simple, complex, or free action?
> >
> Should be a free action...Since it an extremely simple action requiring
> little or no thought or effort...
> ------------------GRANITE
>
IMO free action makes it too cheap. In my campaign the rigger 'is' his
vehicle when he's jacked in. Now, imagine this: Change from eagle-like
flying to deep-down bottom crawling (patrol-vehicle) and adjust to the
new point of view.
I think simple action is not enough. Let't say the rigger has 2 actions
(not so tough). He can switch 6 times in 3 seconds without a mod.

IMO it has to be a simple action, my GM said maybe a complex (he
wasn't sure either)

I would like to hear more opinions, please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan, Son of Yuboert Internet: struck@******.informatik.uni-bonn.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To do is to be" --- Satre
"To be is to do" --- Sokrates
"Do be do be do" --- Sinatra [Taken from
"Subway"]
Message no. 4
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Another Rigger-Question
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 11:37:55 -0700
On Tue, 17 May 1994, Stefan Struck wrote:

> > > Rigger R controls 3 Drones via remotecontrol. He now switches from Drone A
> > > to Drone B (Controlboard has enough ports).
> > >
> > > Is this a simple, complex, or free action?
> > >
> > Should be a free action...Since it an extremely simple action requiring
> > little or no thought or effort...
> > ------------------GRANITE
> >
> IMO free action makes it too cheap. In my campaign the rigger 'is' his
> vehicle when he's jacked in. Now, imagine this: Change from eagle-like
> flying to deep-down bottom crawling (patrol-vehicle) and adjust to the
> new point of view.
> I think simple action is not enough. Let't say the rigger has 2 actions
> (not so tough). He can switch 6 times in 3 seconds without a mod.
>
> IMO it has to be a simple action, my GM said maybe a complex (he
> wasn't sure either)

Sure, how about what the book says? Controlling a vehicle is a
Complex Action. You can give orders to *any* vehicle of a group without
spending an action but giving the orders is the Complex Action.
If you can give an order that will pertain to all vehicles
controlled then that order is still a Complex Action. The rigger is not
the vehicle if they are controlling drones. If your rigger is playing
car, ie, direct plug-in then they aren't controlling drones at the time.
If they have the car on their control box too then it is just another
vehicle to them.
The drone usually has a dog-brain. Rigger tells dog-brain what
to do. Drone w/out dog-brain rapidly would go OoC because of
interference (RFI) and time-lag.
If rigger has two actions he can send two orders. Nothing more.

Ivy K
Message no. 5
From: Axel Strack <strack@***.TU-FREIBERG.DE>
Subject: Another rigger question
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 16:55:12 MESZ
I once created a rigger with a somewhat modified WK II Stallion. When i tried
to equip it with a popup turret i was not shure whether the turret itself
was equipped with visual sensors or not. After reading the paragraph about
turrets thoroughly i read something like >needs place because of the feed for
the normallight videosensor< (sorry, no official citing, because the RBB is
back home :) ). But the Stallion had sensors rating 3 which i would say contains
also some lowlight and IR sensors. So i came up to a solution for myself:
Fixed mounts or firmpoint mounts with a very restricted arc use the sensors of
the vehicle itself whereas turret mounted weapons (wider firing arc) have sensors
of there own (with at least rating 0 because of normallight video). If you want
better aiming equipment you have to buy additional sensors for the turret itself.

Does that sound reasonible?

Suggestions and comments welcome !
(But be kind with me, i have a flameophobia :) )

Kid Flash
strack@*******.tu-freiberg.de
Message no. 6
From: Ioannis Pantelidis <jpante@******.COMPULINK.GR>
Subject: Re: Another rigger question
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 20:02:30 +0300
On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Axel Strack wrote:

> I once created a rigger with a somewhat modified WK II Stallion. When i tried
> to equip it with a popup turret i was not shure whether the turret itself
> was equipped with visual sensors or not. After reading the paragraph about
> turrets thoroughly i read something like >needs place because of the feed for
> the normallight videosensor< (sorry, no official citing, because the RBB is
> back home :) ). But the Stallion had sensors rating 3 which i would say contains
> also some lowlight and IR sensors. So i came up to a solution for myself:
> Fixed mounts or firmpoint mounts with a very restricted arc use the sensors of
> the vehicle itself whereas turret mounted weapons (wider firing arc) have sensor
> s
> of there own (with at least rating 0 because of normallight video). If you want
> better aiming equipment you have to buy additional sensors for the turret itself
> .
>
> Does that sound reasonible?
i think that is more reasonible to use the sensors that are in the
helicopter. i think that the most weapons in aircraft and helicopters use
the sensors that on the aircraft and they do not have their own sensors
(expept the missiles) . the only thing is that the rigger must connect
his weapon to the central sensorselectronics systems that his 'toy' have.

thanks for hearing me
jpante@*********.gr
I am the Way,the Truth and the Life (Gospel of john 14,6)
Message no. 7
From: Axel Strack <strack@***.TU-FREIBERG.DE>
Subject: Re: Another rigger question
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:15:06 MESZ
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Axel Strack wrote:
>
> >(*most of my stuff snipped*)
> > Does that sound reasonible?
> i think that is more reasonible to use the sensors that are in the
> helicopter. i think that the most weapons in aircraft and helicopters use
> the sensors that on the aircraft and they do not have their own sensors
> (expept the missiles) . the only thing is that the rigger must connect
> his weapon to the central sensorselectronics systems that his 'toy' have.
>
> thanks for hearing me
> jpante@*********.gr
> I am the Way,the Truth and the Life (Gospel of john 14,6)
>

These were my first thougths too but two points in the RBB made me wonder:
First the paragraph referring to the turret having (only?) normal video sensors.
Second the same paragraph saying that a turret counts towards the riggers limit
of his controled vehicels/drones. That made me think of the turret being an
almost independent part of the vehicle. But i dunno ...

Kid Flash
strack@*******.tu-freiberg.de

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Another Rigger-Question, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!