From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: vehicle combat question
Date:	Sat, 16 Sep 1995 13:25:02 -0400

On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen) wrote:

> The rigger can control remotely as many vehicles as he has ports in
> his remote control deck. I don't think that the rigger has to connect
> his turret to the control deck in order to use it.

Technically speaking, yes, the turret must be connected to the
remote-control deck, but realistically speaking, I would assume that this
interface is taken care of when Rigger-control gear is installed into the
vehicle. Control remote turret would be "built-in" to the vehicle's VCR
interface such that the rigger didn't need an extra piece of equipment to
operate them.

> > Now apply this to a turret. If you don't spend an action to
> > control your turret, it would just have to make a crash test. But what
> > is a turret going to crash into? Hence, the rigger does *not* spend an
> > action to control a turret.

> The turret doesn't have to crash, just simply if the rigger doesn't spend
> a complex action to control it he doesn't get to fire with it.

You've missed my point. What happens when the driver of a moving
vehicle *doesn't* spend an action to control it? The driver needs to make
a Crash Test. But the vehicle still moves. It's not stationary just
because the driver didn't spend a control action. So with a turret, if
you don't spend a control action, the turret can still move. You can
still fire with it. *Nowhere* in the rules does it state that an action
must be expended in addition to whatever actions the rigger spends firing
the wepaons in the turret. Ergo, a rigger does *not* need to spend an
action to control a turret. Before you apply a rule to something, think
about what the rule *means*.

Marc